{"took":290,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":35,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17272354","_score":25.395924,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Statement Regarding Unauthorized Charges and Improper Claim Denial Navy Federal Credit Union I am submitting this statement regarding multiple unauthorized debit card charges that were made on my Navy Federal Credit Union account, totaling over {$1100.00}. As soon as I discovered the fraudulent activity, I immediately reported the charges to Navy Federal, canceled my compromised card, and contacted the merchant involved. \n\nDespite following proper procedures, Navy Federal denied my claim instantly, without conducting a proper investigation or reviewing the evidence. After this denial, I contacted the merchant directly. The merchant conducted their own compliance review and investigation and confirmed in writing that the transactions were the result of unauthorized activity and fraud. Their email states clearly that the charges were not made by me and that Navy Federal should issue the appropriate reversals and reimbursements.\n\nUpon receiving this confirmation from the merchant, I contacted Navy Federal again and requested that my claim be reopened. I provided the bank with a copy of the merchants findings. Instead of addressing the evidence, Navy Federal representatives were extremely rude and dismissive. To date, they have still refused to return the funds or properly investigate the matter.\n\nMy account has now been drained of over {$1100.00} due to fraudulent activity that I did not authorize, and Navy Federal has failed to follow the appropriate dispute and investigation procedures required under federal regulations, including Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. I am requesting an immediate reopening of my dispute, a full investigation, and reimbursement for all unauthorized charges as required by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-15T18:00:49.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"954XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17272354","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-11-15T17:48:56.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am requesting an immediate reopening of my dispute, a full <em>investigation</em>, and <em>reimbursement</em> for all unauthorized <em>charges</em> as required by law."]},"sort":[25.395924,"17272354"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12723314","_score":19.30758,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I discovered unauthorized and fraudulent charges on my Apple Card totaling {$43000.00}. These charges originated from two companies : XXXX. XXXX XXXX Transaction Date & Time : XX/XX/year> at XXXX Single Transaction Amount : {$2200.00} Total Charged : {$4500.00} ( multiple unauthorized charges over time ) XXXX. XXXX XXXX Recurring Charge : {$1700.00} each month Total Charged : {$38000.00} I never authorized these transactions, nor did I ever use any services or products from these merchants. As soon as I noticed the fraudulent activity in 2022, I disputed the charges through my Apple Card dispute process. However, the charges continued, and both XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX kept billing my card without my knowledge or consent. \n\nDespite repeated attempts to resolve this with Apple and explaining that the charges were fraudulent, Apple did not provide any help or resolution. Under federal law ( Regulation Z for credit cards, among other consumer protections ), my card issuer is required to assist in investigating and resolving unauthorized charges, but I received no satisfactory explanation or refund from Apple or its card-issuing bank. \n\nSteps Taken XXXX. Filed a Dispute : I promptly contacted Apple Card support to dispute the unauthorized transactions. \nXXXX. Follow-Up Communication : I repeatedly communicated that these ongoing charges were fraudulent and requested immediate cancellation or a block on the card. \nXXXX. Request for Replacement Card : I also specifically requested a replacement card to prevent further unauthorized activity, but no effective action was taken. \n\nImpact XXXX. Financial Loss : The total amount of unauthorized charges is significant ( {$43000.00} ), which I should not be held responsible for. \nXXXX. Ongoing Concern : These charges continued over multiple billing cycles, causing ongoing stress and potential damage to my financial standing. \nXXXX. Lack of Resolution : Apples lack of a timely and satisfactory response has left me without proper recourse and continues to jeopardize my financial well-being. \n\nWhat I want. \n\nXXXX. Full Refund : I request an immediate credit or reimbursement for the total fraudulent amount of {$43000.00}. \nXXXX. Replacement Card : A compromised card should be replaced to prevent future unauthorized charges. \nXXXX. Investigation & Compliance : I expect Apple ( and its banking partner ) to conduct a thorough investigation, comply with applicable consumer protection laws, and provide a clear explanation of how these charges were allowed and why my initial disputes were not resolved.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-29T14:22:53.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"323XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12723314","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2025-03-29T13:47:24.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Replacement Card : A compromised card <em>should</em> be replaced to prevent future unauthorized <em>charges</em>. \nXXXX. <em>Investigation</em> & Compliance : I expect Apple ( and its banking partner ) to <em>conduct</em> a thorough <em>investigation</em>, comply with applicable consumer protection laws, and provide a clear explanation of how these <em>charges</em> <em>were</em> allowed and why my initial disputes <em>were</em> not resolved."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[19.30758,"12723314"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20094586","_score":18.54095,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint regarding USAA Federal Savings Banks mishandling of a billing dispute and their refusal to communicate with me during the investigation process. As well as complete disrespect and out right lies regarding an investigation and communication. \n\nThe dispute involves two duplicate charges to my debit card at {$240.00} each for a total of {$480.00} charged related to XXXX XXXX that I contested in good faith. I followed the appropriate procedures through USAA to dispute the transaction. \n\nAfter initiating the dispute, the matter was escalated to USAAs XXXX  escalation office. A representative was assigned to my case, however this individual never contacted me despite multiple phone calls and messages that I left requesting communication and clarification regarding the investigation. \n\nInstead of contacting me, USAA closed the dispute and ruled against me without ever speaking with me, reviewing additional information I was prepared to provide, or allowing me to participate in the process. Attempts to reach the assigned case manager were ignored, and USAA has refused to allow me to speak with a supervisor or anyone above this individual. \nAfter a month, I was able to finally speak to a gentleman in the XXXX  office who was not returning my calls or messages. He lied to me and said he sent me emails which he could not prove ignored my request to see proof of his investigation. Once I explained the situation to him, he completely understood to which I was bewildered. How he can understand after speaking to me, but yet closed the case. He agreed to reopen the case and to have a prompt response to me to which I have yet to receive XXXX weeks later. \nThis conduct raises serious concerns regarding USAAs compliance with the Fair Credit Billing Act and their obligation to conduct a reasonable investigation into disputed charges. Customers should not be denied access to communication during an active investigation. \n\nI am requesting the following : A full reopening and independent review of this dispute. \n\nWritten documentation explaining the basis for USAAs decision. \n\nDirect communication with a supervisor or executive-level representative. \n\nReimbursement of the {$480.00} charge if the investigation determines the dispute was improperly handled. \n\nA financial Goodwill offering due to the time that I have had to take off of work and my personal time to handle this only yet to be ignored and disrespected. \n\nProof of all activities related to any investigations regarding this instance USAAs refusal to communicate with me while simultaneously closing the case is unacceptable and undermines confidence in their dispute resolution process.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-09T16:19:28.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"775XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20094586","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-03-09T16:08:08.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This <em>conduct</em> raises serious concerns regarding USAAs compliance with the Fair Credit Billing Act and their obligation to <em>conduct</em> a reasonable <em>investigation</em> into disputed <em>charges</em>. Customers <em>should</em> not be denied access to communication during an active <em>investigation</em>. \n\nI am requesting the following : A full reopening and independent review of this dispute. \n\nWritten documentation explaining the basis for USAAs decision. \n\nDirect communication with a supervisor or executive-level representative."]},"sort":[18.54095,"20094586"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19696094","_score":17.726904,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I discovered two unauthorized debit card transactions on my Chime checking account from XXXX at approximately XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX  XXXX in the amounts of {$470.00} and {$470.00}. Upon noticing these charges, I immediately disabled my debit card through the Chime mobile application. At approximately XXXX XXXX, a third transaction in the amount of {$1100.00} was attempted but declined because I had already turned off the card. \n\nI contacted Chime customer support that same day to report the unauthorized transactions. I was advised that nothing could be done because the charges were still in pending status and that a dispute could not be initiated until the transactions posted. I was directed to contact the merchant directly. \n\nThat same day, XX/XX/year>, I contacted XXXX via email ( the only available support channel ), reported the fraudulent charges, requested cancellation, and sought a refund. I attached documentation of the transactions. The receipts reflected a purchaser name that is not mine, further confirming that these transactions were unauthorized. I never received any response from XXXX. \n\nThe transactions in question were used to purchase gift cards. The rapid, back-to-back charges followed by an additional attempted transaction within minutes are consistent with known fraud patterns, particularly involving gift card purchases, which are widely recognized as high-risk for unauthorized activity. \n\nAfter several weeks passed without resolution or communication, I contacted Chime again and was informed that no dispute had ever been initiated despite my XX/XX/XXXX report. A dispute was then opened. The following day, I received notice that the dispute had been denied. I contacted Chime again, requested the dispute be reopened, and provided copies of my XX/XX/XXXX email to XXXX, including the receipts showing another individuals name associated with the purchases. Chime confirmed there was a record of my original fraud report on XX/XX/year>. Nevertheless, I received another denial the following day. \n\nThese were unauthorized electronic fund transfers. I reported them immediately upon discovery. I never lost possession of my debit card and did not provide my card information or account access to any third party. \n\nUnder the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E, a financial institution must conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving timely notice of unauthorized electronic fund transfers. The documentation provided, including receipts bearing another individuals name and evidence of rapid gift card purchases, should have been considered as part of a reasonable investigation. To date, I have not received a meaningful explanation of the basis for denial, nor have I been reimbursed for the unauthorized transactions totaling {$950.00}. \n\nI am requesting confirmation that a compliant investigation has been conducted, a written explanation identifying the evidence relied upon in denying my claim, and reimbursement of the unauthorized transfers.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-23T04:43:20.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"452XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19696094","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2026-02-23T04:17:17.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am requesting confirmation that a compliant <em>investigation</em> has been <em>conducted</em>, a written explanation identifying the evidence relied upon in denying my claim, and <em>reimbursement</em> of the unauthorized transfers."]},"sort":[17.726904,"19696094"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17128210","_score":16.891958,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint regarding Rocket Mortgage and their servicing conduct on my former property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. The issues involve improper property preservation charges, refusal to provide required documentation, misapplication of insurance funds, inaccurate payoff statements, damaged personal property, and a delayed closing which resulted in financial harm.\n\nRocket Mortgage assessed approximately XXXX dollars in property preservation charges for foundation work, roof work, landscaping, mold remediation, and other contractor labor. I had already begun securing licensed contractor quotes for roof work and had received a partial insurance payout prior to Rocket imposing these charges. This shows that I was actively maintaining the property and arranging necessary repairs. I requested invoices, work orders, and service documentation from Rocket in order to verify the charges and to submit reimbursement through my homeowners insurance. Rocket refused to provide the invoices, stating that vendor documentation was proprietary. This refusal prevented me from obtaining insurance reimbursement and from verifying whether the work billed was necessary or completed. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I contacted Rocket Mortgage regarding the preservation charges. I was told by a Rocket team member that I would need to clear my balance in order for property preservation activity to stop. This statement was unprofessional and incorrect. Following this, I continued to communicate with Rocket throughout XXXX and XXXX. In XXXX I spoke with a Rocket representative named XXXX XXXX who acknowledged that the XX/XX/XXXX communication was mishandled and should not have occurred. From XX/XX/XXXX forward I remained in ongoing communication with Rocket by phone and email regarding these charges and the status of the property. \nOn XX/XX/year> I submitted a formal Notice of Error and Request for Information to Rocket Mortgage at their designated RESPA qualified written request address. This was not my first attempt to resolve this matter. I had already communicated multiple times by phone beginning XX/XX/XXXX and by email beginning in XXXX to request clarification and documentation. Rocket replied only with an itemized list of charge categories rather than providing the actual contractor invoices. This does not satisfy Regulation X including 12 CFR 1024.35 and 12 CFR 1024.36 which require a servicer to conduct a reasonable investigation and provide copies of documents relied upon to impose fees on a borrower account.\n\nRocket Mortgage received an insurance payment of XXXX dollars for roof repairs while including the same amount in the preservation charges added to my payoff. This constitutes attempted double recovery. Rocket later reversed the amount which confirms the payoff was originally inaccurate. Additionally, when I provided Rocket with a copy of the insurance check they had received and cashed, Rocket did not issue a clear credit for the insurance funds. Instead, Rocket removed approximately XXXX dollars of roof related preservation charges that had posted after the insurance proceeds were received. These adjustments were made by removing line items rather than through a transparent application of insurance funds to the account. Insurance proceeds are required to be applied to the loss they are issued for. The manner in which these adjustments were recorded indicates misapplication of funds and inaccurate accounting in the payoff calculation.\n\nRocket removed certain property preservation charges including lawn care after XX/XX/XXXX only after I challenged the validity of the charges. This removal is an acknowledgment that the charges were not proper or were not supported. Despite this correction, Rocket continued adding new preservation charges through XXXX. \nRocket is also withholding XXXX dollars in restricted escrow. Their Executive Servicing Escalation team stated in writing that these funds would be refunded after payoff which is an acknowledgment that the funds belong to me. Rocket has not returned the funds.\n\nRocket classified the property as vacant. However, I was temporarily residing in Massachusetts for work and caregiving responsibilities and I remained in contact regarding the property. Rocket sent a notary to me in Massachusetts earlier in the year to complete mortgage relief paperwork. The XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX also contacted me to confirm ownership regarding the water bill and I confirmed that I owned and remained responsible for the property. I also had the home cleaned and painted and I paid for regular lawn care during this period and I have receipts available. These facts demonstrate that I actively maintained the property and that the vacancy classification was improper.\n\nRockets actions directly increased loss and prevented mitigation. Their refusal to provide invoices blocked me from submitting an insurance claim for covered repairs. Their misclassification of the property triggered unnecessary preservation charges. Their inaccurate payoff statements delayed closing and increased carrying costs. Their mishandling of the XX/XX/XXXX communication and acknowledgment of error demonstrates servicing oversight failures. These actions forced me into greater financial burden than would have occurred had Rocket followed required servicing standards under Regulation X.\n\nRocket charged XXXX dollars for mold remediation. Because Rocket refused to provide vendor documentation, I can not submit the remediation charge for reimbursement through my homeowners insurance. During the remediation process personal property was damaged including religious and sacred texts.\n\nThe buyer for the property was prepared to close on XX/XX/XXXX. Rocket provided an inaccurate payoff statement which delayed closing until XX/XX/XXXX. My monthly carrying cost was XXXX dollars which equals XXXX dollars per day based on a 31 day month. The 21 day delay resulted in XXXX dollars in holding costs. \nI request that the CFPB investigate Rocket Mortgage for : 1. Failure to comply with Regulation X by refusing to provide documentation relied upon to impose fees 2. Attempted double recovery of the XXXX dollar insurance payment 3. Misapplication of insurance proceeds and inaccurate accounting of roof repair charges 4. Withholding of the XXXX dollar restricted escrow refund 5. Adding and later removing improper property preservation charges 6. Providing incorrect and misleading servicing information on XX/XX/XXXX 7. Improper vacancy classification despite documented communication, municipal notice, and continuous property maintenance 8. Causing a documented closing delay and financial loss due to inaccurate payoff statements 9. Failure to provide documentation necessary for reimbursement of the XXXX dollar mold remediation charge and damage to personal religious property","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-10T03:42:10.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"02135","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17128210","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","date_received":"2025-11-10T03:25:58.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Fees charged"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Rocket replied only with an itemized list of <em>charge</em> categories rather than providing the actual contractor invoices. This does not satisfy Regulation X including 12 CFR 1024.35 and 12 CFR 1024.36 which require a servicer to <em>conduct</em> a reasonable <em>investigation</em> and provide copies of documents relied upon to impose fees on a borrower account."]},"sort":[16.891958,"17128210"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10240639","_score":15.094391,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to file a complaint against the Bank of New York Mellon ( BNY Mellon ) for their mishandling of clear and repeated fraudulent transactions on my account. Their failure to protect my funds, combined with an inadequate investigation and refusal to provide proper reimbursement has left me in severe financial distress. As a full-time dental student with limited resources, I urgently need assistance in resolving this issue. \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I logged into my XXXX XXXX account to verify that my rent had been paid, as the auto-pay feature through my apartments website was malfunctioning. Upon checking, I discovered several unauthorized XXXX purchases pending on my account. These purchases had been made using my XXXX XXXX debit card, which accesses my money market funds. However, I knew I had not made any XXXX purchases or used this debit card for any transactions, prompting me to immediately contact my XXXX XXXX financial representative. \n\n\nAfter further investigation, it became clear that my debit card had been fraudulently used numerous times with the first unauthorized transaction occurring on XX/XX/XXXX. My XXXXinancial advisor informed me that XXXX XXXX outsources its banking card services with BNY Mellon and provided their contact number to report the fraud and cancel the compromised card ending in XXXX. \n\n\nOn the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted BNY Mellon and spoke with a representative named XXXX ( sp. ) in their card services department. I reported the fraudulent charges, had my debit card canceled, and reviewed every fraudulent transaction with her. Together, we compiled a report, and I was assured that an investigation would be conducted and that reimbursement should follow if the charges were a result of theft. The total theft amounted to {$5500.00}, spanning from XX/XX/XXXX, to XX/XX/XXXX ( including a charge of {$74.00} that was processed on XXXX after the card was canceled ). I was informed I would receive a decision letter from BNY Mellon Fraud Dept. within 10 days. \n\n\nTo my shock, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from BNY Mellon stating that I would only be refunded for the first 60 days of fraudulent activity, beginning XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX They offered to refund a mere {$940.00} of the {$5500.00} that was deemed stolen. This decision is both unreasonable and unacceptable and financially devastating to me. Not only did BNY Mellon omit 9 days of actual fraud activity by arbitrarily setting the 60-day start date to XX/XX/XXXX instead of XX/XX/XXXX ( the date of the first fraudulent transaction ), but they provided no explanation of any investigative actions taken or instructions on how to appeal their decision. \n\n\nAfter receiving this letter, I called the number they provided and left a message with the representative at extension # XXXX, requesting a return call to discuss this outcome and the steps to file an appeal. Despite multiple attempts throughout the day, my calls went unanswered, going directly to voicemail. I then contacted the original representative from BNY Mellon who helped file my report, and she informed me she would forward my message to a supervisor and I should expect a call back that day. As of today, I have not received any follow-up from BNY Mellon despite my efforts. I reported this issue to my XXXX XXXX financial advisor, whose assistant attempted to help but was equally unsuccessful in getting assistance. \n\n\nI have attached all relevant documents, including copies of the fraudulent charges and the letter I received from BNY Mellon. The fraud committed against me is glaringly obvious. Before XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX I had used this debit card fewer than five times in the last XXXX years and never once for online purchases. Suddenly, beginning XX/XX/XXXX, there were numerous daily online purchases with XXXX and streaming services which should have raised immediate red flags prompting a phone call, email, or text from BNY Mellon to inquire about the validity of charges. Additionally, these purchases were made in XXXX, Florida, and shipped to an address different from the address associated with this card. Despite the dramatic change in transaction behavior with NO evidence of my PIN being required to make these purchases, BNY Mellon failed to notify me of any suspicious activity or flag my account for fraud. BNY failed to exercise even the most basic safeguards that would have alerted me to the theft early on. \n\n\nAs a full-time student, the loss of this money is financially devastating. This account was a XXXX  account turned over from my parents and is used solely for paying school tuition and rent. I was confident my funds were safe as I used the account only for rent payments via ACH and only have it on file at my school for an infrequent XXXX XXXX purchase. I was unaware that my debit card information had been compromised because my card was stored securely in my home, I do not use this card to make purchases, I do not receive paper statements, my rent is paid via ACH, and I was never informed of any data breach that could have led to its misuse, and never received an alert from BNY.