{"took":540,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":28,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19121966","_score":27.988243,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint regarding unfair and deceptive servicing practices and improper repossession activity by Credit Acceptance that occurred after my prior CFPB complaint was closed. During the investigation of my previous CFPB complaint, Credit Acceptance changed my account balance to N/A, preventing me from seeing a payment amount or obtaining accurate billing information. At no point was I informed that delinquency would continue accruing while the balance was hidden.\n\nDuring this time, no payment amount was visible and no clear instructions were provided regarding payment obligations. Based on this representation, I reasonably believed my account was on hold or under review pending the outcome of the CFPB investigation. After Credit Acceptance concluded its investigationwithout substantively addressing many of the concerns raised in my original complaintthey retroactively marked my account delinquent by XXXX months. This delinquency was applied after the investigation, despite the fact that I was not provided with accurate or transparent billing information during the review period. Once a balance was finally displayed, I paid the amount due. Despite this, Credit Acceptance then issued a repossession notice stating I was XXXX payment past due, which is confusing, contradictory, and misleading given the circumstances. This conduct constitutes failure to provide clear and accurate billing information, unfair and deceptive servicing practices, improper collection activity during an active dispute, retroactive delinquency reporting without adequate notice, misleading account status representations that caused consumer reliance. \n\nAt no point during the CFPB investigation was I informed that my account would continue to accrue delinquency while the balance was shown as XXXX nor was I warned that repossession activity could follow immediately after payment. I dispute the validity of the delinquency, the accuracy of the credit reporting, and the propriety of the repossession notice. Credit Acceptances actions caused unnecessary distress and financial harm and appear designed to disadvantage the consumer during a regulatory complaint process. I am requesting that all delinquency related to this period be removed and corrected. Any repossession activity be immediately halted and Credit Acceptance provide a clear written explanation for why my balance was hidden while delinquency accrued. Credit Acceptance correct any negative credit reporting related to this matter. I respectfully request that the CFPB keep this complaint open and require Credit Acceptance to fully address these issues with documentation and a substantive response.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-30T02:51:07.000Z","issue":"Repossession","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"201XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19121966","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-01-30T02:21:02.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Notice to repossess"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["At no point during the CFPB <em>investigation</em> was I <em>informed</em> that my <em>account</em> would <em>continue</em> to <em>accrue</em> <em>delinquency</em> <em>while</em> the balance was shown as XXXX nor was I warned that repossession activity could follow immediately after payment. I dispute the validity of the <em>delinquency</em>, the accuracy of the credit reporting, and the propriety of the repossession notice."]},"sort":[27.988243,"19121966"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18171376","_score":23.266691,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Summary of Complaint : VW Credit added over {$700.00} in undisclosed interest to my auto loan after the vehicle was paid off. The charges relate to a COVID-era payment extension granted in XXXX. I was never informed that interest would accrue during the extension. VW Credit later admitted that the required disclosures and written confirmation were mailed to an incorrect address, so I never received them. Even worse, they continued reporting me delinquent during the extension period and are now threatening additional interest and potential negative reporting while the balance is disputed. \n\nDetails : In XXXX, VW Credit granted a payment extension during the COVID relief period. I was not told verbally or in writing that interest would continue accruing on the deferred payments. VW Credit has now acknowledged that the written disclosures and extension confirmations were mailed to the wrong address, meaning I never received any documentation that should have explained the interest accrual. \n\nDespite granting the extension, VW Credit continued reporting me as XXXX full payment behind for nearly a year, which caused significant credit harm and contradicts federal COVID guidance. \n\nAfter paying off the vehicle in full in late XXXX, VW Credit informed me that I still owed an additional $ XXXX in interest from the extensioninterest that was never disclosed, never agreed to, and not included in my payoff amount. \n\nWhen I called customer service, Supervisor Grant, extension XXXX, XXXX, IL, told me : 1. The undisclosed interest is fully owed 2. Additional interest is accruing daily 3. The disputed balance could be reported as a late payment 4. They would only send me copies of the disclosures now years later despite originally mailing them to the wrong address This conduct violates Truth in Lending Act disclosure requirements, FCRA 623, and CFPB auto loan servicing rules. Once a consumer disputes a balance, the servicer must : Mark the account in dispute Suspend negative reporting Stop adding interest or fees while the investigation is open VW Credit is refusing to do so. \n\nRequested Resolution : I am requesting that the CFPB require VW Credit to : 1. Remove the $ XXXX in undisclosed, improperly applied post-payoff charges 2. Freeze all interest and cease any negative reporting during the investigation 3. Correct all delinquency reporting during the XXXX extension period 4. Provide a full account audit, including : The extension agreement Any recordings of verbal disclosures Interest accrual calculations The amortization schedule and payoff reconciliation Given that VW Credit mailed all required extension disclosures to the wrong address, I never consented to interest accrual, and the additional charges should be removed.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-04T19:19:03.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"233XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18171376","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"VW Credit","date_received":"2025-12-04T19:12:56.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with fees charged"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Once a consumer disputes a balance, the servicer must : Mark the <em>account</em> in dispute Suspend negative reporting Stop adding interest or fees <em>while</em> the <em>investigation</em> is open VW Credit is refusing to do so. \n\nRequested Resolution : I am requesting that the CFPB require VW Credit to : 1. Remove the $ XXXX in undisclosed, improperly applied post-payoff charges 2. Freeze all interest and cease any negative reporting during the <em>investigation</em> 3."]},"sort":[23.266691,"18171376"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"23488630","_score":21.617495,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/year> Re : Formal Complaint Against FourLeaf Federal Credit Union XXXX XXXX XXXX : To Whom It May Concern : I am filing this formal complaint against FourLeaf Federal Credit Union concerning the mishandling of a {$460000.00} payment intended for my Home Equity Line of Credit ( HELOC ), resulting in improper finance charges, delinquency notices, and continued collection activity despite the credit union having possession of my funds. \nOn XX/XX/year>, I delivered a certified/bank check in the amount of {$460000.00} to FourLeaf Federal Credit Union for the purpose of paying down or satisfying my HELOC obligation. \nDuring the transaction, the teller initially informed me that the payment could take approximately XXXX weeks to clear. I immediately objected because the payment was being made by certified/bank check representing guaranteed funds. The teller then consulted with a branch manager, who confirmed that the funds would be immediately available and would go straight in. Based upon those representations, I reasonably believed the payment would be promptly and properly applied to my HELOC account. \nDespite these representations, XXXX failed to apply the payment to the HELOC. Instead, the {$460000.00} was improperly deposited into a savings account, where the funds remained for approximately XXXX weeks while interest and finance charges continued to accrue against the HELOC balance. \nAs a result of XXXX failure to properly apply the payment, I later received a delinquency/default notice dated XX/XX/year>, claiming that my required loan payment had not been made and demanding payment of {$3400.00}, despite FourLeaf already possessing the {$460000.00} since XX/XX/year>. \nAfter receiving the delinquency notice, I was forced to physically return to the FourLeaf branch and personally request that the {$460000.00} be transferred from the savings account and applied to the HELOC. At that time, I met with a customer service representative and explained the situation in detail. \nThe representative reviewed the account and agreed that interest should not have continued accruing after XX/XX/year>, because FourLeaf had already received and possessed the funds. While I was present, the representative contacted FourLeafs central administration department by telephone and explained the matter. I was advised that someone would contact me or email me regarding correction of the account and the improper charges. \nDespite these assurances, I never received any follow-up communication, explanation, or resolution from FourLeaf. Only after my in-person request at the branch was the {$460000.00} finally transferred from the savings account and applied to the HELOC on or about XX/XX/year>. \nFourLeaf now claims that I still owe approximately {$2800.00}, consisting primarily of finance charges and accrued interest that resulted solely from the credit unions own internal mishandling of my payment. I dispute these charges entirely. \nHad FourLeaf properly applied the funds when received on XX/XX/year> : the HELOC balance would have been substantially reduced immediately ; additional interest and finance charges would not have accrued ; the account would not have been improperly treated as delinquent ; and I would not have been subjected to unnecessary collection activity and repeated efforts to correct FourLeafs error.