\n\nI firmly believe BNY Mellon failed in their duty to detect, prevent, and protect my account from fraud. Their lack of action has placed me in a dire financial situation, as I will now be unable to pay my rent for the remainder of the school year without resorting to a high-interest loan. This is a clear case of fraud that should have been identified and addressed promptly by BNY Mellon. If there have been ANY instances where customers were reimbursed for fraud beyond the 60-day window, then I expect to be treated equally. I am not at fault for this crime, and BNY Mellon should be held accountable for their lack of security measures. \n\n\nI have filed a police report in Tennessee ( Report # XXXX ), which is attached. I also contacted XXXX, who confirmed that the fraudulent purchases were made by an individual with the initials XXXX. in XXXX, Florida. I DO NOT have an XXXX account, have never used this debit card online, and did not flag the card to be used outside of my home state of TN. \n\n\nI plead to the CFPB for assistance in helping me resolve this matter to ensure that I am reimbursed the full {$5500.00} stolen from my account, as I am running out of options and funds. BNY Mellons refusal to fairly address this situation and inability to safeguard my account from obvious prolonged fraudulent activity is negligent. \n\n\nThank you so much for your help! I have nowhere else to turn and am hopeful you can help me.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-09-25T21:32:22.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"38305","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10240639","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","date_received":"2024-09-25T20:40:26.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I reported the fraudulent <em>charges</em>, had my debit card canceled, and reviewed every fraudulent transaction with her. Together, we compiled a report, and I was assured that an <em>investigation</em> would be <em>conducted</em> and that <em>reimbursement</em> <em>should</em> <em>follow</em> if the <em>charges</em> <em>were</em> a result of theft. The total theft amounted to {$5500.00}, spanning from XX/XX/XXXX, to XX/XX/XXXX ( including a <em>charge</em> of {$74.00} that was processed on XXXX after the card was canceled )."]},"sort":[15.094391,"10240639"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8010081","_score":15.024702,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/, a credit charge in the amount of {$1700.00} was placed on my Chase card ending in XXXX  by XXXX XXXX XXXX. I have never been on board this cruise and did not authorize this charge. Furthermore, I did not authorize anyone else to use my card. Following failed attempts to resolve the issue directly with XXXX, I contacted Chase Card Services on XX/XX/, and initiated a dispute of the transaction. As of XX/XX/, this matter remains unresolved. \n\nI do not believe that Chase Fraud Department has conducted a thorough investigation of this matter i.e. on XX/XX/, I received a telephone call from a member of Chase Fraud department who advised me to submit a written statement regarding the disputed transaction for review, however instead of awaiting receipt of the requested document at the end of the telephone call the representative informed me that she was closing the dispute. She further stated that once I obtain the requested information that I should contact the Fraud Department to have the disputed claim re-opened. Closing a claim or case on the date of requesting additional information is nonsensical. Considering this action, it appears that Chase Fraud department prioritize closing disputes instead of actually investigating and resolving them. \n\nOn Saturday XX/XX/, I was at a theme park with my family and friends, and prior to getting on one of the parks ride, I gave my belongings to someone to hold. It was not until the next day that I realized that I did not have my credit card and I contacted the person whom was in possession of it at the theme park the previous day. The person informed me of their location for me to retrieve my card. Despite my attempt, I was not able to get to the person before they boarded the XXXX XXXX. I submitted a copy of text message exchanges between that person and myself to Chase wherein I informed the person that I was en route to retrieve my card but stuck in traffic. Ultimately and unfortunately, I did not make it to the cruise port prior to the departure of the cruise ship and thus unable to retrieve my card. \n\nMeanwhile on the cruise, my cards along with other important documents were placed inside of the safe of the assigned cabin, this was followed by a room change. Several hours after the room change, a member of the cruise staff brought the items that were left behind in the safe of the originally assigned room including my card to the new room. All of the credit and retail credit cards in the possession of the person whom had my card were later found to have been compromised. Large sums of money were charged onboard the XXXX XXXX. XXXX informed me that they have a policy that includes 100 % identification check with credit card use. I question this policy considering that I was not onboard the cruise. Chase received proof that a room change occurred and signed sworn statements from myself and the person in possession of my card that the transactions were unauthorized and therefore fraudulent. In spite of this as well as Chase banks XXXX liability fraud protection guaranteeing 100 % reimbursement on any unauthorized transactions, Chase has found me liable for the charges made on the XXXX XXXX XXXX and I can not determine how they arrived at that conclusion, when I requested this information, they sent me a copy of the bill that XXXX XXXX provided them. The bill does not have my name or signature on it. The bill proves nothing, which is seemingly enough evidence for chase to find that liability rest with me. Prior to the application of the {$1700.00} charges from XXXX XXXX my Chase account had a XXXX balance. Without notifying me, Chase has added late fees and interest rate bringing the balance to {$1800.00} in addition to reporting my account as delinquent. They led me to believe that the charges were suspended while under investigation. I am now forced to repay unauthorized fraudulent charges. I last spoke with Chase Bank regarding this matter on XXXX XXXX XXXX wherein they promised to contact me within 2-3 business days. As of XX/XX/2023 they have not contacted me.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-12-15T17:42:01.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"207XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8010081","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2023-12-15T17:21:58.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Prior to the application of the {$1700.00} <em>charges</em> from XXXX XXXX my Chase account had a XXXX balance. Without notifying me, Chase has added late fees and interest rate bringing the balance to {$1800.00} in addition to reporting my account as delinquent. They led me to believe that the <em>charges</em> <em>were</em> suspended while under <em>investigation</em>. I am now forced to repay unauthorized fraudulent <em>charges</em>."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[15.024702,"8010081"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3477281","_score":14.986189,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/XXXX I notified the credit bureaus of a XXXX XXXX credit card account showing a charged off balance of {$0.00} on my credit reports that was the result of fraud. The bureaus removed the account from my report shortly thereafter. Four months later, in XX/XX/XXXX, I received a notification that my 'dispute ' was complete, the account was 'validated ' by XXXX XXXX , and it was once again reporting as a charge off on my report, however the balance now showed {$1100.00}, not the {$0.00} that had previously been reported. \n\nThere is no way XXXX XXXX could have correctly 'validated ' the false charges on this account because they are not mine. I filed an FTC affidavit indicating such as well as more recently a police report attesting to this information. I have complied with all requirements of the FCRA Section 605b regarding identity theft and fraud to have this account removed from my credit report and to provide any relevant information i have to law enforcement for use in investigating and prosecuting this crime. Any assertion by XXXX XXXX regarding the validity of this debt is wholly inaccurate. \n\nXXXX XXXX 's reinsertion of this debt on my report as a result of 'resolving ' my dispute was also far outside the legally specified 30-day period provided for their response, given that the item was reinserted on my report more than 90 days after I notified the bureaus of the issue. Furthermore, it is unclear to me how the fraud investigation conducted by the bank somehow managed to not only determine I was somehow responsible for debts that I never authorized nor had knowledge of, but also that the {$0.00} balance reported previously was incorrect and should actually be {$1100.00}. The impact of this 'update ' on my ability to obtain credit has been devastating as a small business owner relying on small, personally guaranteed lines of credit to provide operating capital for my business while waiting for vendors to pay outstanding invoices. \n\nThe reappearance of the charge-off on my credit file would have created difficulties on its own, however by XXXX XXXX reporting a balance that represents 150 % of the original {$750.00} credit line reported for the account, the impact to my score was magnified dramatically as I was not only showing a charge-off, but also significantly over the limit on the account. In the following months during their periodic reviews, some lenders closed my lines of credit as a result of the decrease in my score. Those that allowed my lines to remain open dramatically reduced my available credit and increased the rates they were charging. I was forced to turn down consulting contracts for two clients that I had been trying to land for months because I simply did not have the cash to cover upfront expenses while i waited for reimbursements. \n\nThroughout this time, XXXX XXXX has continued to incorrectly reaffirm this debt and refused to correct their mistake. I have no way to reach a fair resolution on this issue because, even if I caved in to this extortion attempt and pay the balance, they would continue to report the account as charged off, resulting in continued harm to my credit score and perpetuating my inability to obtain credit. \n\nWhile I have followed the letter of the law to report this and get it corrected, XXXX XXXX has shown a blatant disregard for the legal requirements surrounding their handling of this issue. They have conducted a flawed and faulty investigation of the matter, responded over 60 days late to a dispute that was required to have been resolved within a month, and exponentially magnified the harm caused to me by these errors by reinserting the {$0.00} charge-off into my report as having a balance of {$1100.00}, while at the same time leaving me no avenue to resolve the matter through further disputes or even by paying the unauthorized and invalid debt.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-12-25T09:03:11.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90048","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3477281","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2019-12-25T09:03:09.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Furthermore, it is unclear to me how the fraud <em>investigation</em> <em>conducted</em> by the bank somehow managed to not only determine I was somehow responsible for debts that I never authorized nor had knowledge of, but also that the {$0.00} balance reported previously was incorrect and <em>should</em> actually be {$1100.00}."]},"sort":[14.986189,"3477281"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12919326","_score":14.963966,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Formal Notice of Arbitration and Escalation of Mishandled Fraud Disputes Goldman Sachs Bank USA To Whom It May Concern, This letter serves as both ( 1 ) a formal escalation of a consumer protection complaint against Goldman Sachs Bank USA ( \" the Bank '' ) related to mishandled fraud disputes on the Apple Card, and ( 2 ) a formal reiteration of my Notice of Intent to Arbitrate, which was previously sent by certified mail in accordance with the binding arbitration clause in the Apple Card Customer Agreement. \n\nI. Summary of the Dispute I have disputed XXXX ( XXXX ) unauthorized Apple Card transactions totaling {$3200.00}, all of which were wrongfully denied despite substantial documentary evidence indicating fraud. These disputes date back to XX/XX/XXXX and have been reasserted no fewer than XXXX times across multiple channels. Despite this, the Bank has failed to conduct a good faith investigation, provide a reasonable explanation, or comply with its obligations under federal law. \n\nThe transactions in dispute are as follows : {$1300.00} XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$1200.00} XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$350.00} {$75.00} {$69.00} {$190.00} Goldman Sachs acknowledged a processing error and resolved in my favor The remaining {$3000.00} in disputed transactions were denied after repeated attempts to provide conclusive documentation that the charges were unauthorized. \n\nXXXX. Evidence Submitted I submitted merchant order confirmations provided directly by the merchants that confirm the merchandise for at least XXXX major transactions was shipped to : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, California XXXX This individual is not me. I have no affiliation or relationship with this person or address. \n\nAdditionally, I submitted my Nevada driver license issued by the XXXX, which confirms that my physical and billing address is : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NV XXXX The name and shipping address tied to the transactions do not match my legal identity, Apple XXXX, or account records. \n\nXXXX. Legal Basis for My Claims Goldman Sachs is in clear violation of the following statutes : A. XXXX XXXX Billing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1666 ) The Bank has not met its burden of proof to demonstrate that I authorized the transactions or benefited from them. I provided direct contradictory evidence, and under FCBA, the burden of proof rests with the creditor, not the consumer.\n\nB. Regulation Z ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ) The Bank is required to conduct a reasonable, good faith investigation and respond with a written explanation of its findings. The repeated use of generic denial language such as no evidence to substantiate the claim is not sufficient under federal law, particularly in light of the documentation I submitted. \n\nXXXX Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 The Banks continued failure to consider material evidence, refusal to reverse charges, and pattern of denial without proper justification constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice that harms me and potentially other consumers.\n\nIV. Pattern of Bad Faith The Bank has reopened and closed these same disputes multiple times over XXXX years, most recently in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, and in at least XXXX instance closed the dispute less than 24 hours after reopening. \n\nSupervisors acknowledged that disputes were escalated, but outcomes remained unchanged, with no explanation provided. \n\nThe Bank continues to claim that \" no suspicious or unauthorized activity was found '' while ignoring merchant records and identity verification evidence. \n\nV. Formal Notice of Intent to Arbitrate As required under the Apple Card Customer Agreement, I previously sent a written Notice of Intent to Arbitrate via certified mail to the Banks official contact address. I now reiterate this notice formally and unequivocally : If this matter is not resolved within XXXX calendar days of the Bank 's receipt of my mailed notice, I will proceed to file a formal arbitration demand through the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and will seek the following remedies : Full reimbursement of {$3000.00} Any associated interest, fees, or penalties Reimbursement of arbitration filing and administrative costs Additional statutory damages as permitted under the FCBA, Regulation Z, and UDAAP A permanent correction of any credit reporting impacts caused by this mishandling VI. Relief Requested I request that Goldman Sachs : Reverse the {$3000.00} in unauthorized charges Refund any fees or interest assessed due to these transactions Issue written confirmation acknowledging that these charges were resolved in error Review internal practices to ensure future compliance with FCBA and Regulation Z VII. CFPB Oversight Requested I urge the CFPB to assess whether Goldman Sachs conduct in this case reflects a systemic issue in its dispute resolution practices. The use of templated denials in the face of strong third-party documentation may reflect widespread consumer harm. \n\nXXXX. Ongoing Commitment to XXXX and Legal Redress Please be advised that I am fully committed to pursuing this matter to its lawful conclusion. I will not abandon or withdraw these claims under any circumstances until a full and appropriate resolution is reached. Should Goldman Sachs Bank USA continue to disregard its statutory obligations and the factual record, I will escalate this matter through every available forum, including but not limited to : - Binding arbitration under the Apple Card Customer Agreement - Additional complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - Referral to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and state regulatory agencies- Legal action, if necessary, under applicable federal consumer protection statutes The Bank has had more than sufficient opportunity to correct this mishandling in good faith. Any continued refusal to resolve the matter on the basis of the clear, verifiable evidence already submitted will be treated as willful noncompliance. I am fully prepared to seek not only reimbursement but all additional damages and remedies afforded to me under law. \n\nThank you for your attention. I am fully prepared to proceed with arbitration and will escalate this matter through every available legal and regulatory channel if it is not resolved fairly. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-10T21:32:20.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"89118","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12919326","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2025-04-10T21:25:16.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The transactions in dispute are as <em>follows</em> : {$1300.00} XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$1200.00} XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$350.00} {$75.00} {$69.00} {$190.00} Goldman Sachs acknowledged a processing error and resolved in my favor The remaining {$3000.00} in disputed transactions <em>were</em> denied after repeated attempts to provide conclusive documentation that the <em>charges</em> <em>were</em> unauthorized. \n\nXXXX."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[14.963966,"12919326"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3477273","_score":14.959688,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/XXXX I notified the credit bureaus of a Wells Fargo credit card account showing a charged off balance of {$0.00} on my credit reports that was the result of fraud. The bureaus removed the account from my report shortly thereafter. Four months later, in XX/XX/XXXX, I received a notification that my 'dispute ' was complete, the account was 'validated ' by Wells Fargo , and it was once again reporting as a charge off on my report, however the balance now showed {$1100.00}, not the {$0.00} that had previously been reported. \n\nThere is no way Wells Fargo could have correctly 'validated ' the false charges on this account because they are not mine. I filed an FTC affidavit indicating such as well as more recently a police report attesting to this information. I have complied with all requirements of the FCRA Section 605b regarding identity theft and fraud to have this account removed from my credit report and to provide any relevant information i have to law enforcement for use in investigating and prosecuting this crime. Any assertion by Wells Fargo regarding the validity of this debt is wholly inaccurate.\n\nWells Fargo 's reinsertion of this debt on my report as a result of 'resolving ' my dispute was also far outside the legally specified 30-day period provided for their response, given that the item was reinserted on my report more than 90 days after I notified the bureaus of the issue. Furthermore, it is unclear to me how the fraud investigation conducted by the bank somehow managed to not only determine I was somehow responsible for debts that I never authorized nor had knowledge of, but also that the {$0.00} balance reported previously was incorrect and should actually be {$1100.00}. The impact of this 'update ' on my ability to obtain credit has been devastating as a small business owner relying on small, personally guaranteed lines of credit to provide operating capital for my business while waiting for vendors to pay outstanding invoices.\n\nThe reappearance of the charge-off on my credit file would have created difficulties on its own, however by Wells Fargo reporting a balance that represents 150 % of the original {$750.00} credit line reported for the account, the impact to my score was magnified dramatically as I was not only showing a charge-off, but also significantly over the limit on the account. In the following months during their periodic reviews, some lenders closed my lines of credit as a result of the decrease in my score. Those that allowed my lines to remain open dramatically reduced my available credit and increased the rates they were charging. I was forced to turn down consulting contracts for two clients that I had been trying to land for months because I simply did not have the cash to cover upfront expenses while i waited for reimbursements.\n\nThroughout this time, Wells Fargo has continued to incorrectly reaffirm this debt and refused to correct their mistake. I have no way to reach a fair resolution on this issue because, even if I caved in to this extortion attempt and pay the balance, they would continue to report the account as charged off, resulting in continued harm to my credit score and perpetuating my inability to obtain credit.\n\nWhile I have followed the letter of the law to report this and get it corrected, Wells Fargo has shown a blatant disregard for the legal requirements surrounding their handling of this issue. They have conducted a flawed and faulty investigation of the matter, responded over 60 days late to a dispute that was required to have been resolved within a month, and exponentially magnified the harm caused to me by these errors by reinserting the {$0.00} charge-off into my report as having a balance of {$1100.00}, while at the same time leaving me no avenue to resolve the matter through further disputes or even by paying the unauthorized and invalid debt.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-12-25T09:03:01.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"90048","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3477273","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2019-12-25T07:35:34.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Furthermore, it is unclear to me how the fraud <em>investigation</em> <em>conducted</em> by the bank somehow managed to not only determine I was somehow responsible for debts that I never authorized nor had knowledge of, but also that the {$0.00} balance reported previously was incorrect and <em>should</em> actually be {$1100.00}."]},"sort":[14.959688,"3477273"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6163266","_score":14.896552,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"on XX/XX/XXXX I went into my Bank Bank of America located XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX to initiate a wire funds transfer to a friend in XXXX. The process was handled by a bank employee the obtained my personal credentials to verify who I was and completed the paperwork I had to sign those papers to affirm it had requested the funds wired. The only way I have ever done a wire has been in person at the bank. on XX/XX/2022, when I was on my mobile app I noticed the funds in my account were lower than they should have been, and with further research, I noticed 2 other wires were done from my business checking account on the same day I went to the branch to do the wire in person. when I realized the problem I call my bank and open a fraud report and was told that it need to XXXX investigated by their fraud unit and was given a claim # and was told it would take 45 days to complete the investigation. Later went into the branch to let them know what happened to my account and was told by the manager that there was little she could do the Fraud unit would be in charge.I had to go into the branch because the fraud unit suggested I close the compromised account and reopen a new account and with the remaining fund being frozen the branch would help transit the remaining funds to a new account that I had to open. At that time the bank manager also suggested me to file a police report. a week after reporting to the fraud unit I continued to call and follow up on my claim and I asked for paperwork to be kept apprised of their status in that time I went to the local police station to file a theft report and was told that I needed an affidavit from the bank on my loss. I requested numerous times from the fraud unit for the affidavit to be emailed and was told on 3 separate occasions I would be receiving it shortly along with a status report from the person doing the investigation. It's important to note I can only speak to the fraud unit about my situation and the Bank Branch offers no remedy or advocacy on my behalf not to mention any time you call your hold for 45 mins to upward to 2 hours and 10 mins if you can believe that. I have asked for some consideration to partial reimbursement of my monies to allow me to conduct my business which they have declined to do so. Making matter worse this Friday I spoke to someone who see all of my notes in the file and informed me that 1 ) the time period would be 90 days, not XXXX 2 ) no written report can be sent out until the investigation is completed 3 ) and no affidavit can be given until the investigators complete his findings. I feel as if the entire time of their investigation I have been lied to and given false answers","date_sent_to_company":"2022-11-03T05:32:03.