\n\nThis matter is especially concerning because : FourLeaf had possession of guaranteed funds beginning XX/XX/year> ; FourLeaf management expressly represented that the funds would be immediately available and would go straight in ; FourLeaf employees later acknowledged that interest should not have accrued after XX/XX/year> ; The delay resulted entirely from FourLeafs internal handling of the payment ; I received a delinquency notice despite FourLeaf already possessing the funds ; and FourLeaf failed to follow through after promising further communication and resolution. \nI respectfully request that the NCUA investigate this matter and require FourLeaf Federal Credit Union to : Reverse all improperly accrued interest, finance charges, penalties, and fees arising after XX/XX/year> ; Correct any internal delinquency or adverse reporting associated with this error ; Provide a complete accounting explaining how the remaining balance was calculated ; Confirm that the account was improperly handled after receipt of the XX/XX/year> payment ; and Ensure that federally chartered credit union servicing and payment processing standards were properly followed. \nAttached are supporting documents, including : Savings account statements ; HELOC statements ; Deposit and transfer receipts ; Delinquency notices ; and Documentation showing that the funds remained in savings rather than being applied to the HELOC. \nThank you for your attention to this matter. I request written confirmation that this complaint has been received and investigated.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-06-23T17:22:58.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","zip_code":"11530","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"23488630","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FourLeaf Federal Credit Union","date_received":"2026-06-23T17:14:03.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead, the {$460000.00} was improperly deposited into a savings <em>account</em>, where the funds remained for approximately XXXX weeks <em>while</em> interest and finance charges <em>continued</em> to <em>accrue</em> against the HELOC balance."]},"sort":[21.617495,"23488630"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21075433","_score":19.057552,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint concerns improperly applied deferred interest charges of approximately {$2200.00}, which caused my account balance to increase from about {$2900.00} to {$5200.00} without any new purchases. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I purchased a laptop from Best Buy for approximately {$2500.00}, of which {$2400.00} was financed under a promotional no interest if paid in full plan. I consistently made all required payments on time and frequently paid more than the minimum due. My account has remained in good standing with no history of delinquency. \n\nDespite this, deferred interest charges were retroactively applied. I disputed these charges in a timely manner and requested a full investigation, supporting documentation, and a clear explanation. \n\nDuring a phone call with Citibank in XX/XX/XXXX, a representative acknowledged an issue related to payment allocation and confirmed that a partial credit had been applied, which is reflected on my most recent account statement. I was also informed that a formal letter explaining the adjustment and resolution would be sent to me. \n\nHowever, no such letter was ever provided. After waiting approximately one month, I contacted the company again and was informed that the case had been closed without my consent and without providing the promised documentation or a complete resolution. During this follow-up call, I was also informed that no formal letter would be sent, contrary to what had previously been communicated. The representative provided a call reference number ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), which I have documented and for which I have a supporting screenshot. \n\nAdditionally, my most recent account statement shows that interest charges, including {$37.00} at an APR of 29.74 %, continue to be applied while this dispute remains unresolved, despite the promotional balance still being reflected on the account. This ongoing accrual of interest further increases the financial impact and has not been adequately explained or justified. \n\nCitibank has failed to provide sufficient evidence, documentation, or a clear explanation of how the deferred interest was calculated, how payments were allocated, or how the dispute determination was made. The responses provided have been incomplete and lack transparency. \n\nBased on these facts, including the companys acknowledgment of an issue, the application of a partial credit, failure to provide promised documentation, continued accrual of interest, and unilateral closure of the dispute, I believe this matter was not handled fairly or in accordance with applicable billing dispute procedures under federal law. \n\nI respectfully request that the improperly applied deferred interest charges of approximately {$2200.00} be fully removed, that all interest charges previously assessed in connection with this issue be fully refunded, that all ongoing interest be stopped immediately, that my account balance be corrected accordingly, and that the company provide a complete and documented explanation of how the deferred interest was calculated, how payments were allocated, and how the dispute determination was made.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-09T01:29:50.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"Store credit card","zip_code":"92612","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21075433","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-04-09T00:14:44.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Additionally, my most recent <em>account</em> statement shows that interest charges, including {$37.00} at an APR of 29.74 %, <em>continue</em> to be applied <em>while</em> this dispute remains unresolved, despite the promotional balance still being reflected on the <em>account</em>. This ongoing <em>accrual</em> of interest further increases the financial impact and has not been adequately explained or justified."]},"sort":[19.057552,"21075433"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18085813","_score":17.864182,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint to request that a formal investigation be conducted into the federal student loan servicing practices of Aidvantage, which I believe are potentially deceptive, unfair, and predatory in effect. These practices include failing to provide monthly billing statements, maintaining incomplete payment transaction histories, issuing contradictory written communications, failing to provide an accessible accrued interest log ( amortization schedule ), and allowing unexplained interest accrual while my student loans were placed into administrative forbearance due to ongoing litigation involving the Saving on a Valuable Education ( SAVE ) Plan. \n\nCollectively, these failures have materially impaired my ability to make payments toward interest while in forbearance, as well as understand, validate, and manage my student loan accounts. As a result, my balance has grown unnecessarily, placing me at elevated risk of delinquency or default through no fault of my own. \n\nXXXX. Servicing History and Record of Timely Payment Aidvantage has been my federal student loan servicer since XXXX, during which I made regular, timely monthly payments toward my student loan balance. I was later placed on a new repayment program through the SAVE Plan. From the time Aidvantage assumed servicing of my loans through the implementation of the SAVE Plan, I consistently made all required payments on time.\n\nMy required monthly payment prior to SAVE was approximately {$380.00}, as reflected in my payment history and supporting documentation. I always remained current and did not miss any required payments. \n\nXXXX. SAVE Plan Enrollment and Continued Compliance When the SAVE Plan was rolled out in XXXX, I enrolled promptly and continued to make payments in accordance with the programs requirements. My payment under SAVE was affordable and sustainable, and I remained fully compliant with the plan. \n\nXXXX. Litigation-Related Administrative Forbearance As a result of lawsuits filed against the U.S. Department of Education challenging the SAVE Plan, Aidvantage placed my account into administrative forbearance, during which no accrued interest was supposed to be charged. This forbearance was not requested by me and was imposed solely due to ongoing litigation. On XX/XX/XXXX, interest began accruing again on my student loan ; however, I received no written communication or billing statements from Aidvantage. \n\nXXXX. Written Notice Promised Online Interest Information That Does Not Exist I did not receive any billing statements for the accrued interest or information regarding my unpaid principal balance from Aidvantage. Instead, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email stating : Your interest statement from Aidvantage shows an unpaid principal of {$120000.00} and unpaid interest of {$3400.00}, and you are encouraged to review the entire document for additional loan-related information. Review the full interest statement and consider making payments to reduce interest over the life of your loan. \n\nWhen logging into my account, no such information ( a full interest statement ) existed. Numerous details were missing, appearing as if Aidvantage had not updated or maintained its website since XXXX. Specifically, my online account lacked : An interest rate log An interest accrual history A monthly or daily interest breakdown A transaction ledger reflecting accrued interest Monthly statements or invoices It should also be noted that Aidvantage does not send paper statements or documents. I have not received any such documents by mail in years, and my current address is updated in their system. This contradiction between Aidvantages written representations and its failure to maintain account history data raises concerns that payment details may be miscalculated, which is deceptive and misleading to borrowers. \n\nXXXX. Failure to Provide Monthly Billing Statements While Interest Accrued Despite interest accruing beginning XX/XX/XXXX, Aidvantage did not issue monthly billing statements or invoices. \nMy Aidvantage online account inbox for XXXX contains only : General notices A tax document ( XXXX ) A single semi-annual interest statement dated XX/XX/XXXX There were no monthly statements for XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, or XX/XX/XXXX. The single letter provided only the total unpaid principal balance and total unpaid interest, lacking any detailed amortization breakdown. This omission leads me to believe that the interest was overcharged and inaccurate. \n\nXXXX. Incomplete and Missing Loan Amortization Transaction History My online accounts payment history shows no recorded transactions since XXXX, indicating that Aidvantage has not maintained my account properly. The last transaction, when filtering for the full life of the loan, is dated XX/XX/XXXX, showing an unpaid principal of {$120000.00} and {$0.00} for principal, interest, and fees. \nDespite receiving the XX/XX/XXXX letter asserting over {$3400.00} in unpaid interest, there was no transaction history showing the months from XX/XX/XXXX to the present, nor any transaction-level history connecting that amount to my account. \n\nXXXX. Representations That Payments Could Be Made Without a Functional Way to Do So Aidvantage repeatedly stated that payments could be made while in forbearance. However, when attempting to apply payments since the start of administrative forbearance, I found : No option in their system to make payments directly toward principal or interest No visible interest balance by month No way to calculate monthly interest No assurance that payments would be applied correctly to interest or principal As a result, this deceptive practice prevented me from maintaining my loan balance, making informed payments, and avoiding unnecessary balance growth. \n\nXXXX. Delayed Lump-Sum Interest Notice Without Breakdown On XX/XX/XXXX, I received my first interest statementfour months after interest began accruing. The statement : Reflected a large lump-sum amount Contained no monthly breakdown Contained no accrual periods Provided no calculation explanation This delay directly caused interest to balloon to an unaffordable amount. \n\nXXXX. Material Harm and Risk of Default Because of these failures : I can not verify interest accuracy I can not trust payment application I can not manage my loan responsibly I face increased risk of default despite a strong payment history These practices are misleading, unfair, and predatory in effect. \n\nXXXX. Requested CFPB Action I respectfully request that the CFPB : XXXX. Conduct a formal investigation into Aidvantages servicing practices XXXX. Require a full loan accounting from origination to present XXXX. Require a complete interest accrual ledger from XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. Require an explanation for the missing interest rate log XXXX. Require monthly statements via mail and online while interest accrues XXXX. Prevent adverse consequences caused by loan servicer failures Conclusion I am not disputing that interest may accrue under law. I am disputing Aidvantages failure to provide transparent, verifiable, and timely disclosures, which deprived me of the ability to prevent balance growth and has potentially placed me at risk of default through no fault of my own.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-16T20:18:25.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"35811","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18085813","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","date_received":"2025-12-16T20:05:33.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Conduct a formal <em>investigation</em> into Aidvantages servicing practices XXXX. Require a full loan <em>accounting</em> from origination to present XXXX. Require a complete interest <em>accrual</em> ledger from XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. Require an explanation for the missing interest rate log XXXX. Require monthly statements via mail and online <em>while</em> interest <em>accrues</em> XXXX. Prevent adverse consequences caused by loan servicer failures Conclusion I am not disputing that interest may <em>accrue</em> under law."]},"sort":[17.864182,"18085813"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14545207","_score":15.878154,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX Re : Response to Wells Fargo Case No. XXXX CFPB XXXX XXXX. XXXX Account ending in : XXXX To Whom It May Concern, This letter serves as my formal response to Wells Fargos XX/XX/XXXX communication concerning my previous disputes regarding late payment notations and the charge-off status reported on my credit file. \n\nWhile I acknowledge receipt of their explanation, I respectfully disagree with the continued reporting and request that this matter be re-investigated under my rights provided by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681i and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ).\n\n1. Pattern of Returned Payments The explanation cites multiple returned payments between XXXX and XXXX. I request further investigation into : Why these payments were returned. \n\nWhether adequate notice was given. \n\nWhether the bank took proper steps to inform me of the return before reporting delinquency. \n\nUnder FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), furnishers must report accurate and complete information. If the returned payments were due to bank errors, transaction issues, or system glitches, those late marks may not be valid.\n\n2. Electronic Delivery of Statements Wells Fargo claims I received monthly billing statements electronically. However, per 15 U.S.C. 7001 ( c ) under the E-SIGN Act, consent must be affirmative and verifiable. If I never formally opted in, or did not receive those notices due to technical or communication failures, I was not adequately informed of my due dates. \n\nI request Wells Fargo provide : A record of my affirmative consent to receive statements electronically. \n\nServer delivery logs or other proof that these emails were successfully delivered, not bounced or spam filtered. \n\nXXXX. Charge-Off Status While Wells Fargo confirms the account was charged off, they also assert continued collection activity. I request a complete breakdown of how the final balance of {$870.00} was calculated, especially since the account was subject to interest and fee suspension. \n\nIf any part of this balance includes : Unauthorized fees or charges after charge-off, or Interest accrued post-delinquency in violation of their own stated policy, then the total balance may be inaccurate, triggering a violation of FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\n4. Good Faith Resolution Request I am not disputing that payments were missed but am requesting Wells Fargo take into account : My good faith effort to repay this account over time.\n\nFinancial hardship, which may have contributed to the missed payments. \n\nThe disproportionate damage these late marks and charge-off have caused to my credit profile, especially for relatively low balances. \n\nAs a courtesy and in the spirit of consumer resolution, I am requesting Wells Fargo : Remove or adjust the late payment history as a one-time goodwill gesture. \n\nProvide clear documentation supporting the validity of every reported late mark, especially those involving returned payments. \n\n5. Next Steps I am formally requesting this matter be reopened for further investigation. If the current information being furnished is not 100 % accurate, complete, and verifiable, it must be corrected or removed, per the FCRA.