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"11238","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6163266","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2022-11-03T04:34:52.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem making or receiving payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I have asked for some consideration to partial <em>reimbursement</em> of my monies to allow me to <em>conduct</em> my business which they have declined to do so. Making matter worse this Friday I spoke to someone who see all of my notes in the file and informed me that 1 ) the time period would be 90 days, not XXXX 2 ) no written report can be sent out until the <em>investigation</em> is completed 3 ) and no affidavit can be given until the <em>investigators</em> complete his findings."]},"sort":[14.896552,"6163266"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6524926","_score":14.486917,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I was alerted to Fraudulent Charges sometime in XX/XX/XXXX. I initiated disputes for Fraudulent Transactions that were unauthorized and charged to my account, and viewed statements by CitiCards that were available online. These went back to XX/XX/XXXX, and I found fraudulent and unauthorized charges to my account spanning XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX. Upon learning of these unauthorized charges, I immediately contacted Citi, informed them my card number had been compromised in some way, and initiated fraudulent disputes spanning almost 2 years from XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX. These amounted to total fraud charges around {$40000.00} CitiCards contacted me, conducted a thorough investigation. Citicards concluded the investigation sometime around XX/XX/XXXX. CitiCards found in MY Favor, and remit an amount of about {$40000.00} to my bank account to reimburse me for the fraudulent charges that I had paid ( knowingly ) over the years. \n\nAs this first wave of fraud disputes was being investigated for XXXX and XXXX charges, I tried to find the root cause and see how far back this went. Citibank did not have my XXXX and XXXX statements available online ( they were archived ). So I requested all the statements I could find - stemming back to XXXX. Upon waiting 7 days to receive the XXXX and XXXX statements, I found and identified the same pattern of Fraudulent Charges on XXXX and XXXX statements. Some XXXX transactions, totaling around {$35000.00} had been charged ( and I paid for ) to Citibank. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I sent in these hard copy documents, as instructed by Citi, to a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, SD. I waited for 4 weeks. I never received confirmation that my XXXX and XXXX disputed Fraud charges were received. Finally, after waiting 4 weeks, I called into the phone number to speak with the XXXX XXXX team and informed them I had not received a response. I was told that I should send an email, about the XXXX and XXXX charges to \" XXXX '' I sent the exact same documentation that was sent to the XXXX XXXX XXXX I have attached these emails to this dispute. \n\nAround XX/XX/XXXX, I noticed that my XXXX and XXXX disputed Fraud charges were finally posted online to my account, and under the Manage Disputes section, all 17 charges were \" under investigation ''. At this point, I thought things were on the way to being resolved. Keep in mind, at this point, Citibank had already investigated, completed and concluded that the XXXX and XXXX charges on my account totaling approximately {$40000.00} was Fraudulent and Unauthorized by me. Not just that, but payment was actually sent to me- so this matter was deemed complete and concluded. \n\nYesterday, on XX/XX/XXXX, I logged into my Citicards account and it stated that my account was closed. It further posted that Citicards reversed all the credits ( which they already concluded and paid to me ) and posted an account balance owed of approximately {$39000.00}. These reversed charges were from XXXX and XXXX Fraudulent Transactions. ( Not the XXXX or XXXX Fraud disputes that were underway ). Essentially, Citicards : 1. Undertook an investigation for fraud. \n2. Found in my favor after completing the investigation.\n\n3. Remit payment for the completed fraud case to me in an amount of approximately {$40000.00} 4. Had a {$0.00} balance on my account and was in the process of investigating XXXX and XXXX charges. \n5. Then WENT BACK and reversed and re-posted charges already credited, found fraudulent, and completed from XXXX and XXXX and now made my account balance nearly {$40000.00}. \n\nThroughout this entire process, I was Not notified of anything that was going on. I must have called Citicards nearly 25 times from XX/XX/XXXX - present. I was ensured time and time again that I am not liable for Fraudulent charges ( which a full investigation already concluded I wasn't ). Then I only find out the status of my XXXX and XXXX pending charges ( that are fraudulent and I am still owed some {$35000.00} for ), were just dropped - and to add insult to injury, they re-posted the XXXX and XXXX fraudulent transactions to my account and state that I now owe a balance of nearly {$40000.00}. \n\nI have attempted numerous times to call them ( during XXXX XXXX business hours on Friday ) and nobody responded to my complaint. Nobody called me back to discuss the situation when I was told this would be escalated immediately. As of now, I escalated my call to a supervisor today ( XXXX ) and informed them they need to have a supervisor or the specific case manager handling the Fraud investigation case, call me immediately on Monday morning. ( They told me the name of the person handling my case- who I addressed my email correspondence to repeatedly, without any confirmation or response ).\n\nThe bottom line is this : 1. It is blatantly unfair, unjust, dishonest, and a complete lack of transparency and problematic business practice to begin, investigate, conclude and remit payment for a fraud investigation - only to then AFTER the investigation is complete and concluded - ask for {$40000.00} in funds back by posting that I now owe that amount on my Citicard account.\n\n2. Aside from above, there are STILL nearly {$35000.00} in Fraudulent Charges that I have initiated a dispute against for XXXX and XXXX charges. \n\nSo instead of rightfully receiving nearly {$75000.00} in security credit and reimbursement. ( {$40000.00} already found and concluded in my favor- {$35000.00} I tried to initiate a dispute over ) - Citicard is now stating I owe a balance of the {$40000.00}. To do such a thing to someone, is unconscionable, unethical, and in violation of common fairness in business practices.\n\nWhat I am asking is the following : 1. Citicards honors their first Fraud investigation which already was concluded, found in my favor, and remit approximately {$40000.00} to my account. Instead of now backtracking on the XXXX and XXXX Fraudulent Charge investigation after they have had plenty of time to pursue their investigation, and posting this account back to my balance stating I now owe it- they need to remove this account posted balance on my account and {$0.00} and close my account down so I do not have any negative credit or financial credit report impact. ( Assuming they attempt to collect on the posted reversed funds ).\n\n2. Besides zeroing out my account balance as stated above, I would like Citicards to continue the XXXX and XXXX Fraud Dispute Investigations that are clearly Fraudulent due to some multiple charges over this period of time from XXXX and XXXX. To have clearly found in my favor for the XXXX and XXXX Fraud charges, enough so to return payment to me- how is it possible not to find the exact same conclusion for XXXX and XXXX when my card number and identity was clearly compromised. The right, logical and honest thing to do is find that these the XXXX and XXXX transactions were fraudulent, and issue credits back to my account. \n\nIn conclusion - Citicards has failed to follow fair and reasonable practices, likely failed to follow procedure with response/confirmation time of my disputes, or some other internal procedure to ensure something like this does not happen. Then in turn, for their own mistakes, they want to re-post transactions they found were already Fraudulent, and make me, as the individual, pay for them. \n\nI look forward to a favorable resolution with CitiCards. I would be happy if someone from Citicards with the power to fix this, contacts me, actually has a discussion with me, and resolves this matter. If they do, I would be happy to come back and amend ( or add to ) these statements if they can move forward in good faith and rectify this situation. This has caused me undue stress, both emotional and physical. \n\nThank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-02-04T22:20:39.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"453XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6524926","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2023-02-04T21:38:41.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I was told that I <em>should</em> send an email, about the XXXX and XXXX <em>charges</em> to \" XXXX '' I sent the exact same documentation that was sent to the XXXX XXXX XXXX I have attached these emails to this dispute. \n\nAround XX/XX/XXXX, I noticed that my XXXX and XXXX disputed Fraud <em>charges</em> <em>were</em> finally posted online to my account, and under the Manage Disputes section, all 17 <em>charges</em> <em>were</em> \" under <em>investigation</em> ''. At this point, I thought things <em>were</em> on the way to being resolved."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[14.486917,"6524926"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12066429","_score":14.130779,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, we were waiting XXXX for greyhound to pick us up as I paid {$570.00} for myself, my siblings ( XXXX and XXXX XXXX ), and my moms friend. The tickets were for a scheduled trip from XXXX, XXXX, to our destination. As responsible customers, we arrived at the designated bus stop on time and waited. However, the bus never STOPPED BECAUSE IT WAS LATE, and we were left stranded without any communication from XXXX regarding delays or cancellations. Despite following all proper steps to rectify this situation, I was met with negligence from both XXXX and WaFd Bank, leaving me financially burdened and frustrated. All of the time frames are included in the screenshots and some of the reports I tried to do. \n\n\nGreyhounds failure to provide transportation caused significant stress and financial hardship. Despite purchasing tickets in advance and arriving at the stop on time, the bus did not show up, and no alternative was provided. I immediately contacted XXXX customer service, expecting assistance. Instead, I was met with complete indifference. Their representatives refused to take responsibility and placed the burden on me to seek reimbursement. \n\nAs a result, I had no choice but to drive to XXXX XXXX, ID, at my own expense. This was an unexpected cost that could have been avoided if XXXX had honored its commitment or provided assistance when the issue arose. I went for my grandma as she was dignosed with stage XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX Banks Failure to Protect a Customer After XXXX failed to provide service, I took the next logical step : I disputed the charge with my bank, WaFd Bank, expecting protection as a paying customer. Instead, I was subjected to poor handling of my claim and a complete lack of support. \n\nWaFd Bank representatives initially gave me hope, stating that they would investigate the issue. However, they later refused to pursue the matter, despite all the evidence I provided. Instead of conducting a thorough investigation, they placed an unreasonable burden on me, requiring that I seek out security footage from local businesses to prove my claim. \n\nWhen I followed their instructions and requested surveillance footage, it was too latethe footage had already been erased. This was an unrealistic and unfair expectation for a customer to fulfill. I had already provided : Email correspondence with XXXX confirming their refusal to assist. \nImages and ticket confirmations proving that I had paid for the service. \nDetails of my presence at the bus stop with witnesses. \nDespite this, WaFd Bank denied my dispute, leaving my account negative and offering no further assistance. \n\nFinancial and Emotional Impact The consequences of this situation have been both financial and emotional. First and foremost, I lost {$570.00}, which is a significant amount of money. Additionally, I had to incur further costs by driving to my destination, spending more money on gas and other travel expenses. \n\nBeyond the financial loss, this experience has been incredibly frustrating and unfair. As a customer, I expected basic consumer protections, yet both XXXX and XXXX XXXX  failed me. Instead of receiving assistance, I was treated as if I were responsible for proving a case that should have been investigated by my bank. \n\nResolutions Demanded Given the clear negligence in handling this case, I am demanding the following : 1. XXXX Must Issue a Full Refund of {$570.00} XXXX failed to provide the service I paid for. I demand a full refund of {$570.00} for the bus tickets that were never honored. \n\n2. WaFd Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX Bank failed in its duty to protect me as a customer. I demand that XXXX Bank immediately reopen the dispute, conduct a proper investigation, and credit my account for the full amount. \n\n3. Immediate Account Correction to Remove Any Negative Balance Due to this dispute, my account has been left negative, adding unnecessary financial stress. I demand that WaFd Bank remove any negative balance resulting from this situation. \n\n\nThis entire situation has been unacceptable. As a paying customer, I should not have been left stranded by XXXX, nor should I have had to \" play police '' at the request of my bank. I took all appropriate actions, yet I was met with resistance and negligence. XXXX must take responsibility for failing to provide transportation, and WaFd Bank must correct its failure to protect my consumer rights. \n\nI expect immediate resolution and will escalate this matter further if necessary.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-20T20:54:21.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"988XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12066429","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WAFD BANK","date_received":"2025-02-13T06:35:50.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Can't stop withdrawals from your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead of receiving assistance, I was treated as if I <em>were</em> responsible for proving a case that <em>should</em> have been <em>investigated</em> by my bank. \n\nResolutions Demanded Given the clear negligence in handling this case, I am demanding the following : 1. XXXX Must Issue a Full Refund of {$570.00} XXXX failed to provide the service I paid for. I demand a full refund of {$570.00} for the bus tickets that <em>were</em> never honored. \n\n2."]},"sort":[14.130779,"12066429"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13107088","_score":14.108431,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I previously filled a complaint and this was what I provided : On XX/XX/XXXX, my Wells Fargo account received XXXX transactions in the form of {$1000.00}, {$1000.00}, and {$4700.00} for a collective total of {$6700.00}. These transactions originated from casino winnings and eventual withdrawals occurring and placed on XX/XX/XXXX from the XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX through the XXXX  XXXX  XXXX. After which ( XX/XX/XXXX ), I immediately utilized the tools required by the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX to have XXXX XXXX immediately restrict any further gambling under my identity for a minimum of XXXX hours. From XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, a total of XXXX fraudulent transactions posted to my Wells Fargo account for a collective total of XXXX by XXXX XXXX through the XXXX app. This also occurred while I was supposed to be frozen from further gambling ; however, thats an issue that will need to be addressed by the XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX. I believe I was the one who opened the account sometime last year, but only used it once for the deposit bonus before forgetting about it. However, I have since discovered accounts-I-did-not-create were fraudulently opened up using myinformation on XXXX and XXXX. I suspect the perpetrator is my brothers ex girlfriend, whom stole and copied all of his important financial paperwork. As I was the beneficiary to my brothers policies, the aforementioned files wouldve contained my personal information. I first took notice on XXXX and immediately contacted Wells Fargo and began disputing charges. I believe my card was frozen at this time, but I am not certain. I was informed that Wells Fargo would have a representative reach out to me for additional details ; however this never occurred. I continued to monitor the status of my claims and waited for Wells Fargo to contact me as I did not want to rush their investigation. Each day, they would close a handful of the disputes, but I would never received any additional information. I assumed that I would not know the outcome of the investigation until all claims were processed. I was never contacted about the issue nor given any form of update. When the final claim closed on XX/XX/XXXX, I began trying to initiate contact to inquiry Wells Fargo over the matter. Most representatives were unwilling to discuss the matter, let alone assist me. I was hung up on multiple times ; transferred into limbo, and made to jump through every hoop imaginable before finally receiving assistance on the sixth call. The rep collected my information; submitted my appeal; and informed me that someone should reach out to me within XXXX business days. Its now XXXX, and I have not received any further communication nor have seen any steps taken regarding the issue. Since it was XXXX XXXX weekend, I gave them additional time to investigate and follow up. As of this writing, Im currently on-hold with Wells Fargo XXXX but due my past experiences I dont have much hope. The response they provided 21 days layers : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( ECMO ) reviewed your concerns regarding the claim XXXX. You contacted us again on XX/XX/XXXX, to dispute the findings of our XXXX Assistance XXXX. Upon receipt of your concerns, the XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX conducted our own investigation. In doing so, we found compelling evidence supporting the decision that we have already communicated to you. As such, we stand by the decision made by our Claims Assistance Center to decline your request for reimbursement of the disputed transactions All throughout this entire ordeal I was requesting written evidence they used to determine their decisions ; it was never received. The only evidence that was ever supplied to me was during the initial calls disputing their decision where the representative stated they were valid due to the correct zip code being provided when the transaction was made. Reimbursement denial was stated as no evidence of fraud, but then account closure was stated as resulting from fraud. How can both occur?","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-22T11:57:02.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"151XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13107088","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-04-22T11:48:47.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Upon receipt of your concerns, the XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX <em>conducted</em> our own <em>investigation</em>. In doing so, we found compelling evidence supporting the decision that we have already communicated to you. As such, we stand by the decision made by our Claims Assistance Center to decline your request for <em>reimbursement</em> of the disputed transactions All throughout this entire ordeal I was requesting written evidence they used to determine their decisions ; it was never received."]},"sort":[14.108431,"13107088"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9765265","_score":14.097434,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I previously filled a complaint and this was what I provided : On XX/XX/XXXX, my Wells Fargo account received three transactions in the form of {$1000.00}, {$1000.00}, and {$4700.00} for a collective total of {$6700.00}. These transactions originated from casino winnings and eventual withdrawals occurring and placed on XX/XX/XXXX from the XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX through the Draftkings mobile app. After which ( XX/XX/XXXX ), I immediately utilized the tools required by the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX to have XXXX XXXX immediately restrict any further gambling under my identity for a minimum of 72 hours. From XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, a total of 47 fraudulent transactions posted to my Wells Fargo account for a collective total of XXXX by XXXX XXXX through the XXXX app. This also occurred while I was supposed to be frozen from further gambling ; however, thats an issue that will need to be addressed by the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. I believe I was the one who opened the account sometime last year, but only used it once for the deposit bonus before forgetting about it. However, I have since discovered accounts-I-did-not-create were fraudulently opened up using myinformation on XXXX and XXXX. I suspect the perpetrator is my brothers ex girlfriend, whom stole and copied all of his important financial paperwork. As I was the beneficiary to my brothers policies, the aforementioned files wouldve contained my personal information. I first took notice on XXXX and immediately contacted Wells Fargo and began disputing charges. I believe my card was frozen at this time, but I am not certain. I was informed that Wells Fargo would have a representative reach out to me for additional details ; however this never occurred. I continued to monitor the status of my claims and waited for Wells Fargo to contact me as I did not want to rush their investigation. Each day, they would close a handful of the disputes, but I would never received any additional information. I assumed that I would not know the outcome of the investigation until all claims were processed. I was never contacted about the issue nor given any form of update. When the final claim closed on XX/XX/XXXX, I began trying to initiate contact to inquiry Wells Fargo over the matter. Most representatives were unwilling to discuss the matter, let alone assist me. I was hung up on multiple times ; transferred into limbo, and made to jump through every hoop imaginable before finally receiving assistance on the sixth call. The rep collected my information; submitted my appeal; and informed me that someone should reach out to me within 1-2 business days. Its now XXXX, and I have not received any further communication nor have seen any steps taken regarding the issue. Since it was XXXX XXXX weekend, I gave them additional time to investigate and follow up. As of this writing, Im currently on-hold with Wells Fargo , but due my past experiences I dont have much hope. \n\nThe response they provided 21 days layers : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) reviewed your concerns regarding the claim XXXX. You contacted us again on XX/XX/XXXX, to dispute the findings of our Claims Assistance Center. Upon receipt of your concerns, the Consumer and Small Business Executive Office conducted our own investigation. In doing so, we found compelling evidence supporting the decision that we have already communicated to you. As such, we stand by the decision made by our Claims Assistance Center to decline your request for reimbursement of the disputed transactions All throughout this entire ordeal I was requesting written evidence they used to determine their decisions ; it was never received. The only evidence that was ever supplied to me was during the initial calls disputing their decision where the representative stated they were valid due to the correct zip code being provided when the transaction was made. Reimbursement denial was stated as no evidence of fraud, but then account closure was stated as resulting from fraud. How can both occur?","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-12T11:20:40.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"151XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9765265","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-08-12T10:50:04.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Upon receipt of your concerns, the Consumer and Small Business Executive Office <em>conducted</em> our own <em>investigation</em>. In doing so, we found compelling evidence supporting the decision that we have already communicated to you. As such, we stand by the decision made by our Claims Assistance Center to decline your request for <em>reimbursement</em> of the disputed transactions All throughout this entire ordeal I was requesting written evidence they used to determine their decisions ; it was never received."]