\n\nIf no action is taken, I will pursue additional remedies under federal law, including submitting further evidence and complaint escalation to the CFPB and other regulators.\n\nThank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please confirm receipt of this rebuttal. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX Email : XXXX Phone : XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-09T18:09:03.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"32725","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14545207","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-07-09T18:03:42.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Charge-Off Status <em>While</em> Wells Fargo confirms the <em>account</em> was charged off, they also assert <em>continued</em> collection activity. I request a complete breakdown of how the final balance of {$870.00} was calculated, especially since the <em>account</em> was subject to interest and fee suspension."],"sub_issue":["<em>Account</em> status incorrect"]},"sort":[15.878154,"14545207"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13874758","_score":14.649005,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Complaint Against BSI Financial Services Mishandling of Mortgage Account, Improper Charges, and Credit Reporting Errors Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am writing to file a formal complaint against BSI Financial Services regarding ongoing and unresolved issues related to the servicing of my mortgage account. These issues have persisted for over two years and have caused significant financial and emotional distress, as well as serious damage to my credit profile. \n\nBackground : I have made my mortgage payments on time every month. However, a serious and previously undisclosed issue was recently discovered. After nearly a year of raising concerns with BSI, a representative named XXXX XXXX finally conducted a meaningful review of my account and discovered the following : * Escrow Payment Increase Without Notification : After nine years of making the same monthly mortgage payment, my escrow changed, resulting in a higher monthly payment. I was never notified of this change. \n* Incorrect Placement in Bankruptcy Department : BSI erroneously categorized my loan account under the bankruptcy department. I was not in bankruptcy, nor had I been for several years prior to BSI acquiring my loan from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX \n* As a result, the increase in escrow was never communicated to me, and while I continued making consistent monthly payments, the full amount was not being credited. Instead, BSI was placing my payments in a suspense account until two payments equaled the full, increased amountthus reporting me as being behind when I was not. \n\nAdditional Issues : 1. Payment Plan Misrepresentation : Under threat of foreclosure due to BSIs misclassification and erroneous shortage reporting, I agreed to a payment plan. I completed this plan in full as of XX/XX/XXXX \n2. Unjustified Charges : Upon checking my account after plan completion, I was shocked to find a new charge of {$810.00}. I was told these fees stem from : * Bankruptcy-related charges ( despite not being in bankruptcy ), * Property inspection fees resulting from BSIs incorrect reporting of my account as delinquent. \n3. Contradiction and Miscommunication : I was informed previously that all fees would be included in the payment plan and that no late fees or additional charges would accrue while on the plan. These assurances have not been honored. \n4. Failure to Correct Credit Reporting : BSI has continually reported my mortgage as delinquent to credit bureaus, damaging my credit, despite being informed that the reporting would be corrected.\n\n5. Refusal to Provide Documentation : I have requested a copy of the completed payment agreement, which has inexplicably disappeared from my account records. My request for a copy has been denied.\n\nSummary of My Complaint : * BSI failed to properly notify me of payment increases. \n* They inaccurately placed my account in bankruptcy status. \n* They misapplied payments and falsely reported delinquencies. \n* They threatened foreclosure despite on-time payments. \n* They added unjustified fees and failed to remove them after multiple assurances. \n* They damaged my credit through repeated misreporting. \n* They refused to provide critical documentation regarding the payment agreement. \n\nThis matter is deeply troubling and appears to involve negligence, deceptive servicing practices, and potential mortgage servicing fraud. I respectfully urge the CFPB to investigate thoroughly and advocate on my behalf. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-04T01:00:17.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"700XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13874758","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BSI Financial Holdings, Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-04T00:46:11.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Contradiction and Miscommunication : I was <em>informed</em> previously that all fees would be included in the payment plan and that no late fees or additional charges would <em>accrue</em> <em>while</em> on the plan. These assurances have not been honored. \n4. Failure to Correct Credit Reporting : BSI has continually reported my mortgage as delinquent to credit bureaus, damaging my credit, despite being <em>informed</em> that the reporting would be corrected.\n\n5."]},"sort":[14.649005,"13874758"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3258032","_score":12.231792,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"Applied to be part of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program in XX/XX/XXXX. Was surprised to find out that in XXXX, my loans would be moved over to My Fed Loan. Surprised because the information from FedLoans was insufficient in explaining what was happening to my loans, what the terms of the loan would be, and what payment I would be expected to make to maintain a good status with the PSLF program. \n\nPaid my student loans on time and in the amount of {$290.00} for XXXX through XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX called ( XXXX ) and spoke with \" XXXX XXXX '' about monthly payment increasing from {$290.00} to {$730.00} in XXXX. FedLoan has my tax and student loan information that indicate what my income is and that I have 2-student loans in repayment. My recalculated loan payment under the PSFL did not take into account that I have a larger student loan payment being made in addition to the FedLoan. As part of the Public Service Forgiveness Loan Program, I am on an Income Driven Repayment Plan. I have no idea if this is the best plan for my particular situation. \" XXXX put me on hold and connected me phone to \" XXXX XXXX '' because she said she doesnt handle PSFL and had me call XXXX. \n\nThe new customer service person XXXX XXXX said she would investigate the matter as to why my payments ballooned. In the meantime, she put an \" administrative forbearance '' on my FedLoan while the investigation was going on. In addition to the administrative forbearance, my automatic payments were suspended. XXXX indicated that Fed Loans needed to recalculate my loans. Nothing was ever communicated about the outcome of this investigation and my loan amount did not change. Using the limited number of \" forbearances '' to investigate matters reduces my chance to resolve payment issues over the life of a 10-20 year payment plan. Both \" XXXX XXXX '' and \" XXXX XXXX '' could not resolve my issues because neither understood my problem ( multiple student loans and extremely high payments according to my income ). I have had an outstanding student loan payment since XXXX that accrued interest and I have lost several months of the forbearance allotment for these student loans. \n\nCalled XX/XX/XXXX and spoke with XXXX XXXX who told me that my administrative forbearance issue was still being processed ( from XX/XX/XXXX ). She informed me that it usually takes 60 days despite the fact that I have an administrative forbearance for 30 days. I could make a payment for {$730.00} but I continue to pay on time my original amount ( {$290.00} ) in XXXX and XXXX. XXXX XXXX created another forbearance request to cover the XXXX bill at the higher amount. XXXX XXXX said she is going to request that my IDR plan payment be lowered ( this is the second request ). She said in 5-7 days this would be processed. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I received email notification that my monthly payment for my Revised Pay As You Earn ( REPAYE ) plan is now {$290.00}. FedLoan will now use my income documentation and family size to determine my monthly payment. This is effective for all payments from XXXX. It states, \" If I wish to leave an IDR plan, [ I ] must have time remaining in the repayment plan [ I ] want to change to and [ my ] new payment amount will be based on the balance of [ my ] eligible loans at the time [ I ] leave IDR. '' Prior to this notification, I was on an IDR plan. I am now getting notification that I am in a REPAYE plan. I did not receive information from \" XXXX XXXX '' that this is how lowering my payment would be resolved. Still had a balance due on my account in XXXX that is accruing interest. Still paying my student loan, however, none of these payments are applying to my loan forgiveness program ( PSFL ). \n\nContinued to pay student loans at the original payment amount despite the forbearance placed on my account ( was told by customer service that paying on time {$290.00} for XXXX during a forbearance is NOT necessary ) despite the fact that this problem of recalculated my loans has still not been resolved. On XX/XX/XXXX called to resolve the delinquency flag on my account. Spoke with XXXX # XXXX who said she will apply the payment that is due back to my principal. She said she would put a forbearance on my account for XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX so my account will not be delinquent ( my account is already suppose to be on an administrative forbearance from the XXXX ). \" XXXX XXXX '' suggested that I put my account on a 90-day forbearance to resolve this issue of having my account delinquent, despite saying that she would apply the balance due back to my principal. When I asked \" Why do I need a 90-day forbearance? '' \" XXXX XXXX '' said that she was just suggesting what is available. I told her that I don't need 90 more days of forbearance. I just need the amount applied back to my principal so my account is not delinquent.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-05-30T14:53:39.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"950XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3258032","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AES/PHEAA","date_received":"2019-05-30T14:20:03.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XX/XX/XXXX called to resolve the <em>delinquency</em> flag on my <em>account</em>. Spoke with XXXX # XXXX who said she will apply the payment that is due back to my principal."]},"sort":[12.231792,"3258032"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13500199","_score":11.883301,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX To : Colorado Housing and Finance Authority ( CHFA ) Complaint Department XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CC : CHFA Legal Department Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) Subject : Formal Complaint Regarding Mishandling of Mortgage and HAF Assistance by CHFA re : Loan XXXX XXXX Dear CHFA Complaint Department, I am writing to formally lodge a complaint concerning the mishandling of my mortgage account and associated assistance through the Colorado Homeowner Assistance Fund ( HAF ) by the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority ( CHFA ). The series of events and guidance provided by CHFA representatives have not only exacerbated my financial hardship but have also potentially violated federal and state regulations designed to protect homeowners.\n\nBackground : In XX/XX/XXXX, I initiated the process to obtain assistance through the Colorado HAF program to address my past-due mortgage balance. At that time, the HAF program was capable of covering my entire delinquency, which would have reinstated my mortgage and allowed me to resume regular payments.\n\nHowever, due to delays attributed to CHFA in submitting necessary documentation and processing my loss mitigation application, my mortgage balance continued to accrue. In XXXX, I received a call from a CHFA representative informing me that I could proceed with loss mitigation. However, I was advised that doing so would forfeit the HAF funds. Based on this guidance, I declined the loss mitigation option, trusting that the HAF assistance would be processed.\n\nSubsequently, I was informed that my declination of loss mitigation was reported to HAF, and due to the increased balance exceeding the {$40000.00} assistance cap, HAF now required an approved loss mitigation plan to release funds for the remaining amount. I then resumed the loss mitigation process, but despite my efforts, my application has neither been reviewed nor approved for the past 11 months.\n\nConcerns : Violation of Federal Regulations : Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) and its implementing regulation, Regulation X ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ), servicers are required to evaluate a complete loss mitigation application within 30 days of receipt. CHFA 's failure to process my application within this timeframe constitutes a violation of this federal mandate. Prohibited Dual Tracking : Colorado law ( C.R.S. 38-38-103.2 ) prohibits dual tracking, where a servicer continues foreclosure proceedings while simultaneously processing a loss mitigation application. CHFA 's delays and lack of communication have placed me at risk of foreclosure without a fair evaluation of available alternatives.\n\nNegligent Guidance : The advice provided by CHFA representatives led me to decline loss mitigation, which was later required to access HAF funds. This contradictory guidance has directly contributed to my current financial predicament.\n\nPotential Predatory Practices : The cumulative effect of CHFA 's actionsor inactionshas resulted in a situation where my mortgage balance has grown beyond the assistance cap, and I am now being told that the balance may be too high for loss mitigation. This sequence of events, none of which are due to my actions, suggests potential predatory lending practices.\n\nRequested Actions : Immediate review and processing of my loss mitigation application.\n\nCoordination with the HAF program to secure the initially available assistance.\n\nA thorough investigation into the guidance provided by CHFA representatives and the delays in processing.\n\nI am formally requesting that CHFA reconsider my case and provide equitable relief by restoring me to the position I would have been in had CHFA exercised proper due diligence and timely processing. Specifically, this would involve : Recognizing that I would have qualified for full assistance under the HAF program at the time of my original application; Applying those funds toward the balance that existed at that time ; Reinstating my mortgage under the same terms, allowing me to resume monthly payments as I would have last summer ; Removing any accrued penalties, interest, or disqualifying balances that resulted from CHFAs delays and miscommunication.\n\nThis request is not merely about convenience or preference it is rooted in principles of fairness and equity. The preventable failure to process my application and the conflicting guidance I received have resulted in significant financial harm and denied me access to assistance for which I was fully eligible. I am not seeking special treatment, but rather the outcome that would have occurred had CHFA met its obligations under the law and within the bounds of its authority and responsibilities.\n\nI am also submitting this complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) for further investigation into CHFA 's practices.\n\nI trust that CHFA will take this complaint seriously and act promptly to rectify the situation. I am seeking a resolution that will allow me to retain my home and recover from the financial hardship exacerbated by these events.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-30T12:21:22.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"801XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13500199","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"COLORADO HOUSING AND FINANCE AUTHORITY","date_received":"2025-05-14T18:30:06.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["At that time, the HAF program was capable of covering my entire <em>delinquency</em>, which would have reinstated my mortgage and allowed me to resume regular payments.\n\nHowever, due to delays attributed to CHFA in submitting necessary documentation and processing my loss mitigation application, my mortgage balance <em>continued</em> to <em>accrue</em>. In XXXX, I received a call from a CHFA representative informing me that I could proceed with loss mitigation."]},"sort":[11.883301,"13500199"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21111096","_score":11.457723,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom it May Concern, In this letter I am filing a complaint regarding a federal Parent PLUS loan that I was recently informed is about to default and being handled by the collection agency, Central Research Inc ( CRI ). Based on the information now available to me, I believe this loan has been significantly mismanaged, and that the current balance and status may be inaccurate.\n\nFor some context : this loan was taken out by me for my daughters last semester at XXXX University. It was a Parent Plus Loan. Unfortunately, she graduated during Covid. At the same time, we had XXXX people living at home and I was teaching remotely. At no time once my daughter graduated did I receive a bill to begin paying this loan back. I did not even make an account to begin the repayment process. This was unlike any of the other loans taken out for any of my childrens educations or my own student loans. As such, I made no payments at all and when I was granted a Public Service Loan Forgiveness for my student loans, this loan was not included, discussed, or discovered. \nLoan Details : Within the last few weeks, I received a letter from CRI informing me that I had 30 days to repay the balance of the entire loan, or else I would default on this loan. At first, I thought this was a scam because it had an urgency to it. Then, I discovered it was on my credit report and had since several years ago deleteriously affected my credit score. \nI have now learned that this loan consists of two disbursements : Approx. {$18000.00} on or about XX/XX/XXXX Approx {$18000.00} on or about XX/XX/XXXX XXXX original principal of {$37000.00} While I understand the origin of the loan, I dispute the current reported balance of {$45000.00}, the servicing history, and the lack of required information. \nThere are a couple areas of concern that I believe need to be addressed as I mention above. \nServicing