},"sort":[14.097434,"9765265"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10091920","_score":14.028104,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am seeking redress for fraudulent and/or unauthorized charges assessed against my Wells Fargo checking account by third-party, XXXX, which is a subsidiary of the XXXX XXXX, XXXX . \n\nI was contacted by a third-party on behalf of Wells Fargo in XXXX notifying me that I had been enrolled in a third party identity theft protection program offered by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX via Wells Fargo in XXXX and XXXX ( reference numbers XXXX and XXXX ). I notified the representative that I had not authorized these charges and I was offered an opportunity to participate in a mediation program. Wells Fargo is administering the program as a remedial action related to a XXXX settlement with the United States Department of Justice related to fraudulent and illegal activities conducted by Wells Fargo employees, including enrolling customers in monthly subscription services without authorization. I participated in the mediation program but notified Wells Fargo that they had not accounted for the full amount of the charges deducted from my account because they did not include approximately {$200.00} to {$300.00} in charges associated with additional unauthorized charges associated with XXXX. Wells Fargos mediation representative told me that she could not access my account records to verify the additional charges but that I could contact Wells Fargos customer service department to seek resolution. I did so and requested that Wells Fargo provide their records of my account statements so I could verify the precise amount of charges deducted from my account. I was shuffled to several different representatives over the course of several weeks. I was told various conflicting things : that the records were impossible to retrieve because they were outside their record retention window ; that they could possibly be retrieved, but only by other employees ; and that I should be requesting them from the mediation representative who referred me to the customer service department in the first place. I was unable to reach any resolution and ultimately I moved forward with mediation for the limited subset of unauthorized charges Wells Fargo had identified. The meditation representative told me that she could not consider the additional charges for purposes of offering financial compensation. \n\nFinally, on XX/XX/XXXX, I was contacted by Wells Fargos customer service department. I was notified that they had concluded an investigation into my inquiry regarding the additional unauthorized charges and that they had determined that the charges were authorized or that a processing error did not occur, and the claim was denied ( case reference number XXXX ). They did not provide any evidence to support their conclusion nor did they indicate what materials or records they reviewed as part of their investigation. Moreover, they declined to provide the account records I had requested. I followed-up to request the records they used in making their determination and was only provided a few cursory notes indicating that, among other things, I would need to have furnished the account statements substantiating the unauthorized charges. Unfortunately, I lost my account records due to a malware data breach in XXXX. In any case, Wells Fargo indicates that they were able to locate the account records and even cited the specific monthly charges ( {$15.00} per month charged to WF XXXX XXXX XXXX and total amount deducted ( {$230.00} ), so its unclear why they could not provide the records to me and why they need me to furnish the records to them. Moreover, their position that I am responsible for providing the records to substantiate the claim is evidently inconsistently applied because they did not insist on me furnishing records regarding the unauthorized identity theft charges before those cases were referred to mediation. Finally, I also note that I did, in fact, immediately notify Wells Fargo of the unauthorized charges on XX/XX/XXXX when I initially detected them and provided a full accounting of the fraudulent charges and substantiating account records at that time ( claim numbers XXXX and XXXX ). Nevertheless, Wells Fargo refused to acknowledge their role in facilitating these unauthorized charges and declined to provide full reimbursement. \n\nIt is my firm belief that these charges were fraudulent and/or unauthorized. To wit, the third-party that Wells Fargo allowed to make deductions from my account has sued and reached a settlement with 48 state attorneys general in XX/XX/XXXX regarding their deceptive marketing practices and partnering with financial institutions, such as Wells Fargo to enroll consumers in their services without authorization ( XXXX XXXX XXXXoag.ca.govXXXX ). In my case, I never received a single piece of correspondence from XXXX regarding the supposed roadside assistance program I was enrolled in without my knowledge and only realized I had been enrolled after I detected the charges in my Wells Fargo bank account statement. \n\nTo sum up, Wells Fargo facilitated the fraud perpetrated against me by XXXX and has refused to acknowledge the full extent of the financial damages I suffered as a result. By refusing to acknowledge and address my claim for redress Wells Fargo has failed to faithfully adhere to the terms of its settlement with the United States Department of Justice.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-09-11T04:33:24.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"95691","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10091920","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-09-11T04:19:41.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I was notified that they had concluded an <em>investigation</em> into my inquiry regarding the additional unauthorized <em>charges</em> and that they had determined that the <em>charges</em> <em>were</em> authorized or that a processing error did not occur, and the claim was denied ( case reference number XXXX ). They did not provide any evidence to support their conclusion nor did they indicate what materials or records they reviewed as part of their <em>investigation</em>."]},"sort":[14.028104,"10091920"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20757242","_score":12.425839,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"The copy of the letter presented below is about a continuing and unresolved complaint I have against XXXX XXXX. The former CFPB Complaint ID Numbers are as indicated in the letter 's Reference. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Attention : XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nReference : XXXX  XXXX ending in XXXX ( Fraud ), XXXX ( Fraud ), XXXX ( Replacement ), and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Case # XXXX, XXXX This correspondence is in response to your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, regarding the above-referenced subject matter. My comments follow the same format and sequence of your letter and are as follows : NOTE Before proceeding with my comments, it is important to remind you that I am an XXXX XXXX, married, retired and XXXX, XXXX  man who has numerous health problems and is living on a fixed and very limited income. And my XXXX XXXX  wife also has her share of health problems with the most serious being XXXX which requires her to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nTherefore, you should be able to understand that my comments presented herein reflect the current physical, mental, and situational condition of both my wife and myself regarding the subject matter in your letter. \n\n\nFirst Paragraph It was good to learn that the CFPB relayed my concerns to your attention. But keep in mind that XXXX  brought the attention of the CFPB solely upon itself when it ( i.e., XXXX  ) determined that no credit card fraud occurred on my account. In my situation, you should have been able to recognize that XXXX  had forsaken me by not honoring its advertised {$0.00} Fraud Liability Guarantee on the fraud committed against me and then making me responsible for paying all of the unauthorized credit card charges that occurred on my account over the past 3 years. Therefore, I had no other choice but to report XXXX  unfaithful and unscrupulous acts to the CFPB as well as the XXXX  Attorney General. Incidentally, it seems to me that XXXX  could now be prosecuted for fraud based upon its false advertising and unscrupulous acts as described above. In addition, I would like to know what XXXX  now calls fraud as it pertains to when a person makes an unauthorized purchase on someone elses credit card? \n\nSecond Paragraph I dont remember exactly when my wife reported the credit card fraud to XXXX  or when my account ending in XXXX was closed, but the XX/XX/XXXX, date appears about right. However, I do remember a replacement account ending in XXXX was soon established and also closed for fraud. Then shortly thereafter, the final and present account ending in XXXX was quickly established. Even though XXXX  investigation of the fraud was a farce as explained below, I wish XXXX  had been astute in conducting a competent and credible investigation of the fraud like it was in establishing the new accounts. But based upon XXXX  unfaithful and unscrupulous acts as described in the First Paragraph, it was easy to understand why XXXX acted so quickly in assigning me another account. The reason for that was obviously because XXXX  could continue to bill me for all of the unauthorized credit card charges, plus interest, that occurred on my account over the past 3 years. In fact, enclosed with XXXX  letter of XX/XX/XXXX, is another XXXX  letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, which shows XXXX  way of again telling ( or intimidating and harassing ) me that I am still being held responsible for paying the entire balance on my account ( see both letters in Enclosures ). And by XXXX  making me responsible for paying for all the unauthorized charges proves that XXXX  is no better than the fraudsters in fact, XXXX  is now just as bad as the fraudsters! \n\nIn regards to my letters of XX/XX/XXXX ( # XXXX ), XX/XX/XXXX ( # XXXX ), and XX/XX/XXXX ( # XXXX ), I am confused about the ( # XXXX ) letter because I could not remember it or find it in my files? Since I do not have the ( # XXXX ) letter, could you please send me copy of it, if it does exist? After looking in my files, it appears that you matched the ( # XXXX ) letter with some other document? This is because my files show that you should have referenced my letter of XX/XX/XXXX, as the ( # XXXX ) letter. This is especially the case when taking into account that the XX/XX/XXXX letter contains more significant information about the fraud. In fact, from what a XXXX  agent told the wife and I when XXXX  was investigating the fraud, the XX/XX/XXXX letter identifies one of the fraudsters by using the name of XXXX together with her cell phone number and password on many of the unauthorized credit card transactions. If you never received the XX/XX/XXXX letter, I have enclosed a copy of it in this letter for your information. It is important that you read the XX/XX/XXXX letter ( see Enclosures ). \n\nWhat frustrates me about this whole matter is that after learning about the credit card fraud back in XX/XX/XXXX, I had been working in conjunction and close collaboration with all entities and persons involved in trying to find and prosecute the fraudsters as well as correct their wrongdoings, which included ( among other parties ) both XXXX  and the XXXX police. In doing this, my efforts were in earnest and transparent in that all parties were sent the same information that could be used in their investigations. For instance, all of my letters mentioned above provided information about the fraud which included, but was not limited to, a history and description about the fraud, circumstances/conditions related to the fraud, dates and times of how and when the fraud was being committed, and several other particulars about the fraud. Even a profile of one of the fraudsters ( i.e., XXXX ) was developed to show what she was capable of doing. It should also be pointed out that I requested XXXX  to provide me definitive descriptions about all the transactions comprising the unauthorized charges so the wife and I could determine whether or not we might have purchased some of the items. This can be seen in my letters of XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. All of my efforts in keeping everyone informed are evidenced in the documents that I sent to the entities and persons that were in some way or another involved in the case. But XXXX  never replied to any of the letters I had sent to them. Why? In any case, it would be difficult for Discover to refute any of these facts. Therefore, I again do not agree with your assessment that the information in the letters did not support a reversal of XXXX  decision in keeping the investigation closed. In my letter of XX/XX/XXXX, I also asked XXXX  to tell me how XXXX  determined that the unauthorized charges were not fraud when as soon as the unauthorized charges were made to my account, that is how and when the fraud actually and undeniably occurred! But, to no surprise, XXXX  again never replied to my request. Rather than re-open its investigation XXXX simply and conveniently kept the financial liability wrongfully and unjustifiably charged to me whereby XXXX  is still holding me responsible for paying the entire balance on my trumped-up account. \n\nIt is important to point out that XXXX  should have copies of all of my letters mentioned above. And based upon XXXX  persistently claiming that fraud had not occurred on my account further proves that XXXX  either : ( a ) did not read the letters, or ( b ) could not comprehend the information provided in the letters, or ( c ) XXXX  did read the letters and understood the information provided in the letters but chose to ignore everything so XXXX  could continue to charge me for all of the unauthorized charges, plus interest, that occurred on my account over the past 3 years ( i.e., from XXXX through XXXX ). Thus, it is apparent that XXXX  is using the fraud that was committed against me as a profit center and a means of making larger profits. \n\nThird Paragraph In regards to my concerns with XXXX XXXX, XXXX reply about me not speaking with XXXX XXXX is nothing more than a weak excuse for XXXX  not providing me with this aspect of financial protection and reimbursement. This is especially the case when considering that the daughter-in-law stole the credit card information off the credit cards that were in my wifes wallet and purse. To no surprise, this is also another example of XXXX  forsaking ( or abandoning ) me of XXXX services while still charging me for its services. Keep in mind- for XXXX  to be charging me for its services that are not being provided to me can be considered as stealing by XXXX. Just think about it! Therefore, reporting the credit card fraud to XXXX  should have more than satisfied any requirement for me having to speak with a XXXX XXXX agent. So, are you now telling me that XXXX can not communicate orally with its other XXXX  departments? If yes, then this is definitely another pitiful excuse for XXXX  to use as a reason for not financially protecting and reimbursing me under the provisions of XXXX XXXX. And for XXXX  to say XXXX XXXX is not a product that prevents fraud transactions is yet another cop-out excuse, especially when considering the financial losses I suffered from the fraud. Thus, all of these excuses about XXXX XXXX by XXXX might very well still be debatable. Therefore, it seems to me that XXXX  should have at least provide its customers with a percentage amount of coverage for credit card fraud in order to make XXXX XXXX a credible source of financial protection. This is because credit cards are just about the same as cash and my wife kept her credit cards in a wallet in her purse. It happened that the daughter-in-law stole the cash-like information for making her credit card fraud transactions from the credit cards that were in my wifes wallet and purse. So, for XXXX  to say XXXX XXXX is not a product that prevents fraud transactions is a statement made entirely out of context by XXXX  as well another excuse that XXXX  can use for denying its customers ( like me ) claims for reimbursement under the provisions of XXXX XXXX. This further proves XXXX  incompetence and lack of credibility in dealing with my situation. Nevertheless, based upon all of my concerns and the inconsistencies associated with XXXX XXXX, please immediately terminate my subscription for XXXX XXXX and delete it from my account! \n\nFourth Paragraph In regards to you taking actions to prevent future contact regarding the status of my account, please understand that is your decision and not my decision. With this in mind, I have another concern about how XXXX  is continuing to exploit me and my wife. This concern also pertains to all of the unauthorized charges that XXXX  is billing me for in the monthly statements. As explained above, keep in mind that my wife and I stopped using the XXXX  credit cards back in XX/XX/XXXX when we first learned about the fraud. And we never activated any of the new credit cards that were issued to us after that time. Except for maybe a couple of things, we havent charged anything on a XXXX  credit card to speak of during that time. In fact, the only charges that I can think of might include a {$20.00} charge in XX/XX/XXXX by my doctors office ( i.e., XXXX XXXX ) and the {$3.00} monthly charge for the farcical XXXX XXXX policy. The reasons for not using the credit cards include : ( a ) The credit card fraud was committed on a second occasion before we ever received the new and final credit cards for our present XXXX  account number ending in XXXX ; ( b ) the way XXXX  Card had forsaken us by prematurely closing its fraud investigation on my account and XXXX  not honoring its so-called protection policies with respect to the fraud and XXXX XXXX ; and ( c ) then XXXX  making me responsible for all of the unauthorized credit card charges over the past 3 years ( from XXXX through XXXX ). \nDuring the interim of not using the credit cards from XX/XX/XXXX to this present time, the wife and I have been paying cash for all our purchases. This is because we wanted to avoid any chance of the credit card fraud happening to us again. \n\nTherefore, at this juncture and because the wife and I havent been charging anything on the credit cards for about 3 months now, the balance on our XXXX  statements should show only the charges that were made by us from XX/XX/XXXX to this present date. Instead, the XXXX  statements show the total amount of unauthorized charges plus accumulated interest, without providing descriptions of the transactions from the past 3 years. Therefore, I think this kind of accounting is both unfair and unreasonable in that it is being used more as a form of intimidation and harassment against me, especially in my situation of being a victim of the fraud. This is also evidenced by the fact that XXXX  is persistently, wrongfully, and unjustly making me responsible for paying all of the unauthorized charges, plus interest, that are still being disputed at this time. Thus, XXXX  persistence is contributing more to XXXX  acts of elder abuse against me. Because of this, combined with all of the other ways by which XXXX has forsaken and disrespected me, I have no other choice but to develop and abide by my own statement of XXXX  Card charges from which I will pay XXXX  in accordance with. And my proclamation for accomplishing such task is as follows : Now, Therefore, Let It Be Known that I, XXXX XXXX XXXX, by maintaining my own statement of XXXX  charges I do not intend to beat XXXX  out of any money due and owing to XXXX  and, on the other hand, I do not intend to pay XXXX for any goods or services that were not provided to me, which includes those unauthorized charges that are currently in dispute. \n\nFifth Paragraph At this time, I do not have any more concerns to bring to your attention. However, rather than orally submit any other concerns to you by telephone, I will continue to submit them in writing in order to avoid any confusion, misunderstanding, or ambiguity as well as for record purposes. \n\nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX Enclosures Copy of letter received from XXXX  dated XX/XX/XXXX Copy of letter received from XXXX  dated XX/XX/XXXX Copy of letter sent to XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX Copy To : A copy of this letter is being sent to the U.S. Department of Justice because based upon information provided on the internet about the National Elder Fraud Hotline, which is managed by the Office for Victims of Crime ( OVC ), the Fraud Hotline does not have a public-facing mailing address for filing complaints ; it is primarily designed for telephone support ( XXXX or XXXX ). For formal correspondence with the U.S. Department of Justice ( DOJ ), the mailing address is : U.S. Department of Justice XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. \nAlso, at this time I need your help more than ever now because I have been receiving unwanted calls from an entity named XXXX on my telephones Caller ID ( XXXX ) saying they can reduce my debt. But I have not answered any of their questions for fear of XXXX using my information for committing more fraud against me. Please advise. \n\nFor making payments to XXXX  : XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-29T16:40:30.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"77084","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20757242","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-03-29T15:56:12.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Even though XXXX  <em>investigation</em> of the fraud was a farce as explained below, I wish XXXX  had been astute in <em>conducting</em> a competent and credible <em>investigation</em> of the fraud like it was in establishing the new accounts. But based upon XXXX  unfaithful and unscrupulous acts as described in the First Paragraph, it was easy to understand why XXXX acted so quickly in assigning me another account."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[12.425839,"20757242"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5080334","_score":11.368087,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX we accessed our account online at Wells Fargo Bank and discovered that fraudulent transactions were paid against our account using ACH debits on XX/XX/XXXX in the amounts of {$3500.00} & {$3700.00} ( ref # XXXX ). I telephoned Wells Fargos customer service to report the fraud and recover the funds. During that call I was asked to complete a verbal affidavit and was informed the bank would investigate and if the issues were not resolved within 10 days a provisional credit would be provided. No credit has been provided as of the date of this complaint. I also asked the bank to place an ACH block on the account to prevent any further fraudulent transactions. Instead, the representative, told me that they would put a stop-payment in place that would block any further loss from these vendors, I discovered they only placed the stop payment on the {$3500.00}. As I investigated further, I discovered that the ACH debit for {$3700.00}, had been paid twice, the first time on XX/XX/XXXX, of which I informed the bank. In the days that followed I began to receive contradictory notices from the bank. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX we received a letter from the bank stating that the stop payment request failed because it was not reported in time enough for the bank to reverse the debit, ( it was reported the first business day after it was posted to the account ). This contradicted the notice which states fraudulent items need to be reported by the second business day, ( it posted on XX/XX/XXXX ). Furthermore, no action was taken on our request to place an ACH block on the account. On the same day we received a notice stating that the bank was not able to reimburse us because too much time had passed before we notified the bank of the fraudulent transactions ; the charges were posted on the night of XX/XX/XXXX and we notified the bank the morning of XX/XX/XXXX the next business day, and in fact the notice stated that we needed to report it the second business day, which suggest to us that no research was done and the bank dismissed our request outside of the guidelines of ACH regulations, reflected in the notice itself. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX we reviewed our account and there were three additional fraudulent ACH debits charged against our account, in the amount of {$2400.00}, {$2700.00} & {$2200.00}, none of which would have been paid had the ACH block been enforce. We received additional notices on XX/XX/XXXX, that stated the bank had completed their research and determined that the 2 ACH debits of ( {$3700.00} ) totaling {$7500.00} were authorized and the case was considered closed. In the banks note, they stated that these ACH payment types, does not allow the bank to reverse authorization after the payment had been made. Once again representatives from the bank made statements that were not factual and denied us recovery of the funds that were stolen from our company. Even after having provided an affidavit that they were fraudulent & not authorized by our company or initiated by our clients the bank continued to imply we and our clients were complicit in the thief of funds from our account. When we asked how it was determined that these were authorized ; no documentary evidence was provided. By this time, our account was defrauded {$1800.00}. When we had no success with the normal fraud reporting process, we insisted that our case be escalated to the executive customer advocacy group. \nTo our great disappointment the escalation to the executive advocacy group proved to be equally ineffective and served only to prolong our exposure to fraud at a bank that has no concept of customer advocacy. During this process we were bounced around to several representatives all of whom said the operating departments should have been able to resolve our issue. The representation that they would review the pattern & practice of our account and the recorded conversations throughout this process. The result of their review generated a letter on XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX XXXX, simply restating the erroneous conclusion of prior notice. A further illustration of the poor work quality of the advocacy groups is the letter on XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX XXXX, stating In your inquiry, you stated that your deposit account was closed with excessive overdrafts fees. We certainly understand your frustration regarding the concerns you referenced in your complaint. At Wells Fargo, we pride ourselves on developing and maintaining quality financial relationships. We apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced. While we are aware this does not alleviate any frustration, your comments are truly appreciated, as they are critical to our continued growth and improvement. We are responding to your recent complaint dated XX/XX/XXXX. We have determined we previously addressed your concerns and did not find you enclosed any new information or provided significantly different details that would change our response. We addressed your previous inquiry and are enclosing our previous response dated XX/XX/XXXX. We have reviewed your account activity since our prior response and our decision remains the same. The problem with this response is that it has nothing to do with ACH fraud, our account was never closed, we had no O/D fees & reference # XXXX has no connection to our Claim. Other than the name and address all the information in this letter was incorrect. \nWhen we further escalated our concerns within the advocacy group and spoke with XXXX XXXX, the Complaints/EO Manager, she expressed concern about our prolonged dispute and asked us to allow her time to review tapes, notices and discuss the issues with her associates. She also represented that there was an alternative source that the bank could use to make us whole by reimbursing our {$18000.00}. A week later we followed up at which point she requested that we wait 10 days until after her vacation, at which point she would leverage this alternative source of reimbursement. After that time elapsed, she never called us back, so we pursued XXXX XXXX exchanging a series of emails and phone calls which comprised of our challenging their erroneous conclusions & failure to operate within the uniform commercial code governing commercial ACH transactions. Her contention surmounted in her implying we were complicit in the fraud, based on her communications with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the company that received the funds from our account with whom we had no relationship. XXXX XXXX told us that XXXX provided a letter saying that we authorized them to create these transactions, which we assured her that we did not. She then forwarded a letter she received from XXXX. Which was ironic because we were receiving emails from XXXX inquiring about possible fraudulent ACH payments against our account and a fraudulent XXXX card in our company name that their fraud department were investigating. Therefore, the company XXXX XXXX was relaying on to dismiss our claims was simultaneously creating and investigating the fraudulent transactions in question. I have attached the email exchanges that illustrate the events. \nAfter we expressed our objection to the implication, we were complicit in the fraud to our account, another Wells Fargo associate sent a secure email informing us he would be our new point of contact however, he has never returned a phone call or email. \nWe also know that no one reviewed the patterns and practices of our account, because if they had, they would know that we employ their secured direct payment service to make ongoing payments. Furthermore, two of the vendors names used in the fraud are registered on that system and have an audit trail of the dollar value & depository banks the funds would be directed. And the only other form of payments we use is our debit cards. It is an industry standard when conducting fraud investigations that the investigator reviews the patterns and practices of the account owner to discover abnormalities of transactions. The abnormal nature of these were apparent and the adherence to UCC ACH guidance was not correctly followed or applied. We have also submitted a police report on XX/XX/XXXX # XXXX. \nAs a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the way our claim was handled is one of the worst cases of customer service I have experienced. I retired from XXXX as a XXXX XXXX XXXX, during that time I spend 15 years as a XXXX in operations and cash management which affords me a depth of knowledge of how this fraud claim investigation should have been managed.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-01-06T21:39:39.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"21043","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5080334","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2022-01-06T20:48:14.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It is an industry standard when <em>conducting</em> fraud <em>investigations</em> that the <em>investigator</em> reviews the patterns and practices of the account owner to discover abnormalities of transactions. The abnormal nature of these <em>were</em> apparent and the adherence to UCC ACH guidance was not correctly <em>followed</em> or applied. We have also submitted a police report on XX/XX/XXXX # XXXX. \nAs a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the way our claim was handled is one of the worst cases of customer service I have experienced."]},"sort":[11.368087,"5080334"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16859092","_score":9.886802,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"1. Introduction At this time XX/XX/XXXX Goldman Sach not honoring and notr refunded any cent to me This document outlines the case of Claimant, XXXX XXXX, against Respondent, Goldman Sachs Bank USA ( \" the Bank '' ), concerning the systemic mishandling of her Apple Card account over a period of more than four years. This dispute is not a series of isolated customer service issues, but a documented pattern of persistent billing errors, improper dispute reversals, inaccurate credit reporting, discriminatory practices, and bad-faith conduct by the Bank. The following chronological narrative will demonstrate the Bank 's violations of multiple federal and state consumer protection laws, which have inflicted significant financial, reputational, and emotional harm upon the Claimant. 2.\nThe Genesis of the Dispute : An Unresolved Charge Ignites a Pattern of Failure ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) The initial incident that sparked this protracted dispute serves as a microcosm of the systemic failures that would plague XXXX XXXX for years. The Bank 's handling of a single disputed transaction for a non-delivered product reveals a foundational breakdown in its billing and dispute resolution processes, setting a precedent of error and distrust.\n\nThe dispute originated from a XXXX * * XXXX XXXX purchase made in XX/XX/XXXX. The product was never delivered to XXXX XXXX. Despite this, the Bank proceeded to improperly bill her for eight separate monthly installments of * * XXXX, including in XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and six further charges in XXXX. These repeated billings for a phantom product resulted in over {$780.00} in unauthorized charges, interest, and related fees. \n\nThe Bank 's actions regarding this matter were contradictory and negligent. After years of improper billing and failed dispute resolutions, the Bank finally admitted in a formal response to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) that an \" inadvertent processing error occurred '' concerning this dispute. However, this admission came only after profound harm had already been done, with the credit for this charge only being made permanent on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXnearly four years after the initial transaction. This unresolved issue established a foundation of error and distrust, precipitating a wider breakdown in account management that continues to this day. \n\n3. A System-Wide Breakdown : Pervasive Errors and Security Lapses ( XXXX - XXXX ) The initial billing error was not an anomaly but the first sign of a complete breakdown in the Bank 's dispute resolution process, as mandated by federal law. Evidence demonstrates that the Bank 's systems were incapable of correctly processing disputes, leading to a cycle of errors that harmed XXXX XXXX repeatedly over four years. \n\nThis systemic failure is evidenced by the sheer volume of issues ; XXXX XXXX was forced to file at least 67 transaction disputes between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. These were not isolated incidents but part of a recurring pattern where the Bank would issue a temporary credit only to reverse it later without proper investigation or justification. This flawed cycle is clearly illustrated by a XXXX XXXX transaction from the XX/XX/XXXX statement : Date Action Amount Result XX/XX/XXXX DISPUTE CREDIT - {$160.00} Temporary credit applied. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX DISPUTE REVERSAL + {$160.00} Credit improperly reversed without resolution. \n\nThis pattern of mismanagement extended to critical security failures. In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX was stolen. She immediately reported the theft to XXXX with instructions to lock the card and secure the account. Despite this timely notification, the Bank failed to take effective action, allowing criminals to make over {$1000.00} in unauthorized charges. This documented pattern of mishandling disputes and failing to secure the account after being notified of theft constitutes a clear abrogation of the Bank 's statutory duties under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ).\n\n4. Compounded Harm : Devastating Credit Damage and Discriminatory Barriers The Bank 's procedural failures were not victimless errors ; they inflicted profound, tangible, and lasting financial and personal harm upon XXXX XXXX. This harm was compounded by discriminatory practices that systematically blocked her access to resolution, creating an inescapable cycle of financial distress and frustration.\n\nFirst, the Bank violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) by furnishing inaccurate and derogatory information to credit reporting agencies. On XX/XX/XXXX, the Bank reported XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX account as \" Charged Off. '' This severely negative report was inherently false and misleading because it was based on a balance containing disputed amountsincluding the {$630.00} chargethat the Bank itself later admitted were the result of its own \" processing error. '' Reporting this balance as \" Charged Off '' constitutes a willful violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2, as the Bank furnished information to credit reporting agencies that it knew, or consciously disregarded the risk that it was, inaccurate, given its own admission of a foundational \" processing error. '' Second, the Bank violated California 's Unruh Civil Rights Act through discriminatory practices. XXXX XXXX has a documented XXXX  XXXX, a fact of which the Bank was informed. Despite this, the Bank systematically insisted on voice authentication as a primary method for account security and dispute resolution. This rigid, one-size-fits-all protocol repeatedly denied her full and equal access to the services necessary to protect her account and address the Bank 's errors. These barriers were particularly egregious during a period when XXXX XXXX was medically incapacitated due to a tracheotomy, rendering voice communication impossible. The Banks failure to provide this reasonable accommodation was not a separate, isolated harm ; it was the primary barrier that prevented XXXX XXXX from addressing the cascade of other billing and security failures, thus compounding the financial and emotional damages. This failure constitutes a distinct and actionable violation of California 's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which guarantees all persons equal access to business services regardless of disability.\n\n5. Evidence of Willful Bad Faith : Coercion and Breach of Promise ( XXXX ) The Bank 's pattern of conduct culminated in recent actions that demonstrate a shift from gross negligence to willful, bad-faith behavior. These events show a deliberate and calculated effort to leverage its position to the detriment of XXXX XXXX, providing unequivocal evidence of oppression and fraud. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, the Bank engaged in coercive conduct. It was holding an accepted refund of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX that was due to XXXX XXXX since XX/XX/XXXX. The Bank 's representatives conditioned the release of these funds on a coercive requirement : XXXX XXXX had to agree to close a separate, valid * XXXX XXXX dispute related to a XXXX computer. \n\nForced into an impossible position and seeking to recover the larger sum, the Claimant complied with this condition. However, the Bank subsequently failed to honor its promise. To date, the {$3800.00} refund remains uncredited to her account. This sequence of events is a textbook case of fraudulent inducement and a clear breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This incident is not a misunderstanding ; it is unambiguous evidence of a willful, oppressive, and fraudulent pattern of conduct that justifies punitive measures.\n\n6. Summary of Legal Violations and Causes of Action The aforementioned facts, supported by extensive documentation, constitute multiple and severe violations of federal and state law. The following is a summary of the causes of action against the Respondent : Violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA )/ TILA : The Bank failed to properly investigate and resolve 67 disputes in a timely manner as required by law. It illegally assessed unauthorized installment charges for a non-delivered item and is currently engaged in an ongoing violation by illegally retaining the {$3800.00} accepted refund.\n\nViolation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : The Bank willfully furnished inaccurate and derogatory information to credit reporting agencies by reporting the account as \" Charged Off '' based on a balance that it knew, or should have known, included amounts resulting from its own admitted processing errors.\n\nViolation of California 's Unruh Civil Rights Act : The Bank denied a person with a permanent XXXX  XXXX full and equal access to its account and security services by systematically insisting on discriminatory voice authentication protocols, failing to provide reasonable accommodation even when aware of the Claimant 's medical incapacitation.\n\nFraudulent Inducement & Breach of Contract : The Bank coerced the Claimant to close a valid {$500.00} dispute under the false pretense and fraudulent promise of releasing a {$3800.00} refund, which the Bank then failed to do, constituting a clear breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing.\n\n7. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief The evidence presented demonstrates a multi-year pattern of systemic and willful misconduct by Goldman Sachs Bank USA. The Banks actions and failures have caused severe and\nmultifaceted harm to XXXX XXXX, including direct financial loss, catastrophic damage to her credit and reputation, and significant emotional distress resulting from years of battling a faceless and unresponsive institution that unlawfully discriminated against her. To remedy these harms, the Claimant respectfully requests that the Arbitrator issue an Award encompassing the following relief.\n\nFirst, an award for Actual Damages to make the Claimant whole : Category Amount Claimed Justification FCBA Restitution ( Held Funds ) {$3800.00} Immediate release of Accepted Refund held since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFCBA/Contract Overpayments {$780.00} Restitution for eight unauthorized installments on non-delivered item.\n\nLoss from Fraudulent Condition {$500.00} Loss from the XXXX dispute Claimant was forced to close.\n\nOther Documented Fraud Losses {$4500.00} Losses from other documented disputes and improper charges.\n\nTotal Actual Damages {$9700.00} Second, an award for General Damages of {$50000.00} as compensation for the severe emotional distress, XXXX, and humiliation caused by years of financial uncertainty, the destruction of her credit standing, and the degrading experience of disability discrimination.\n\nThird, an award for Litigation Expenses of {$1800.00}, representing compensation for 90 hours of uncompensated time XXXX XXXX was forced to spend compiling evidence, documenting errors, and preparing for this arbitration as a direct result of the Bank 's misconduct.\n\nFinally, the Claimant seeks Statutory, Injunctive, and Punitive Relief, including : An order compelling the Bank to direct all major credit reporting agencies to immediately delete the \" Charged Off '' status and all related negative tradelines from the Claimant 's credit files.\n\nAn order requiring the Bank to implement and maintain a permanent, secure, non-voice authentication protocol for customers with documented XXXX  XXXX. \nAn award of statutory and punitive damages sufficient to punish the Bank for its willful, oppressive, and fraudulent conduct and to deter such conduct in the future. \nReimbursement of all XXXX XXXX filing fees. \nThis relief is necessary and justified to make the Claimant whole and to hold the Respondent accountable for its sustained and egregious violations of the law. \n\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXX, XXXX XXXX wrote : .DEMAND SUBMISSION - XXXX AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM AND PRE-HEARING BRIEF XXXX XXXX CASE NO. : XXXX CLAIMANT RESPONDENT XXXX XXXX GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA DATE OF AMENDED FILING : XX/XX/XXXX Claimant XXXX XXXX submits this Amended Statement of Claim against Respondent Goldman Sachs Bank USA ( \" Goldman Sachs '' or \" Bank '' ) for willful, systemic, and fraudulent violations of federal and state consumer protection laws.\n\nI. JURISDICTION AND STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS The Bank 's conduct spans over four years and constitutes a pattern of violations under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.\n\nA. Systemic Failure to Resolve Billing Errors ( FCBA Violations ) Unauthorized Installment Overpayments : Despite a XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Store purchase for {$630.00} being non-delivered, the Bank improperly billed the Claimant for eight separate monthly installments of {$53.00} ( including XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and six further charges in XXXX ). These charges led to over {$780.00} in unauthorized principal, interest, and fees.\n\nBank 's Admission of Error : The Bank later confirmed in its official response that an \" inadvertent processing error occurred '' regarding the {$630.00} dispute, which was finally made permanent on XX/XX/XXXX, nearly four years after the initial transaction.\n\nContinuing FCBA Violation : The Bank is currently holding an Accepted Refund amount of {$3800.00} since XX/XX/XXXX. The failure to credit these acknowledged funds is a fresh, continuing violation of the FCBA.\n\nB. Fraudulent Inducement and Coercive Practices Fraudulent Condition : In XX/XX/XXXX, the Bank conditioned the release of the {$3800.00} held refund via direct deposit on the Claimant being forced to close a separate {$500.00} XXXX XXXX computer dispute.\n\nBreach of Promise : The Claimant complied by closing the {$500.00} dispute ; however, the Bank failed to honor its promise, and the {$3800.00} refund remains uncredited as of this filing. This action constitutes fraudulent inducement and a breach of the duty of good faith.\n\nC. Discrimination and Inaccurate Credit Reporting ( Unruh Act/FCRA ) Disability Discrimination ( Unruh Act ) : The Claimant, who has a documented XXXX  XXXX, was repeatedly denied equal access to account security and dispute resolution services because the Bank systematically insisted on voice authentication.\n\nInaccurate Credit Reporting ( FCRA ) : The Bank reported the account as \" Charged Off '' on XX/XX/XXXX. This negative report was inherently inaccurate because it was based on a balance that included disputed amounts, which the Bank subsequently admitted were subject to its own \" processing error ''.\n\nII. CAUSES OF ACTION No.\n\nCause of Action Legal Basis and Key Facts I.\n\nVIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT BILLING ACT ( FCBA )/ TILA Failure to investigate and correct billing errors ( the 67 disputes ). Illegal assessment of eight unauthorized {$53.00} installments. Illegal retention of the {$3800.00} held refund.\n\nII.\n\nVIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT ( FCRA ) Negligent and willful non-compliance in furnishing inaccurate information by reporting the account as \" Charged Off '' on XX/XX/XXXX, based on a balance that included amounts the Bank later admitted were erroneous.\n\nIII.\n\nVIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA 'S UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Denying a person with a permanent XXXX  XXXX full and equal access to security and account services by insisting on discriminatory voice authentication protocols.\n\nIV.\n\nFRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT & BREACH OF CONTRACT Coercing the Claimant to close the {$500.00} dispute under the false pretense and fraudulent promise of immediately releasing the {$3800.00} refund.\n\nIII. RELIEF SOUGHT Claimant demands an Award against Goldman Sachs Bank USA, including but not limited to : A. ACTUAL DAMAGES ( Restitution and Financial Loss ) Category Claimed Amount Legal Basis FCBA Restitution ( Held Funds ) {$3800.00} Immediate release of the Accepted Refund on Hold since XX/XX/XXXX. \nFCBA/Contract Overpayments {$780.00} Full restitution for the eight unauthorized {$53.00} installments ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and six in XXXX ) and related interest/fees.\n\nLoss from Fraudulent Condition {$500.00} Loss from the {$500.00} XXXX dispute which Claimant was forced to close.\n\nFraud Losses ( Other ) {$4500.00} Losses from other documented disputes and charges.\n\nB. GENERAL DAMAGES ( Emotional Distress and Pain/Suffering ) Claim Category Justification for Damages Requested Amount Unruh Civil Rights Act / FCRA Compensation for severe emotional distress, anxiety, and humiliation caused by disability discrimination, years of financial uncertainty, and the resulting credit damage.\n\n{$50000.00} C. LITIGATION EXPENSES ( Compensation for Lost Time ) Claimant seeks compensation for the specific, uncompensated time ( 90 hours ) required to resolve and compile evidence for issues created by the Bank 's negligence and willful conduct, calculated at a rate of {$21.00} per hour.\n\nActivity Log Example Estimated Hours Spent Rate Cost Claimed Dispute Filing and Follow-Up 30 hours {$21.00} {$630.00} Evidence Compilation and Review ( 1,323 pages ) 40 hours {$21.00} {$840.00} XXXX XXXX Preparation 20 hours {$21.00} {$420.00} TOTAL TIME LOSS CLAIMED 90 Hours {$21.00} {$1800.00} D. STATUTORY, INJUNCTIVE, AND PUNITIVE RELIEF Statutory Damages : For willful violations of the FCRA, FCBA ( twice the finance charges ), and a minimum of {$4000.00} per instance of discrimination under the Unruh Act.\n\nInjunctive Relief : An Order compelling the Bank to immediately delete the \" Charged Off '' status and all negative credit reporting.\n\nPolicy Change : An Order requiring the Bank to implement a permanent, secure, non-voice authentication and resolution protocol for customers with documented XXXX  XXXX. \nPunitive Damages : Punitive damages are warranted due to the Bank 's evidence of willful, oppressive, and fraudulent conduct, including the admitted \" processing error '' and the fraudulent inducement scheme. \nFees : Reimbursement of all XXXX XXXX filing fees, costs, and attorney 's fees incurred by the Claimant","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-29T02:31:42.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92231","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16859092","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2025-10-29T01:51:23.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["An award of statutory and punitive damages sufficient to punish the Bank for its willful, oppressive, and fraudulent <em>conduct</em> and to deter such <em>conduct</em> in the future. \n<em>Reimbursement</em> of all XXXX XXXX filing fees. \nThis relief is necessary and justified to make the Claimant whole and to hold the Respondent accountable for its sustained and egregious violations of the law."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[9.886802,"16859092"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22350932","_score":9.664324,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Citi denied my dispute of a {$3600.00} unauthorized charge by XXXX XXXX without meaningfully addressing it under the applicable Truth in Lending Act, Fair Credit Billing Act, and Regulation Z standards, including the unauthorized-use standard and billing-error procedures. Citi instead applied a credit-card-fraud standard and concluded the charge could not be fraudulent because I had previously provided card information to the merchant for an earlier, authorized transaction ( see Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 ). That is not the correct test for unauthorized use. Citi continued to apply this incorrect framework in its XX/XX/XXXX response even after I expressly identified XXXX as the applicable standard in my XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex. 3 ) and my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB feedback in XXXX # XXXX. \n\nThe most direct evidence that the XX/XX/XXXX charge was unauthorized is XXXX own contemporaneous billing conduct. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX repeatedly demanded payment for the same {$3600.00}, including a XXXX XXXX billing statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10 ) and two emails with online payment links instructing us to Make an Online Payment ( Ex. 13 and Ex. 14 ). On XX/XX/XXXX, three days after the most recent pay online email, XXXX charged my card {$3600.00} without notification, without a receipt, and without my authorization. A merchant operating under standing card authorization does not send a PAST DUE notice and two pay online emails and then unilaterally charge the card three days later. I first sent Citi the PAST DUE statement as an attachment to an email sent XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 9 ; the PAST DUE statement is separately filed as Ex. 10 ) and sent it numerous times afterwards, including on XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 5 ), XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ) and XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 6 ). The XX/XX/XXXX email included other XXXX emails from XXXX requesting payment. I also explained my unauthorized-use theory tied to them. Citi has never addressed this contradiction. \n\nBackground This matter involves two XXXX XXXX charges of {$3600.00} each, billed to my Citi account on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX charge was authorized when I provided card information for the first installment in connection with the merchants written estimate ( Ex. 12 ). \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX itself acknowledged in writing that the final invoice amount was not settled. In an email from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( Ex. 15 ), the merchant agreed to credit {$190.00} toward the final invoice ( {$99.00} for hotel reimbursement and {$100.00} for inconvenience ). Eleven days later, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX charged my card the full undiscounted {$3600.00}, without applying the credits it had agreed to and without my authorization. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX charge was not authorized. I was not present when the charge was made, did not provide my card, did not authorize the charge by phone or in writing, and did not receive a receipt. I discovered the charge on XX/XX/XXXX, while reviewing my Citi account. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a single dispute covering both the unauthorized XX/XX/XXXX charge and XXXXXXXX XXXX defective work ( Citi assigned Case ID XXXX ). Because Citi 's online dispute form required me to select a single category, I selected goods/services not delivered as expected the sewer system was not working and that issue was foremost in my mind. I clarified in writing two days later that the XX/XX/XXXX charge was also unauthorized, in a XX/XX/XXXX email to XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ). Regulation Zs billing-error procedures ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ) cover both unauthorized use and disputes involving goods/services, and my written notice cured any ambiguity well within the 60-day FCBA window. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, after additional defects in XXXX XXXX  work emerged, I filed a separate dispute as to the XX/XX/XXXX charge ( Citi assigned Case ID XXXX ). This CFPB complaint concerns only the first dispute, the XX/XX/XXXX unauthorized charge under Case ID XXXX. \n\nScope of This Complaint My first CFPB complaint, Case # XXXX, was filed because Citi was not engaging substantively with my dispute. At that time, Citi had repeatedly requested documentation I had already submitted, was issuing inconsistent communications, and had not provided a written explanation of its determination. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, in feedback submitted through that case, I expressly narrowed my claim against Citi to the XX/XX/XXXX, charge of {$3600.00} only ( Ex. 24 ). My feedback stated : I am not asking Citi to reverse both charges through the billing dispute process. My primary claim against Citi is that the XX/XX/XXXX, charge was unauthorized under 15 U.S.C. 1643 and should be reversed ( {$3600.00} ), along with any interest or fees that accrued on the disputed balance and correction of any adverse credit reporting. I reserved all other claims against the merchant for defective workmanship, consequential damages, and unpaid credits, which I am pursuing through the North Carolina Attorney Generals Consumer Protection Division and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Contractors.\n\nCitis XX/XX/XXXX response did not address the narrower claim I presented in the XX/XX/XXXX feedback. The XX/XX/XXXX letter continued to refer to two disputed charges from a plumbing merchant and relied in part on the argument that the total of the two charges also matched the total price on the merchants initial estimate. Citi was on notice of both the narrowed scope of my claim and the XXXX framework as of XX/XX/XXXX, and its XX/XX/XXXX response engaged with neither. This complaint concerns only Citis failure to properly investigate and its failure to respond to my unauthorized-use claim regarding the XX/XX/XXXX charge. \n\nProcedural History and Citis Repeated Documentation Requests The relevant procedural history is as follows : XX/XX/XXXX I filed the dispute the day I discovered the unauthorized charge. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I emailed XXXX expressly stating that I did not authorize the second charge ( Ex. 7 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I submitted Citis dispute form ( Form ID XXXX ) with a detailed dispute summary and timeline ( Ex. 8 ). The dispute summary listed Unauthorized Charge. XXXX charged my credit card on XX/XX/XXXX, without my authorization as Claim # 1, followed by additional numbered claims regarding workmanship. Paragraph I on page 7 further addresses the unauthorized credit charge, as does XXXX XXXX XXXX on the timeline. My submission included multiple attachments, including the XXXX Estimate ( Ex. 12 ), the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 10 ), and the XX/XX/XXXX email from XXXX XXXX acknowledging the agreed credits ( Ex. 15 ). In response to Citis question on its form about how the charge was made, I wrote : Not in person or on phone. I do not know how they charged my card for the second payment. I had not authorized them to do so and did not give them my card. I did not receive a receipt. I only learned they charged my card when I noticed it on my Citi account. ( Ex. 8 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I emailed Citi under dispute ID XXXX and expressly advised that much of the documentation I had submitted related to the other XXXX dispute XXXX XXXX. I wrote : If possible, could you please combine the files or review them together so the full context is clear? ( Ex. 16 ). This put Citi on notice that the two XXXX disputes involved overlapping facts, documents, and context. Citi did not substantively respond to that request. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I emailed Citi clarifying that there was both defective service and a credit card charge that we did not approve, again stating that XXXX charged my credit card without authorization. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citi issued one letter stating that it was unable to identify or determine that a billing error occurred and reversing the conditional credits ( Ex. 21 ). Although Citis records may reflect that two letters were issued on this date, one for each of the two XXXX case IDs, I received only one such letter on or about XX/XX/XXXX, as evidenced by the screenshot of my Citi customer portal ( Ex. 19 ). This was for XXXX XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I called Citi the day after I received the XX/XX/XXXX denial letter. The Citi representative on that call told me that Citis notes reflected that the merchant had never responded to Citis dispute submission. I again stated that I did not authorize the XX/XX/XXXX charge. Following that conversation, Citi reopened the investigation. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX / XX/XX/XXXX Citi sent two parallel Billing Dispute Update Important Information letters, one for each of the two XXXX XXXX case IDs ( XXXX for the XX/XX/XXXX charge and XXXX for the XX/XX/XXXX charge ) ( Ex. 18 ). The letters bore a XX/XX/XXXX date and demanded additional documentation by XX/XX/XXXX. Both letters stated that [ o ] nce this information is received, we will be happy to continue our investigation further. Citi also sent email requests dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX in a thread titled Citi Billing Dispute : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : {$3600.00}, {$3600.00} : XXXX ( Ex. 5 ). The email body likewise stated that Citi was investigating the amount of {$3600.00}, {$3600.00}, but the email listed only one reference number, XXXX. Citi therefore used one email thread/reference number to request information about both related {$3600.00} XXXX charges. \n\nAlthough the letters were dated XX/XX/XXXX, they were not delivered through my portal until XX/XX/XXXX a seven-day delay confirmed by the portal screenshot, which shows a 'Date Sent ' of XX/XX/XXXX for both letters ( Ex. 19 ). The XX/XX/XXXX response deadline therefore gave me only seven days to respond, not the fourteen contemplated by the letters ' XX/XX/XXXX date. The timing is also notable in relation to Citi 's XX/XX/XXXX 'final denial ' : Citi dated the letters nine days after that denial and delivered them sixteen days after it, and Citi 's own XX/XX/XXXX letter confirms that the disputes were not formally reopened until XX/XX/XXXX three days after the letters reached me. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I responded to Citis XX/XX/XXXX email request ( Ex. 5 ) with multiple attachments, including the XXXX Estimate ( Ex. 12 ), the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10 ), and other billing documents. In my response I wrote : I have two disputes related to the same amount. First, XXXX charged my card on XXXX [ XXXX ] without authorization. I again stated that the work was still disputed. Also on XX/XX/XXXX, I separately emailed Citis Legal Department ( XXXX XXXX ) and Executive Response Unit ( XXXX XXXX ) directly, copying the billing disputes team ( Ex. 17 ). In that email, I identified both dispute IDs ( XXXX and XXXX ) and explained that my initial XXXX dispute concerned an unauthorized charge, while a later XXXX dispute concerned the same merchant and defective services. I requested escalation to ensure that the dispute is being properly investigated and handled in accordance with applicable consumer protection laws. My email documented in writing that, in the XX/XX/XXXX phone call, the Citi representative had stated the bank had not even received a response from the merchant regarding the charge. I again asked Citi to confirm ( 1 ) that the dispute remained open and under review, ( 2 ) the deadline for submitting additional materials, and ( 3 ) that I would receive a written explanation of the final determination. Citi did not directly acknowledge or respond to this XX/XX/XXXX email. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citi reopened the disputes, as later confirmed in Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex.2 ), which states that when the disputes were reopened on XX/XX/XXXX, the amounts were temporarily suspended. The same day, I emailed Citis Executive Response Unit and mentioned again that XXXX had charged my card on XX/XX/XXXX without authorization ( Ex. 20 ). I again asked three specific procedural questions : ( 1 ) whether Citi had all of the information I previously submitted regarding the billing disputes on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, ( 2 ) the deadline for submitting any additional materials, and ( 3 ) whether I would receive a written explanation of the final determination ( Ex. 20 ). My XX/XX/XXXX email noted : I have asked these questions regarding my billing dispute numerous times since XX/XX/XXXX and have yet to receive a response. Instead, I just get more requests asking me to send information that I have already submitted. Citi did not directly acknowledge or respond to my XX/XX/XXXX email, and the written determinations Citi eventually issued on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, did not address the procedural questions I had asked. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I responded to Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter ( made available XX/XX/XXXX ) by the XX/XX/XXXX deadline with a written response and multiple attachments ( Ex. 22 ). My response opened by flagging the delivery timing : I am writing in response to your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. Please note that although your letter is dated XX/XX/XXXX, I did not receive it until XX/XX/XXXX. I was given only seven days to respond, not the fourteen days contemplated by the letters XX/XX/XXXX date. My response expressly stated that ( 1 ) the services were not properly completed and the plumbing system failed shortly after the work was declared finished, and ( 2 ) the charge to my credit card on XX/XX/XXXX was made without my authorization while the work remained actively disputed. I noted that I had previously submitted much of the requested information on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe attachments included the XXXX Estimate ( Ex. 12 ), the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10, marking the third submission of that document to Citi ), and the detailed dispute summary and timeline that listed Unauthorized Charge as Claim # 1 ( Ex. 8 ). My XX/XX/XXXX response also asked Citi to confirm in writing ( 1 ) whether Citi had all of my previously submitted materials, ( 2 ) the deadline for submitting additional materials, and ( 3 ) whether I would receive a written explanation of the final determination. Citi did not provide written answers to any of these procedural questions. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citis Billing Dispute team emailed me yet another set of documentation questions, stating : In response to your recent communication with us. We needed specific details to continue with our investigation to resolve the dispute in your favors ( Ex. 5, see also Ex. 6 ). This XX/XX/XXXX email was part of the same Citi-created email thread that listed both {$3600.00} XXXX charges in the subject line and body but included only one reference number, XXXX. I responded the same day with a detailed written argument and multiple attachments ( Ex. 6 ). My response expressly distinguished the first {$3600.00} charge, paid on XX/XX/XXXX, from the second {$3600.00} charge, made on XX/XX/XXXX. I wrote that the second charge was made even though I did not authorize this charge, nor did they send a receipt nor notify me that they were charging my card. I also explained : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent a Past Due notice even though the system had not been inspected and the pipes were still exposed ; On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent my husband an email with a statement and invoice reflecting the XX/XX/XXXX payment ; and On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX again emailed my husband requesting payment of the remaining balance. I then stated : the fact that they sent emails on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX asking for payment further confirms that XXXX did not have authorization to charge my card. My response also stated : I intentionally did not pay the remaining balance because the system was not functioning when XXXX claimed the job was complete. I expressly invoked the Fair Credit Billing Act, asking Citi to confirm that this dispute is being handled in accordance with applicable billing dispute requirements under the Fair Credit Billing Act, and confirm that I will receive a written determination. My XX/XX/XXXX attachments included XXXX Invoice # XXXX by name ( Ex. 11 ), the XX/XX/XXXX email from XXXX to my husband ( Ex. 13 ), the XX/XX/XXXX email from XXXX to my husband ( Ex. 14 ), and the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I submitted a complaint with CFPB ( XXXX ), seeking a clear status update, confirmation that Citi has all necessary documentation, and a written determination consistent with applicable billing dispute requirements ( Ex. 24 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citi issued a written determination ( Reference Number XXXX ) declining credit ( Ex. 2 ). The determination characterized the issue as XXXX of credit card fraud, concluded that the XX/XX/XXXX charge can not be considered fraudulently transacted because I had provided your account information to the merchant for billing purposes, stated that a copy of the actual invoice was not provided, and stated that the disputed amounts would now accrue interest. Citis statement that a copy of the actual invoice was not provided is factually incorrect : on XX/XX/XXXX, I provided XXXX Invoice # XXXX to Citi ( Ex. 11 ), the PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT Statement ( Ex. 10 ), and the emails to my husband with invoices attached ( Ex. 13 and Ex. 14 ). Citis XX/XX/XXXX determination did not address the XXXX Statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT ( Ex. 10 ), which I had submitted to Citi four separate times ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ) and which is the single most direct evidence that the merchant did not have standing authorization to charge my card. \n\nLater the same day ( XX/XX/XXXX ), I sent Citi a written response identifying specific factual and legal errors in Citis determination and asking two direct questions : ( 1 ) whether Citi evaluated my unauthorized-use claim under 15 U.S.C. 1643 and what evidence supported its conclusion that the XX/XX/XXXX charge was authorized, and ( 2 ) whether Citi considered Sweetwaters XX/XX/XXXX PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT statement in evaluating authorization ( Ex. 3 ).\n\nXX/XX/XXXX I submitted CFPB feedback in Case # XXXX narrowing my claim against Citi to the XX/XX/XXXX charge only and expressly identifying 15 U.S.C. 1643 as the applicable standard. ( Ex. 24 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citis Executive Response Unit acknowledged receipt of my XX/XX/XXXX letter ( my letter to Citi is Ex. 3 ), assigned Citi Reference Number XXXX, stated that my communication will receive a deliberate and thorough review, and stated that a response was anticipated within 15 calendar days ( Ex. 4 ). \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Citis Executive Response Team issued a letter ( Ex. 1 ) that did not answer either of my XX/XX/XXXX questions. The XX/XX/XXXX letter did not address XXXX, did not identify any evidence that I authorized the XX/XX/XXXX charge, did not address the PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT statement, did not address Sweetwaters XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX emails to my husband, did not address my XX/XX/XXXX written argument tying those documents to the unauthorized-use issue, did not acknowledge the narrowed scope of my claim, and did not engage with the substance of my XX/XX/XXXX correspondence or XX/XX/XXXX feedback. Instead, the letter referred to me internally as the cm, summarized Citis prior position, reiterated the credit-card-fraud framing, directed me to contact the merchant directly, and reaffirmed that the disputed amounts would now be subject to interest.\n\nWhy Citis Fraud Framing Does Not Answer the Authorization Issue Citis XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX letters analyze the XX/XX/XXXX charge under a credit-card-fraud standard and conclude that the charge can not be fraudulent because I had previously provided card information to the merchant. That is not the test. My claim is not that an unknown third party stole my card. My claim is that XXXX was not authorized to charge my card on XX/XX/XXXX. I made the applicable legal standard and the supporting facts explicit in writing on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. Citi nonetheless continued to apply the wrong framework. Providing card information for XXXX authorized transaction does not constitute authorization for all future charges. \n\nSweetwaters own contemporaneous billing conduct demonstrates that XXXX was not acting under standing authorization. Citi had the XX/XX/XXXX PAST DUE statement in its possession from XX/XX/XXXX onward. Although the two XXXX disputes had separate reference numbers, I expressly asked Citi on XX/XX/XXXX to combine the files or review them together ( Ex. 16 ), and Citis own XXXX email thread treated the two disputes as related by listing both {$3600.00} charges. Citi had the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX payment-link emails and my written explanation tying them to the unauthorized-use issue from XX/XX/XXXX onward : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX sent a billing statement marked PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT for {$3600.00}, demanding that I remit payment ( Ex. 10 ). I submitted this statement to Citi on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX Plumbing emailed my husband a Statement and Invoice with the instruction See payment link here : Make an Online Payment ( Ex. 13 ). I submitted this email to Citi on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, three days before the unauthorized charge, XXXX XXXX emailed my husband Invoice # XXXX with the subject line Your Invoice from XXXX XXXX, the statement The job is complete. Please find your invoice from XXXX XXXX  attached below! and the instruction Pay online at : Make an Online Payment ( Ex. 14 ). I submitted this email to Citi on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, with no further communication, no receipt, and no notification, XXXX charged my card {$3600.00}. \n\nA merchant operating under standing card authorization does not send a Past Due Please Remit statement, then send the customer pay online payment-link emails twice in five days, and then unilaterally charge the card three days later without further communication. XXXX  own pre-charge conduct is incompatible with any claim of standing authorization. \n\nCiti has had all of these documents for months. The XXXX PAST DUE statement and the XX/XX/XXXX email from XXXX XXXX acknowledging the agreed credits were submitted on XX/XX/XXXX with my initial dispute packet ( Ex. 10 and Ex. 15 ). Citi resubmitted its request for documentation on XX/XX/XXXX, and I again provided the PAST DUE statement, the XXXX Estimate, and additional billing documents again on XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 5 ). On XX/XX/XXXX I provided additional attachments, including XXXX Invoice # XXXX by name and the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX merchant emails sending payment links to my husband ( Ex. 6, Ex. 11, Ex. 13, and Ex. 14 ). I expressly identified the Past Due notice and the XX/XX/XXXX merchant email in writing in my XX/XX/XXXX response. Citis XX/XX/XXXX determination nevertheless stated that a copy of the actual invoice was not provided. That statement is factually incorrect. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX authorization was a one-time phone authorization. Technician XXXX XXXX called XXXX office, and I provided card information over the phone to a XXXX finance representative for a single installment payment of {$3600.00}. I did not provide my card to XXXX again, did not authorize any recurring or standing charges, did not sign any authorization document, and did not authorize the XX/XX/XXXX charge in any form. Notably, XXXX own Invoice # XXXX ( Ex. 11 ), which Citi has had since XX/XX/XXXX, records the XX/XX/XXXX payment method as XXXX. The XX/XX/XXXX payment was in fact made on my Citi XXXX XXXX XXXX, the same account on which Citi posted the disputed XX/XX/XXXX charge. The merchant 's own records therefore misidentify the network of the card it claims to have on file ( which is a material inaccuracy that undercuts any inference that XXXX possessed reliable standing authorization ), and the merchant 's records identifying a XXXX  can not be the source of authorization on my XXXX account. \n\nCiti has had nearly five months to identify any signed authorization for the XX/XX/XXXX charge. It has not done so. Invoice # XXXX contains a pre-printed Customer Authorization block, but the signature lines on the copy in Citis possession are blank. Despite multiple submissions on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, and despite my explicit written articulation of the unauthorized-use theory on XX/XX/XXXX, Citi has never identified any signed authorization, receipt, recorded authorization, merchant submission/representment materials, transaction authorization data, internal notes, or other documentation showing that I gave actual, implied, or apparent authority for the XX/XX/XXXX charge. If Citi or the merchant possesses a signed authorization, I request that it be produced. \n\nCitis Procedural Conduct Citis procedural conduct throughout this dispute is itself relevant to whether Citi conducted a reasonable investigation under 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( f ). Four patterns stand out : First, Citi compressed deadlines on the consumer while extending its own timelines. Citis XX/XX/XXXX letters set a XX/XX/XXXX deadline based on the date of the letters, but my Citi customer portal shows the letters were not made available to me until XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 19 ). That gave me seven days to respond, not the fourteen contemplated by the letters XX/XX/XXXX date. Citi gave itself approximately two months from its XX/XX/XXXX 'final denial ' ( and seven weeks from the formal reopen on XX/XX/XXXX ) to issue the XX/XX/XXXX determination. \n\nSecond, Citis own communications blurred the two disputes. On XX/XX/XXXX, I asked Citi to combine the files or review them together because the two XXXX disputes involved overlapping documentation ( Ex. 16 ). Citi did not substantively respond. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, Citi sent email requests in a thread identifying both {$3600.00} charges but only one dispute reference number, XXXX ( Ex. 5 ). I responded in that Citi-created thread. Citi later issued determinations on both disputes at the same time. Citi can not reasonably disregard the substance of my XX/XX/XXXX response merely because its own email thread listed only one of the two dispute numbers.\n\nThird, Citi sent two parallel we require additional documentation letters dated XX/XX/XXXX ( delivered through the portal XX/XX/XXXX ), one for each case ID, both requesting overlapping documentation that I had already submitted on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX after Citis purported final denial and before Citi formally reopened the investigation on XX/XX/XXXX. Citi has not explained how the disputes could be both resolved and the subject of active documentation requests at the same time.\n\nFourth, Citi did not answer specific procedural questions I asked in writing on multiple occasions. My XX/XX/XXXX email to Citis Legal Department and Executive Response Unit ( Ex. 17 ), my XX/XX/XXXX email to the Executive Response Unit ( Ex. 20 ), and my XX/XX/XXXX response to Citis documentation request ( Ex. 22 ) each asked Citi to confirm whether previously submitted materials had been received, the deadline for additional submissions, and whether I would receive a written explanation of the final determination. My XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex. 3 ) additionally asked Citi to confirm whether it had evaluated the XX/XX/XXXX charge under XXXX and what evidence it relied on. Citi did not directly acknowledge or answer any of these procedural questions. Citi eventually issued written determinations on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX addressing the underlying dispute, but those determinations did not answer the specific procedural questions or identify the regulatory standard Citi applied. \n\nNew Conduct Since the Closure of CFPB Case # XXXX Three pieces of new conduct since the prior CFPB case warrant attention : First, Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex. 1 ) followed Citis XX/XX/XXXX commitment to a deliberate and thorough review of my XX/XX/XXXX letter ( Ex. 4 ), but it did not engage with the specific questions I posed, did not acknowledge the narrowed scope of my claim as expressed in my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB feedback ( Ex. 24 ), and did not address XXXX even though I had expressly identified it as the applicable standard. The letter did not address the PAST DUE PLEASE REMIT statement, did not address the invoice, did not address the XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX merchant pay online emails, did not address my XX/XX/XXXX written articulation of the unauthorized-use theory, and did not acknowledge the substance of my XX/XX/XXXX correspondence. It summarized Citis prior position, without addressing any of the specific points raised in my XX/XX/XXXX letter or XX/XX/XXXX feedback. This indicates that the response did not reflect the deliberate and thorough review Citi had promised. \n\nSecond, Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter stated that, with the investigation complete, the disputed amounts would be included in the Balance Subject to Interest Charge, and Citis XX/XX/XXXX letter reaffirmed that interest would now accrue. I object to interest being assessed on the XX/XX/XXXX charge while Citi has not meaningfully addressed my claim under the applicable TILA, FCBA, and Regulation Z standards, including whether the charge was authorized and what evidence supports Citis determination. Citi acknowledges in its XX/XX/XXXX letter that the disputed amounts were properly excluded from interest accrual during the pendency of the dispute. An investigation that does not satisfy the reasonable-investigation requirements of 1026.13 ( f ), and that applied a credit-card-fraud standard rather than the unauthorized-use or billing-error standards required by 1026.13 ( a ) and 1643, does not entitle Citi to resume interest assessment on amounts that remain in dispute under 1026.13 ( g ).\n\nThird, Citis reversal of the conditional credits on XX/XX/XXXX and its decision to treat the disputed {$3600.00} as a valid balance has had a measurable adverse effect on my credit. My XXXX  score declined from XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, which is a XXXXpoint drop ( Ex. 23 ). The decline tracks Citi 's XX/XX/XXXX reversal of the conditional credits, which inflated my reported credit utilization on the Citi account at a time when the underlying authorization question remained unresolved and the disputed {$3600.00} should not have been treated as a valid balance under 1666a. \n\nUntil Citi evaluates the XX/XX/XXXX charge under the correct legal standard and produces evidence supporting any conclusion of authorization, the disputed {$3600.00} should not be reported as a valid balance, should not accrue interest, and should not be treated as a settled item on my account.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-19T17:10:09.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"27514","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22350932","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-05-19T16:11:21.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Citis Procedural <em>Conduct</em> Citis procedural <em>conduct</em> throughout this dispute is itself relevant to whether Citi <em>conducted</em> a reasonable <em>investigation</em> under 12 C.F.R. 1026.13 ( f ). Four patterns stand out : First, Citi compressed deadlines on the consumer while extending its own timelines. Citis XX/XX/XXXX letters set a XX/XX/XXXX deadline based on the date of the letters, but my Citi customer portal shows the letters <em>were</em> not made available to me until XX/XX/XXXX ( Ex. 19 )."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[9.664324,"22350932"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11346085","_score":9.6472845,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Attn : CFPB DESPITE EQUIFAX receiving my enclosed complaint marked XXXX XXXX, via the CFPB platform. EQUIFAX after not only receiving my verified identification documents numerous times ; but this time after infringing on my rights for several months, EQUIFAX finally changed my personal information to what it should be.Despite this being the case. EQUIFAX again will ignored and further willfully non compliance with FTC and other regulatory agencies and statues, EQUIFAX willfully falsified a generated response again citing and requesting for identification documents in order to respond to my much viable and valid complaint against EQUIFAX for its malicious conduct and mishandling of my credit file. This is beyond unacceptable and clearly not a frivolous matter nor nature. I DEMAND ANSWERS AND RESOLUTIONS TO MY COMPLAINTS AND INFRINGEMENT ON MY RIGHTS UNDER THE FCRA, FDCPA, and FTC. As well as the FALSE CLAIMS ACT. \n\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 **Subject : Formal Complaint Regarding Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) ** Dear Equifax Customer Service XXXX I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against Equifax XXXX your violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). My name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, and I have experienced multiple instances of mishandling of my personal information and disputes following the compromise of my credit file over the past XXXX months. In [ XXXX ], I initiated an FTC fraud report which was placed on all of my credit files due to the compromise. Following this, I began disputing several inaccurate and fraudulent items listed on my credit report, as is my right under the FCRA. However, from the very onset of my disputes, Equifax has been non-compliant and infringed upon my rights. Instead of conducting a thorough investigation, Equifax has verified and updated accounts currently in dispute without providing me with substantial proof or documentation regarding these trade lines. When I requested verification of these accounts, my requests were disregarded. Additionally, I must supplement this complaint to highlight further violations and injuries. Each time within the last XXXX months that Ive disputed or requested verification and the method of verification, Equifax has further injured me by actively reopening the closed account with XXXX XXXX XXXX and reporting it as being late, indicating I am missing payments in arrearage of currently XXXX payments, with the first being over XXXX. I have directly communicated with representatives from XXXX, who assured me that these changes and inaccurate reporting were not initiated by them but rather resulted from actions taken by Equifax. Each time this inaccurate reporting occurs, I instantly lose XXXX points on my credit score. Furthermore, regarding the XXXX account, in the last XXXX instances that Ive asked for verification and the method of verification, Equifax has re-reported the statement in collections as if it is new or has been removed from my report. However, this is not the case ; the derogatory account has never left my report. The resubmission of this collections statement has caused significant harm to my credit report, presenting the information as if it is being reported for the first time. This misrepresentation has negatively impacted my credit standing, and I seek to address this issue promptly. Despite my numerous complaints, disputes, and requests for verification regarding the reporting of these trade lines, I took the additional step of reaching out to the agency responsible for the alleged debt with XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. They reported that the alleged collection account has been closed since XXXX. This revelation underscores that Equifax has consistently failed to adhere to FCRA statutes and guidelines, neglecting to fulfill its mandated duty to conduct proper investigations and furnish accurate account information. Such failures only compound the egregious conduct that I have endured. To broaden and strengthen my complaint, I would like to specifically cite violations of the FCRA relating to Section 617 [ 15 U.S.C 1681o ]. These include the allowance of facially false information, such as inflated original and charge-off amounts, the reporting of accounts with delinquent or late payments when, in fact, no delinquency is present according to payment history ( XXXX, XXXX, 90 days, etc. ), and inconsistencies in consumer account information that clearly indicate that at least XXXX piece of information must be inaccurate. For example, if every other tradeline indicates ongoing payment activity while XXXX tradeline contains a \" deceased '' indicator, reasonable policies and procedures should identify this inconsistency, and the consumer reporting agency should prevent the inclusion of the inaccurate information in consumer reports it generates. As stipulated in Section 607 ( b ) of the FCRA, whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report, it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. The XXXX has interpreted this requirement to necessitate that consumer reporting agencies implement and maintain reasonable screening procedures designed to identify and prevent the inclusion of facially false data, including logical inconsistencies in consumer or account information. I would also like to draw your attention to Sections 616 and 617 of the FCRA. Section 616 states that \" any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to '' actual or statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation, along with punitive damages that the court allows, and costs and reasonable attorney 's fees. A violation is considered willful when it is inconsistent with \" authoritative guidance '' from relevant agencies. Such guidance includes that issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), as consumer reporting agencies face significant liability risks under Section 616 if they violate the FCRA. In addition, Section 617 emphasizes that \" any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to '' the consumer 's actual damages, along with costs and reasonable attorney 's fees. Given the negligence evidenced in Equifax 's handling of my disputes and the clear violations of the FCRA, I believe I am entitled to compensation. In support of these allegations, I would like to reference case law, including **Bryant v. XXXX, XXXX, where the court rejected a consumer reporting agency 's assertion that it had \" no obligation '' to compare facially inconsistent information contained in different consumer reports. Furthermore, in **Davis XXXX Equifax XXXX XXXX XXXX the court ruled that the presence of erroneous data on a consumer report can demonstrate the unreasonableness of reporting agency procedures. This aligns with **Hammer v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, where the court acknowledged that consumer reporting agencies might be liable for damages due to negligence in maintaining accurate records. XXXX continued failure to adhere to these legal standards has resulted in the ongoing reporting of inaccurate information, causing me substantial financial harm and stress. In an effort to resolve these issues, I escalated matters by submitting complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). Unfortunately, each complaint resulted in further demands for identity verification, including requests for lease agreements, XXXX change of address verification, XXXX forms, my Georgia ID XXXX and long and short form birth certificates. I submitted all of these requested documents without any resolution or changes to my personal information, including my name ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), job history ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ), and current address ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). This continuous process has not only caused considerable inconvenience but has also been met with what I can only interpret as malicious intent to delay the resolution of my disputes. As per the FCRA, I am entitled to request compensation for damages caused by these violations. Therefore, I am formally demanding compensation for the undue stress and inconvenience suffered due to the mishandling of my credit information, as well as reimbursement for any costs incurred as a result of this situation. I expect to hear from you within 15 days of this letter regarding the actions you plan to take. Should I not receive a satisfactory response, I will consider escalating my complaint to the relevant authorities, including legal counsel. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-01T12:48:31.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30312","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11346085","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-01-01T12:48:29.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead of <em>conducting</em> a thorough <em>investigation</em>, Equifax has verified and updated accounts currently in dispute without providing me with substantial proof or documentation regarding these trade lines. When I requested verification of these accounts, my requests <em>were</em> disregarded. Additionally, I must supplement this complaint to highlight further violations and injuries."]},"sort":[9.6472845,"11346085"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11344598","_score":9.644991,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Attn : CFPB DESPITE EQUIFAX receiving my enclosed complaint marked XXXX XXXX, via the CFPB platform. EQUIFAX after not only receiving my verified identification documents numerous times ; but this time after infringing on my rights for several months, EQUIFAX finally changed my personal information to what it should be.Despite this being the case. EQUIFAX again will ignored and further willfully non compliance with FTC and other regulatory agencies and statues, EQUIFAX willfully falsified a generated response again citing and requesting for identification documents in order to respond to my much viable and valid complaint against EQUIFAX for its malicious conduct and mishandling of my credit file. This is beyond unacceptable and clearly not a frivolous matter nor nature. I DEMAND ANSWERS AND RESOLUTIONS TO MY COMPLAINTS AND INFRINGEMENT ON MY RIGHTS UNDER THE FCRA, FDCPA, and FTC. As well as the FALSE CLAIMS ACT. \n\n\n[ XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ] [ XXXX ] [ Date : XX/XX/year> ] Equifax Information Services LLC XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX **Subject : Formal Complaint Regarding Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) ** Dear Equifax Customer Service XXXX I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against Equifax regarding your violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). My name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, and I have experienced multiple instances of mishandling of my personal information and disputes following the compromise of my credit file over the past four months. In [ XXXX ], I initiated an FTC fraud report which was placed on all of my credit files due to the compromise. Following this, I began disputing several inaccurate and fraudulent items listed on my credit report, as is my right under the FCRA. However, from the very onset of my disputes, Equifax has been non-compliant and infringed upon my rights. Instead of conducting a thorough investigation, Equifax has verified and updated accounts currently in dispute without providing me with substantial proof or documentation regarding these trade lines. When I requested verification of these accounts, my requests were disregarded. Additionally, I must supplement this complaint to highlight further violations and injuries. Each time within the last two months that Ive disputed or requested verification and the method of verification, Equifax has further injured me by actively reopening the closed account with XXXX XXXX XXXX and reporting it as being late, indicating I am missing payments in arrearage of currently 26 payments, with the first being over XXXX. I have directly communicated with representatives from XXXX, who assured me that these changes and inaccurate reporting were not initiated by them but rather resulted from actions taken by Equifax. Each time this inaccurate reporting occurs, I instantly lose XXXX points on my credit score. Furthermore, regarding the XXXX account, in the last two instances that Ive asked for verification and the method of verification, Equifax has re-reported the statement in collections as if it is new or has been removed from my report. However, this is not the case ; the derogatory account has never left my report. The resubmission of this collections statement has caused significant harm to my credit report, presenting the information as if it is being reported for the first time. This misrepresentation has negatively impacted my credit standing, and I seek to address this issue promptly. Despite my numerous complaints, disputes, and requests for verification regarding the reporting of these trade lines, I took the additional step of reaching out to the agency responsible for the alleged debt with XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. They reported that the alleged collection account has been closed since XXXX. This revelation underscores that Equifax has consistently failed to adhere to FCRA statutes and guidelines, neglecting to fulfill its mandated duty to conduct proper investigations and furnish accurate account information. Such failures only compound the egregious conduct that I have endured. To broaden and strengthen my complaint, I would like to specifically cite violations of the FCRA relating to Section 617 [ 15 U.S.C 1681o ]. These include the allowance of facially false information, such as inflated original and charge-off amounts, the reporting of accounts with delinquent or late payments when, in fact, no delinquency is present according to payment history ( XXXX, XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, etc. ), and inconsistencies in consumer account information that clearly indicate that at least one piece of information must be inaccurate. For example, if every other tradeline indicates ongoing payment activity while one tradeline contains a \" deceased '' indicator, reasonable policies and procedures should identify this inconsistency, and the consumer reporting agency should prevent the inclusion of the inaccurate information in consumer reports it generates. As stipulated in Section 607 ( b ) of the FCRA, whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report, it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. The Bureau has interpreted this requirement to necessitate that consumer reporting agencies implement and maintain reasonable screening procedures designed to identify and prevent the inclusion of facially false data, including logical inconsistencies in consumer or account information. I would also like to draw your attention to Sections XXXX and XXXX of the FCRA. Section XXXX states that \" any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to '' actual or statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation, along with punitive damages that the court allows, and costs and reasonable attorney 's fees. A violation is considered willful when it is inconsistent with \" authoritative guidance '' from relevant agencies. Such guidance includes that issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), as consumer reporting agencies face significant liability risks under Section XXXX if they violate the FCRA. In addition, Section XXXX emphasizes that \" any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to '' the consumer 's actual damages, along with costs and reasonable attorney 's fees. Given the negligence evidenced in Equifax 's handling of my disputes and the clear violations of the FCRA, I believe I am entitled to compensation. In support of these allegations, I would like to reference case law, including **Bryant v. XXXX, XXXX, where the court rejected a consumer reporting agency 's assertion that it had \" no obligation '' to compare facially inconsistent information contained in different consumer reports. Furthermore, in XX/XX/XXXX Equifax XXXX XXXX XXXX the court ruled that the presence of erroneous data on a consumer report can demonstrate the unreasonableness of reporting agency procedures. This aligns with *XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, where the court acknowledged that consumer reporting agencies might be liable for damages due to negligence in maintaining accurate records. XXXX continued failure to adhere to these legal standards has resulted in the ongoing reporting of inaccurate information, causing me substantial financial harm and stress. In an effort to resolve these issues, I escalated matters by submitting complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). Unfortunately, each complaint resulted in further demands for identity verification, including requests for lease agreements, XXXX change of address verification, XXXX forms, my Georgia ID XXXX and long and short form birth certificates. I submitted all of these requested documents without any resolution or changes to my personal information, including my name ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), job history (XX/XX/XXXX ), and current address ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ). This continuous process has not only caused considerable inconvenience but has also been met with what I can only interpret as malicious intent to delay the resolution of my disputes. As per the FCRA, I am entitled to request compensation for damages caused by these violations. Therefore, I am formally demanding compensation for the undue stress and inconvenience suffered due to the mishandling of my credit information, as well as reimbursement for any costs incurred as a result of this situation. I expect to hear from you within 15 days of this letter regarding the actions you plan to take. Should I not receive a satisfactory response, I will consider escalating my complaint to the relevant authorities, including legal counsel. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-01T12:48:20.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30312","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11344598","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-01-01T12:23:33.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead of <em>conducting</em> a thorough <em>investigation</em>, Equifax has verified and updated accounts currently in dispute without providing me with substantial proof or documentation regarding these trade lines. When I requested verification of these accounts, my requests <em>were</em> disregarded. Additionally, I must supplement this complaint to highlight further violations and injuries."]