concerns are that the loan entered deferment around XX/XX/XXXX, before my daughter graduated. I didnt think it started interest until after she graduated. It was then placed into forbearance approximately around XX/XX/XXXX through to XX/XX/XXXX as having. Then, from XXXX XXXX XXXX it was reported as In repayment. It then returned to forbearance in XX/XX/XXXX and this cycle repeated several times until the current date. The repeated changes between deferment, forbearance, and repayment in progress without my knowledge or involvement indicates a potential servicing error or mismanagement. This is also clear from the overall lack of communication from any servicer regarding a repayment plan and any follow through regarding why I had not already even made an account with any servicer to begin this process. I request a full explanation of all status changes and the basis for each transition. \n\nI believe there are severe improper repayment status during the COVID-19 repayment pause. The loan was reported as being in repayment between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. However, the federal student loans were subject to a COVID-19 administrative forbearance with 0 % interest during this period. I request a clarification as to why the loan was placed into repayment status during a period when the payments were not required, and interest should not have accrued. I also request confirmation of whether the interest was improperly charged during this period. \n\nAdditionally, the balance seems inflated. The current reported balance of {$45000.00}, appears to be inconsistent with the original principal amount and federal interest rules. This is especially true given the extended 0 % interest period during COVID-19 ( XXXX, XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ). I request a complete, itemized breakdown of the interest accrual by date and rate, all capitalization events, and any and all adjustments made to the account. \n\nFurthermore, there has been a severe lack of required communication. Upon investigation, the original principal was held by the loan servicer XXXX and bought by CRI in XXXX. There was no notice of this change. I also did not receive any statements by mail or any repayment notices, delinquency notices or default notifications related to the loan between XXXX and XXXX before the letter of XX/XX/XXXX was received. This is an absolute failure of a required loan servicing communication chain and has now deprived me of the opportunity to manage or repay the loan in a due manner that would have minimized the repayment amount. This situation has clearly a lack of communication for several years and the only written communication I have ever received was the aforementioned letter regarding upcoming default of the loan. \n\nAt no time was I notified of the loan switching back and forth between forbearance and repayment. I did not request forbearance and wasnt paying. Are loan servicers allowed to do this type of cycle without it being requested? \n\nFailure to identify or address the loan during the PSLF process : In XXXX I consolidated my federal student loans ( the ones I was aware of ) and in XXXX, I received a forgiveness under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program ( PSLF ). At that time, I was led to believe that my federal student loan obligations had been completely resolved. This loan was not identified, included, or ever clearly disclosed during that process which raises concerns about the incomplete or inaccurate loan records and servicing failures. Additionally, causing further damage to this loan account by having it remain active whilst I believe I had no further obligations and continuing to accrue interest and a delinquent status over time. \n\nConcerns with credit reporting. This account is now at risk for soon being reported as default to my credit servicers despite the lack of notice and the issues above. I dispute the accuracy of both the balance and the delinquent status.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-09T23:12:08.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"06611","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21111096","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Central Research Inc","date_received":"2026-04-09T22:54:04.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Additionally, causing further damage to this loan <em>account</em> by having it remain active whilst I believe I had no further obligations and <em>continuing</em> to <em>accrue</em> interest and a delinquent status over time. \n\nConcerns with credit reporting. This <em>account</em> is now at risk for soon being reported as default to my credit servicers despite the lack of notice and the issues above. I dispute the accuracy of both the balance and the delinquent status."]},"sort":[11.457723,"21111096"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2749254","_score":11.120618,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX I contacted Navient and spoke to XXXX ( Employer ID : XXXX ) who helped me process an income based deferment and alerted me that it would expire onXX/XX/XXXX. I am sending a Navient statement ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) that clearly indicates that payments are scheduled to begin on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nStarting in XX/XX/XXXX, I began to receive notices from Navient that my payments on my loans would begin, and by XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was receiving numerous notices in the mail and phone calls from Navient alerting me that I am delinquent on my student loan payments. \n\nTo resolve this issue I contacted Navient in early XX/XX/XXXX and I shared information about the income based deferment with an agent, and the person who assisted me, XXXX, along with her Employer ID number. Despite providing this information, I was informed that I was delinquent on my payments, and while Navient would investigate the matter, insisted that the delinquency could not be removed unless I made payments to my loans. \n\nI contacted Navient again on XX/XX/XXXX and spoke to XXXX ( Employer ID : XXXX ) who alerted me that it is rare that income based deferments would be as lengthy as the one I received, and that in order to continue the income based deferment, I should have re-applied in XX/XX/XXXX. No notification of this information was provided to me about this, and contradicts the statement provided by XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX and approval of an an income based deferment that would continue until XX/XX/XXXX. Consequently, as a gesture to counter the ill-treatment I had received from the previous Navient representative and harassment from agents who called me demanding payment, he stated what he could do was to allow me to begin my payments in XX/XX/XXXX. I thanked him for this gesture, and asked that he forward this information in the mail. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received two letters from Navient dated XX/XX/XXXX. The first information on how I can apply for an income-based repayment plan. The second, an updated payment schedule, but noticed that capitalized interest had accrued. \n\nI contacted Navient on XX/XX/XXXX and spoke to XXXX ( Employee ID : XXXX ) and asked about why I was being charged interest on my loans, which should have still been on an income based deferment. XXXX alerted me that I had approved a Forbearance over the phone with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. I alerted XXXX that I never applied for Forbearance, nor was I alerted by XXXX that his gesture to extend my payments to XX/XX/XXXX, meant that I was entering into a Forbearance agreement. \n\nI accessed my Navient online account and indeed found a document indicating an approval for forbearance, also dated on XX/XX/XXXX. I am perplexed as to why this forbearance document ( see attached Forbearance Approval ) was not sent via postal mail along with the other two documents that bear the same date. As my communication preferences with Navient are for postal mail delivery only, and have been since I first obtain my first student loan in XX/XX/XXXX, the fact that Navient did not forward this document to me on the same date as the other aforementioned documents reflects corporate malfeasance in not maintaining transparency regarding Navient 's actions. \n\nTo summarize, Navient : 1. Failed to maintain an income based deferment application filed on XX/XX/XXXX 2. Has identified me as delinquent on my payments 3. Has sent numerous communications ( mail and phone ) requesting repayment 4. Has processed a forbearance for my student loans without my approval 5. Is charging me interest in the amount of XXXX With the recent revelations that Navient has steered multiple borrowers to multiple forbearances instead of income-driven repayment plans since XX/XX/XXXX that are now part of a lawsuit, it has become clear that Navient is continuing to engage in similar practices with my student loans. This has caused the loss of unnecessary time and undue stress. I have done my due diligence to resolve the matter numerous times, but to no avail. Therefore, I kindly request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau intervene in my case and help resolve this ongoing dispute. \n\nThank you for taking the time to read my case, and I look forward to hearing from you. \n\nSincerely XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2017-12-07T16:51:11.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"14850","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2749254","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","date_received":"2017-12-07T15:04:54.