},"sort":[9.644991,"11344598"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11055455","_score":9.346835,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX **Subject : Formal Complaint Regarding Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) ** Dear Equifax Customer Service XXXX I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against Equifax regarding your violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). My name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, and I have experienced multiple instances of mishandling of my personal information and disputes following the compromise of my credit file over the past four months. \n\nIn [ XXXX ], I initiated an FTC fraud report which was placed on all of my credit files due to the compromise. Following this, I began disputing several inaccurate and fraudulent items listed on my credit report, as is my right under the FCRA. \n\nHowever, from the very onset of my disputes, Equifax has been non-compliant and infringed upon my rights. Instead of conducting a thorough investigation, Equifax has verified and updated accounts currently in dispute without providing me with substantial proof or documentation regarding these trade lines. When I requested verification of these accounts, my requests were disregarded. \n\nAdditionally, I must supplement this complaint to highlight further violations and injuries. Each time within the last two months that Ive disputed or requested verification and the method of verification, Equifax has further injured me by actively reopening the closed account with XXXX XXXX XXXX and reporting it as being late, indicating I am missing payments in arrearage of currently XXXX payments, with the first being over XXXX. I have directly communicated with representatives from XXXX, who assured me that these changes and inaccurate reporting were not initiated by them but rather resulted from actions taken by Equifax. \n\nEach time this inaccurate reporting occurs, I instantly lose XXXX points on my credit score. Furthermore, regarding the XXXX account, in the last XXXX instances that Ive asked for verification and the method of verification, Equifax has re-reported the statement in collections as if it is new or has been removed from my report. However, this is not the case ; the derogatory account has never left my report. The resubmission of this collections statement has caused significant harm to my credit report, presenting the information as if it is being reported for the first time. This misrepresentation has negatively impacted my credit standing, and I seek to address this issue promptly. \n\nDespite my numerous complaints, disputes, and requests for verification regarding the reporting of these trade lines, I took the additional step of reaching out to the agency responsible for the alleged debt with XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. They reported that the alleged collection account has been closed since XXXX. This revelation underscores that Equifax has consistently failed to adhere to FCRA statutes and guidelines, neglecting to fulfill its mandated duty to conduct proper investigations and furnish accurate account information. Such failures only compound the egregious conduct that I have endured. \n\nTo broaden and strengthen my complaint, I would like to specifically cite violations of the FCRA relating to Section 617 [ 15 U.S.C 1681o ]. These include the allowance of facially false information, such as inflated original and charge-off amounts, the reporting of accounts with delinquent or late payments when, in fact, no delinquency is present according to payment history ( 30, 60, 90 days, etc. ), and inconsistencies in consumer account information that clearly indicate that at least one piece of information must be inaccurate.\n\nFor example, if every other tradeline indicates ongoing payment activity while one tradeline contains a \" deceased '' indicator, reasonable policies and procedures should identify this inconsistency, and the consumer reporting agency should prevent the inclusion of the inaccurate information in consumer reports it generates. As stipulated in Section 607 ( b ) of the FCRA, whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report, it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. The Bureau has interpreted this requirement to necessitate that consumer reporting agencies implement and maintain reasonable screening procedures designed to identify and prevent the inclusion of facially false data, including logical inconsistencies in consumer or account information.\n\nI would also like to draw your attention to Sections 616 and 617 of the FCRA. Section 616 states that \" any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to '' actual or statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation, along with punitive damages that the court allows, and costs and reasonable attorney 's fees. A violation is considered willful when it is inconsistent with \" authoritative guidance '' from relevant agencies. Such guidance includes that issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), as consumer reporting agencies face significant liability risks under Section 616 if they violate the FCRA.\n\nIn addition, Section 617 emphasizes that \" any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to '' the consumer 's actual damages, along with costs and reasonable attorney 's fees. Given the negligence evidenced in Equifax 's handling of my disputes and the clear violations of the FCRA, I believe I am entitled to compensation.\n\nIn support of these allegations, I would like to reference case law, including **Bryant v. TRW, Inc.**, where the court rejected a consumer reporting agency 's assertion that it had \" no obligation '' to compare facially inconsistent information contained in different consumer reports. Furthermore, in **Davis v. Equifax , Inc.** , the court ruled that the presence of erroneous data on a consumer report can demonstrate the unreasonableness of reporting agency procedures. This aligns with **Hammer v. Sams East , Inc.**, where the court acknowledged that consumer reporting agencies might be liable for damages due to negligence in maintaining accurate records.\n\nEquifaxs continued failure to adhere to these legal standards has resulted in the ongoing reporting of inaccurate information, causing me substantial financial harm and stress. In an effort to resolve these issues, I escalated matters by submitting complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). Unfortunately, each complaint resulted in further demands for identity verification, including requests for lease agreements, XXXX change of address verification, XXXX forms, my Georgia ID , and long and short form birth certificates. I submitted all of these requested documents without any resolution or changes to my personal information, including my name ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), job history ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ), and current address ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ). \n\nThis continuous process has not only caused considerable inconvenience but has also been met with what I can only interpret as malicious intent to delay the resolution of my disputes. \n\nAs per the FCRA, I am entitled to request compensation for damages caused by these violations. Therefore, I am formally demanding compensation for the undue stress and inconvenience suffered due to the mishandling of my credit information, as well as reimbursement for any costs incurred as a result of this situation. \n\nI expect to hear from you within 30 days of this letter regarding the actions you plan to take. Should I not receive a satisfactory response, I will consider escalating my complaint to the relevant authorities, including legal counsel. \n\nThank you for your prompt attention to this matter. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX [ Your Signature, if sending a hard copy ] ---","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-07T00:06:38.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30312","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11055455","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-12-07T00:06:36.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead of <em>conducting</em> a thorough <em>investigation</em>, Equifax has verified and updated accounts currently in dispute without providing me with substantial proof or documentation regarding these trade lines. When I requested verification of these accounts, my requests <em>were</em> disregarded. \n\nAdditionally, I must supplement this complaint to highlight further violations and injuries."]},"sort":[9.346835,"11055455"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11053390","_score":9.346835,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXSubject : Formal Complaint Regarding Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) ** Dear Equifax Customer Service , I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against Equifax regarding your violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). My name is XXXX XXXX XXXX, and I have experienced multiple instances of mishandling of my personal information and disputes following the compromise of my credit file over the past four months. \n\nIn [ XXXX ], I initiated an FTC fraud report which was placed on all of my credit files due to the compromise. Following this, I began disputing several inaccurate and fraudulent items listed on my credit report, as is my right under the FCRA. \n\nHowever, from the very onset of my disputes, Equifax has been non-compliant and infringed upon my rights. Instead of conducting a thorough investigation, Equifax has verified and updated accounts currently in dispute without providing me with substantial proof or documentation regarding these trade lines. When I requested verification of these accounts, my requests were disregarded. \n\nAdditionally, I must supplement this complaint to highlight further violations and injuries. Each time within the last two months that Ive disputed or requested verification and the method of verification, Equifax has further injured me by actively reopening the closed account with XXXX XXXX XXXX and reporting it as being late, indicating I am missing payments in arrearage of currently XXXX payments, with the first being over XXXX. I have directly communicated with representatives from XXXX, who assured me that these changes and inaccurate reporting were not initiated by them but rather resulted from actions taken by Equifax. \n\nEach time this inaccurate reporting occurs, I instantly lose XXXX points on my credit score. Furthermore, regarding the XXXX account, in the last two instances that Ive asked for verification and the method of verification, Equifax has re-reported the statement in collections as if it is new or has been removed from my report. However, this is not the case ; the derogatory account has never left my report. The resubmission of this collections statement has caused significant harm to my credit report, presenting the information as if it is being reported for the first time. This misrepresentation has negatively impacted my credit standing, and I seek to address this issue promptly. \n\nDespite my numerous complaints, disputes, and requests for verification regarding the reporting of these trade lines, I took the additional step of reaching out to the agency responsible for the alleged debt with XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. They reported that the alleged collection account has been closed since XXXX. This revelation underscores that Equifax has consistently failed to adhere to FCRA statutes and guidelines, neglecting to fulfill its mandated duty to conduct proper investigations and furnish accurate account information. Such failures only compound the egregious conduct that I have endured. \n\nTo broaden and strengthen my complaint, I would like to specifically cite violations of the FCRA relating to Section 617 [ 15 U.S.C 1681o ]. These include the allowance of facially false information, such as inflated original and charge-off amounts, the reporting of accounts with delinquent or late payments when, in fact, no delinquency is present according to payment history ( 30, 60, 90 days, etc. ), and inconsistencies in consumer account information that clearly indicate that at least one piece of information must be inaccurate.\n\nFor example, if every other tradeline indicates ongoing payment activity while one tradeline contains a \" deceased '' indicator, reasonable policies and procedures should identify this inconsistency, and the consumer reporting agency should prevent the inclusion of the inaccurate information in consumer reports it generates. As stipulated in Section 607 ( b ) of the FCRA, whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report, it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. The Bureau has interpreted this requirement to necessitate that consumer reporting agencies implement and maintain reasonable screening procedures designed to identify and prevent the inclusion of facially false data, including logical inconsistencies in consumer or account information.\n\nI would also like to draw your attention to Sections 616 and 617 of the FCRA. Section 616 states that \" any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to '' actual or statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation, along with punitive damages that the court allows, and costs and reasonable attorney 's fees. A violation is considered willful when it is inconsistent with \" authoritative guidance '' from relevant agencies. Such guidance includes that issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), as consumer reporting agencies face significant liability risks under Section 616 if they violate the FCRA.\n\nIn addition, Section 617 emphasizes that \" any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to '' the consumer 's actual damages, along with costs and reasonable attorney 's fees. Given the negligence evidenced in Equifax 's handling of my disputes and the clear violations of the FCRA, I believe I am entitled to compensation.\n\nIn support of these allegations, I would like to reference case law, including **Bryant v. TRW, Inc.**, where the court rejected a consumer reporting agency 's assertion that it had \" no obligation '' to compare facially inconsistent information contained in different consumer reports. Furthermore, in **Davis v. Equifax , Inc.** , the court ruled that the presence of erroneous data on a consumer report can demonstrate the unreasonableness of reporting agency procedures. This aligns with **Hammer v. Sams East , Inc.**, where the court acknowledged that consumer reporting agencies might be liable for damages due to negligence in maintaining accurate records.\n\nEquifaxs continued failure to adhere to these legal standards has resulted in the ongoing reporting of inaccurate information, causing me substantial financial harm and stress. In an effort to resolve these issues, I escalated matters by submitting complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). Unfortunately, each complaint resulted in further demands for identity verification, including requests for lease agreements, XXXX change of address verification, XXXX forms, my Georgia ID XXXX and long and short form birth certificates. I submitted all of these requested documents without any resolution or changes to my personal information, including my name ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), job history ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), and current address ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). \n\nThis continuous process has not only caused considerable inconvenience but has also been met with what I can only interpret as malicious intent to delay the resolution of my disputes. \n\nAs per the FCRA, I am entitled to request compensation for damages caused by these violations. Therefore, I am formally demanding compensation for the undue stress and inconvenience suffered due to the mishandling of my credit information, as well as reimbursement for any costs incurred as a result of this situation. \n\nI expect to hear from you within 30 days of this letter regarding the actions you plan to take. Should I not receive a satisfactory response, I will consider escalating my complaint to the relevant authorities, including legal counsel. \n\nThank you for your prompt attention to this matter. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX [ Your Signature, if sending a hard copy ] ---","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-07T00:06:28.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30312","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11053390","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-12-06T23:39:49.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead of <em>conducting</em> a thorough <em>investigation</em>, Equifax has verified and updated accounts currently in dispute without providing me with substantial proof or documentation regarding these trade lines. When I requested verification of these accounts, my requests <em>were</em> disregarded. \n\nAdditionally, I must supplement this complaint to highlight further violations and injuries."]},"sort":[9.346835,"11053390"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6453345","_score":8.470676,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I am the former wife of the victim ( have Power of Attorney ) filing this claim. \n[ My former husband ] is a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX person ( by XXXX XXXX ) who is financially harmedthrough the lack of Corporate due diligence & protection from Wells Fargo ( WF ) .The claims ( all denied by WF ) for a period of six months totaled {$130000.00} consisting of {$84000.00} on credit cards, debit card, & checking account and causing the total depletion of his savings account. Plus, {$55000.00} which is explained below. [ My former husband ] has been a Wells Fargo client for 30 years with respectable savings with Wells Fargo of which he never had a pattern of the magnitude of expenses incurred in a short time. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and have had to simultaneously tried to find the best avenue that deals with banks after we learned that Wells Fargo had denied all the claims put in. \n\nThe financial fraud abuse was committed by [ XXXX XXXX ] living in XXXX who took my former husband out of state to XXXX  where the series of fraud activity began from XXXX thru XXXX of 2022. [ My former husband ] allowed [ XXXX XXXX ] to purchase only essential items for my former husband, who can not drive and has the greatest difficulty in walking. [ XXXX XXXX ] without approval of [ my former husband ] took possession of all financial cards, check books and even manipulated [ my former husband ] to conduct a wire transfer of {$42000.00}, a cashiers check of {$12000.00} and {$2500.00} in cash out of Wells Fargo Branches for a total of $ XXXX. \n\nWells Fargo is declining all the claims for credit cards, debit card and checking account reimbursements. [ My former husband ] ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) did not truly know what he was paying and just made auto-payments for one of his Wells Fargo cards which took payment from his savings account until it was XXXX ). [ My former husband ] however did question 5 transactions in XXXX for which the bank recognized. \nThe second WF card, [ My former husband ] used to make online payments not realizing what was transpiring every month. Again automatic withdrawal from his savings account through automated monthly payment. Due to his XXXX, he wasn't conscious of this situation like a normal person would be. \n\nOne of the reasons made by Wells Fargo for declining credit card fraud coverage of $ XXXX was due to [ my former husband ] not disputing charges prior to payment made. He subscribes to Auto payment as he is unable to handle the responsibility of making payments or understanding a complete statement. [ my former husband ] was not aware that there were100 's ( hundreds ) of disputed charges and to our knowledge there wasn't the appropriate governance or due diligence by Wells Fargo to protect a client from a magnitude of grotesque pattern of charges coming at once from all different locations in the USA. You think that the unusual and accelerating pattern of spending, until leaving him penniless and homeless, would have been flagged. Wells Fargo seemed to not reach out to verify these illogical expenses being made against his banking history and instead denied every claim submitted to them. \nALSO, 1 ) A loan agreement for a recreational vehicle ( RV ), which involves {$42000.00}, is dated XX/XX/2022 involving [ XXXX XXXX ] taking a loan for an RV from [ my former husband ]. [ My former husband ] paid {$42000.00} thru a Wells Fargo wire transfer to the seller of the RV [ XXXX XXXX ]. In addition, [ my former husband ] paid {$12000.00} to [ XXXX XXXX ] consisting of a {$10000.00} cashier 's check and {$2500.00} in cash for a XXXX XXXX. A fraudulent loan agreement was written by [ XXXX XXXX ] an acquaintance of [ XXXX XXXX ]. \n[ XXXX XXXX ] has possession of the two vehicles and pink slip for the RV. The loan agreement for the RV has no address of the parties involved, no make or model of vehicles, nor VIN ( Vehicle Identification Number ) of the two vehicles. In addition, the contract is unsigned by [ my former husband ]. No signature is on this agreement by [ my former husband ]. The contract is invalid because without his signature it has not been executed. \n2 ) Furthermore, there is evidence that [ my former husband being left homeless ] was picked up on XXXX XXXX of 2022, first week of XXXX, by [ my sister ] and [ my former husband ] could not have signed this document later dated XXXX XXXX, 2022. Note : [ XXXX XXXX ], who made the contract, only provided a photo ( camera picture ) of the computer screen with the picture of the contract. No clear scanned doc or receipts of payments were sent by [ XXXX XXXX ] despite me requesting that clear, legible reading documents be sent. \n\n3 ) Arizona Deputy Police Report states that the money for the RV came from [ my former husband ] and according to him the RV was sold to [ my former husband ] and not to [ XXXX XXXX ]. Please know that [ XXXX XXXX ] has possession of the {$42000.00} Recreational Vehicle and pink slip. He also took with him the XXXX XXXX that he sold to [ my former husband ] for {$12000.00}. \n\nXXXX ) Line item XXXX of the first page of loan agreement says that [ XXXX XXXX ] agrees to give [ my former husband ] a 2022 XXXX XXXX in exchange for this loan. [ My former husband ] has no recollection of this line item No. 7 ever being discussed. Also, there are two witnesses on XX/XX/2022 where the agreement was made by [ XXXX XXXX ] that he would reimburse the {$12000.00} cash for the car. \n\nThis loan agreement was recently created to avoid payment of the RV and also fraud him with {$12000.00}. BOTH individuals [ XXXX XXXX ] and [ XXXX XXXX ] should be charged criminally and civilly for engagement to commit fraud, financial and mental abuse to a XXXX person! \n\nIt's clear after the investigation that [ XXXX XXXX ] and [ XXXX XXXX ] made [ my former husband ] believe there was a contract at the beginning of this ordeal so that [ my former husband ] would go to the bank and request a wire transfer for the RV. Now, that [ XXXX XXXX ] and [ XXXX XXXX ] are aware of the investigations under way, both proceeded to create this agreement dated back XXXX XXXX by which [ XXXX XXXX ] is to pay monthly payments of {$500.00} ( XXXX XXXX dollars ). Attachments are available upon request ( Wells Fargo letters with denial of claims, my excel sheets, loan agreement, and Arizona police report ). XXXX Police has passed this case to their Investigation Unit. Contact information is as follows : Case # XXXX XXXX  Sheriff Station XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX, CA XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX Eternally grateful for your help to get Wells Fargo to get compensation for this financial loss.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-01-18T20:53:17.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"92253","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6453345","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2023-01-18T18:50:56.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["He subscribes to Auto payment as he is unable to handle the responsibility of making payments or understanding a complete statement. [ my former husband ] was not aware that there <em>were</em>100 's ( hundreds ) of disputed <em>charges</em> and to our knowledge there wasn't the appropriate governance or due diligence by Wells Fargo to protect a client from a magnitude of grotesque pattern of <em>charges</em> coming at once from all different locations in the USA."],"sub_product":["General-purpose credit card or <em>charge</em> card"]},"sort":[8.470676,"6453345"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":35,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":35}]}},"product":{"doc_count":35,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":11,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":10},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":6}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":6}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":35,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":4},{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":6}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":4},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":3},{"key":"Can't stop withdrawals from your account","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fees charged","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fraudulent loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"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":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Seized or attempted to seize your property","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":35,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":35}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":35,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":32},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":2},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":35,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":35}]}},"company":{"doc_count":35,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":7},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Atlantic Union Bankshares, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Caneel Capital, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rocket Mortgage, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"WAFD BANK","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":35,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":6},{"key":"GA","doc_count":5},{"key":"FL","doc_count":3},{"key":"TX","doc_count":3},{"key":"MD","doc_count":2},{"key":"MO","doc_count":2},{"key":"NY","doc_count":2},{"key":"OH","doc_count":2},{"key":"PA","doc_count":2},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"MA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":35,"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":15},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":35,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":7},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":4},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-15T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-15T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16469162,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[8.470676,"6453345"]}}}