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Trouble with how payments are being handled"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite providing this information, I was <em>informed</em> that I was delinquent on my payments, and <em>while</em> Navient would <em>investigate</em> the matter, insisted that the <em>delinquency</em> could not be removed unless I made payments to my loans."]},"sort":[11.120618,"2749254"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20604758","_score":10.880606,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"I. BORROWER INFORMATION Name : XXXX XXXX ( legal name ) / XXXX XXXX ( former name on account ) Account Number : XXXX Loan Type : Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan Original Principal : {$9200.00} Previous Servicer : XXXX Current Servicer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Transfer Date : XX/XX/XXXX Date of Complaint : XX/XX/XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Email : XXXX II. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT This complaint is filed against Central Research , Inc. ( CRI ), a federal student loan servicer operating under contract with the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, for multiple violations of federal law and regulation that directly caused an XXXX reduction in my credit score through no fault of my own. \nCRI failed to provide legally required advance notice of a loan servicer transfer, failed to send required billing statements through any verified contact channel, failed to notify me of forbearance placement and termination, reported inaccurate and internally inconsistent delinquency information to consumer reporting agencies, failed to activate their own designated secondary contact channel despite XXXX months of XXXX borrower response, made multiple false statements during XXXX separate recorded compliance calls, and after being put on notice of an imminent dispute on a recorded call on XX/XX/XXXX, expanded adverse reporting to a third bureau that had previously shown no delinquency without conducting any investigation and without noting the account as disputed. \nI am an actively engaged borrower with a documented payment history. My last payment to XXXX was made on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX month before CRI acquired the loan. CRI 's cascading notification failures are the sole cause of the delinquency they reported.\n\nIII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND VERIFIED TIMELINE The following timeline is supported entirely by documentary evidence including XXXX payment records, a complete XXXX  search of all CRI correspondence, call log screenshots, XXXX loan status data, all three credit bureau reports pulled on both XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, and full recorded transcripts of the XX/XX/XXXX call with CRI representative XXXX and the XX/XX/XXXX call with CRI representative XXXX. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Final payment of {$200.00} made to XXXX, applied entirely to accrued interest. Account current and in good standing. Establishes borrower as actively paying as recently as XXXX month before CRI acquired the loan. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX officially transfers from XXXX to CRI. Transfer amount {$9500.00} {$9200.00} to principal and {$260.00} to interest. XXXX balance remaining with XXXX. XXXX arrives at CRI in perfect standing with no pre-existing delinquency. This date triggers CRI 's advance notification obligation under federal law. \nViolation : 20 U.S.C. 1092e CRI required to provide written notice at least 15 days BEFORE XX/XX/XXXX. No such notice was ever provided before or on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX exists in CRI 's possession but system does not finish loading until XX/XX/XXXX. No payment to CRI was technically possible during this XXXX window. Confirmed independently by both CRI representative XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and CRI representative XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX on separate recorded calls. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX CRI sends one email to XXXX notifying borrower of the transfer 14 days AFTER the XX/XX/XXXX transfer date. Email automatically filtered away from inbox. No payment obligation information included. This is the only transfer-related communication CRI ever sent. When CRI representative XXXX was asked on the XX/XX/XXXX recorded call what methods CRI used to contact the borrower and on what dates, she cited only this single XX/XX/XXXX welcome email no mention of any XXXX letter, XXXX call, XXXX call, or XXXX pre-reporting email. XXXX days later XXXX claimed all of those contacts from the same system of record. XXXXXXXX XXXX account corroborated by complete XXXX record. XXXXXXXX XXXX  account contradicted by complete XXXX record and call log. Note : XXXX confirmed XX/XX/XXXX as the email date. XXXX stated XX/XX/XXXX from the same system of record contradicted by physical email, establishing CRI misquotes their own records. \nViolation : XXXX XXXX. XXXX Retroactive notification sent 14 days after transfer can not satisfy the advance notice requirement by definition. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX CRI sends XXXX communications to borrower 's confirmed email address regarding payments, billing, account status, or forbearance. Over XXXX months of complete communication silence through the only verified contact channel CRI possessed. Complete XXXX search confirms this absolutely. CRI representative XXXX admitted on the XX/XX/XXXX recorded call that email was CRI 's designated secondary contact method to be activated when mail correspondence failed to produce a response. XXXX months of XXXX borrower response never triggered that secondary channel.\n\nViolation : 34 C.F.R. 682.208 ( f ) No billing statement sent to confirmed email address at any point during this period.\n\nViolation : 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 CRI 's own stated policy required email activation when primary mail contact failed to produce a response. Never activated despite XXXX months of silence. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX 's enrollment status changes to XXXX at XXXX, effective this date. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Forbearance placed on account the day after enrollment status change. Borrower receives XXXX notification of placement, XXXX notification of interest consequences, XXXX notification of capitalization implications. CRI 's own system can not locate who placed the forbearance or under what authority. XXXX  narrative codes XXXX Student Loan Payment Deferred appear for XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX on the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX  report, corroborating the forbearance period on CRI 's own bureau submissions. \nViolation : 34 C.F.R. 682.211 Servicer required to notify borrower of forbearance placement and interest consequences. No such notification ever sent to confirmed email address. Complete XXXX record confirms absolutely. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Forbearance ends. Loan returns to repayment status. Accrued interest capitalizes into principal, increasing balance from {$9200.00} to {$9400.00} a {$120.00} increase confirmed independently by CRI representative XXXX on the XX/XX/XXXX recorded call. Borrower receives XXXX notification of forbearance termination, XXXX notification repayment resumed, XXXX notification of capitalization. \nViolation : 34 C.F.R. 682.211 No notification of forbearance termination sent to confirmed email address. \nViolation : 34 C.F.R. 682.208 ( f ) First payment due XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX advance billing statement window begins running. No billing statement sent to confirmed email. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX ( CRI 's claimed date ) XXXX claimed on the XX/XX/XXXX recorded call that CRI sent a letter to borrower 's mailing address notifying that forbearance was ending. CRI had the XXXX XXXX  address on file the only mailing address they possessed until XX/XX/XXXX. They never verified whether it was current after the XX/XX/XXXX transfer despite possessing XXXX database checks, credit header data, and the XXXX XXXX as verification tools. No email sent simultaneously. XXXX made no mention of this letter from the same system of record XXXX days earlier. XXXX also cited XX/XX/XXXX in an earlier part of the same call XXXX different dates for the same claimed correspondence within XXXX call, an additional internal inconsistency. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX CRI issues first billing statement showing {$100.00} due XX/XX/XXXX. Sent by paper mail to XXXX XXXX  address on file never verified as current after XX/XX/XXXX transfer. No email copy sent despite email being the confirmed secondary contact channel. Borrower did not receive paper statement.\n\nViolation : 34 C.F.R. 682.208 ( f ) Billing statement not delivered through verified contact channel. CRI possessed confirmed working email and chose not to use it. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX First payment of {$100.00} due under CRI. Borrower receives XXXX notification through any verified channel. Payment missed. Account becomes delinquent. XXXX records Delinquent Date as XX/XX/XXXX the day after the missed due date confirming XX/XX/XXXX as the first missed payment. This is the mathematical anchor for the XXXX XXXX violation : XXXX  days from XX/XX/XXXX is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is XX/XX/XXXX. CRI 's own data submission to XXXX  would later confirm a first delinquency date of XX/XX/XXXX exactly XXXX  days after XX/XX/XXXX proving CRI 's own records confirm the XXXX XXXX violation. \nViolation : 34 C.F.R. 682.208 ( f ) No verified notification before due date.\n\nViolation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) If CRI was reporting monthly status as XXXX claimed, accurate XXXX XXXX XXXX for XX/XX/XXXX was XXXX late. No such mark exists on any bureau. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX ( CRI 's claimed date ) XXXX claimed CRI made a phone call to borrower on this date. Directly contradicted by complete call log showing XXXX calls from XXXX on this date. No voicemail received. XXXX made no mention of this call from the same system of record XXXX days earlier. Carrier records formally requested XX/XX/XXXX pending. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX ( CRI 's claimed date ) XXXX claimed CRI made a second phone call on this date and that the account reflected 15 days past due. Internally inconsistent 15 days past XX/XX/XXXX due date is XX/XX/XXXX, not XX/XX/XXXX. Directly contradicted by complete call log. No voicemail. XXXX made no mention of this call. Carrier records pending. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX sends XXXX tax form email to XXXX. First email to confirmed address since XX/XX/XXXX nearly XXXX months of silence. XXXX reference to missed payment, delinquent account, or any payment obligation. This email proves the email channel was fully functional and accessible throughout the entire delinquency accumulation period. CRI used the confirmed channel for tax correspondence while deliberately withholding it from payment-critical communications.\n\nViolation : 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 Deliberate policy choice to use email channel for tax correspondence while withholding it from payment notifications. Secondary contact policy never activated despite functional channel existing throughout. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX incoming missed call from XXXX at XXXX PM XXXX XXXX. No voicemail left. Only phone contact CRI ever attempted during entire delinquency accumulation period. No email sent after missed call despite email being designated secondary contact method. XXXX stated this call was at XXXX PM Central Time converts to XXXX PM XXXX a six-hour discrepancy from documented XXXX PM XXXX that no time zone conversion can explain. XXXX XXXX is XXXX hour behind XXXX, not XXXX hours. \nViolation : CFPB reasonable servicing standards XXXX missed call with no voicemail and no email follow-up is not reasonable outreach for a borrower approaching XXXX delinquency when a confirmed email channel existed and was designated as secondary contact under CRI 's own stated policy. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX CRI sends second email to XXXX regarding tax return document. XXXX reference to delinquency or payment obligation. Account now over XXXX  days past due. Second consecutive email using confirmed channel exclusively for tax purposes while delinquency accumulates without any direct payment notification. \nViolation : CFPB reasonable servicing standards Secondary email contact policy not activated despite account being over XXXX  days past due and confirmed email channel being actively used for non-payment correspondence. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX XXXX routes urgent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX notifications through XXXX financial aid office rather than contacting borrower directly. XXXX holds no legal obligation to ensure borrower receives loan payment notifications. \nViolation : CFPB student loan servicing regulations Using third-party educational institution as substitute for direct borrower contact does not satisfy reasonable communication requirements. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX ( CRI 's claimed date ) XXXX claimed CRI sent a pre-reporting notice to XXXX on this date. Complete XXXX record including inbox, spam, and trash contains XXXX emails from any CRI domain on this date. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX summary of complete CRI email history confirms no such email exists. XXXX made no mention of this email from the same system of record XXXX days earlier. This is the most consequential false statement XXXX made a specific claimed compliance act that both documentary evidence and CRI 's own prior representative 's account confirm never occurred. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX CRI reports borrower as XXXX days past due to XXXX XXXX XXXX with {$320.00} past due. Simultaneously reports same account as XXXX XXXX Agreed with XXXX delinquency to XXXX. No XXXX or XXXX marks appear on any bureau at any point despite XXXX 's recorded admission of monthly bureau reporting . The reporting is mathematically impossible : for the account to be XXXX  days past due in XX/XX/XXXX the first missed payment must have been XX/XX/XXXX, meaning XX/XX/XXXX should show XXXX  days late and XX/XX/XXXX should show XXXX  days late. Neither mark exists on any bureau. CRI 's own subsequent data submission to Equifax confirmed a first delinquency date of XX/XX/XXXX exactly XXXX  days after the XX/XX/XXXX missed payment proving with CRI 's own data that XXXX and XXXX should have carried intermediate delinquency marks. \nViolation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) XXXX distinct violations. First : CRI reported contradictory information to different bureaus for same account in same period XXXX report definitionally inaccurate. Second : delinquency resulted entirely from CRI 's own notification failures borrower had no actionable information from which to make a payment. Third : complete absence of XXXX and XXXX marks despite claimed monthly reporting means inaccurate XXXX XXXX XXXX codes submitted for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, proven by CRI 's own first delinquency date submission. \nViolation : 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 CRI 's XXXX reporting policy systematically produces inaccurate XXXX XXXX data and violates furnisher accuracy and integrity obligations. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX discovers XXXX XXXX XXXX reduction. Calls CRI at XXXX PM, speaks with representative XXXX for XXXX minutes. Call recorded. When asked what methods CRI used to contact borrower and on what dates, XXXX cited only the XX/XX/XXXX welcome email no mention of any XXXX letter, XXXX call, XXXX call, or XXXX pre-reporting email. This is the central evidentiary conflict : XXXX CRI representatives reading from the same system of record XXXX days apart gave completely irreconcilable accounts of CRI 's contact history. XXXX 's account XXXX email is fully corroborated by the borrower 's XXXX record and call log. XXXX 's account multiple letters, calls, and emails is contradicted by every piece of documentary evidence. Additional Latia admissions : confirmed XX/XX/XXXX system load date, confirmed XX/XX/XXXX email date contradicting XXXX 's later XX/XX/XXXX claim, confirmed capitalized interest of {$120.00}, confirmed no forbearance currently showing in system despite prior existence, confirmed account 100 days past due with {$420.00} past due. After call borrower created XXXX account and updated contact information confirmed by XXXX CRI system emails received same day. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX calls CRI at XXXX PM, speaks with representative XXXX for XXXX minutes. Call recorded. XXXX made XXXX documented false statements each directly contradicted by evidence and by XXXX 's account : ( 1 ) Claimed XX/XX/XXXX letter sent not mentioned by XXXX, contradicted by XXXX record. ( 2 ) Claimed XX/XX/XXXX call made not mentioned by XXXX, contradicted by call log. ( 3 ) Claimed XX/XX/XXXX call made not mentioned by XXXX, contradicted by call log, internally inconsistent date. ( 4 ) Claimed XX/XX/XXXX pre-reporting email sent to XXXX not mentioned by XXXX, contradicted by complete XXXX record. ( XXXX ) Stated CRI received loan in XXXX contradicted by XX/XX/XXXX system load date confirmed by both representatives. ( XXXX ) Stated XX/XX/XXXX call was at XXXX PM XXXX contradicted by call log showing XXXX PM Eastern, six-hour discrepancy. XXXX confirmed email was CRI 's designated secondary contact method to be activated when mail failed to produce a response then used borrower 's non-enrollment in e-correspondence to justify never using it, a direct internal contradiction. Confirmed XXXX reporting policy. XXXX informed XXXX that a CFPB complaint and bureau disputes would be filed. XXXX acknowledged this on recorded line. XXXX  report pulled same day shows XXXX delinquency Pays As Agreed, no first delinquency date, no past due amount. \nViolation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) Borrower put CRI on notice of intent to dispute on recorded line. CRI obligation to investigate and correct activates from this date. Any adverse reporting added or continued after this date without XXXX  dispute notation constitutes additional violation. \n\nBetween XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Within 12 days of borrower informing CRI on a recorded line that a CFPB complaint and bureau disputes would be filed, CRI updated the XXXX tradeline to add XXXX days past due, {$320.00} past due, and a first delinquency date of XX/XX/XXXX none of which appeared on the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX report . CRI had been actively reporting to XXXX  as recently as XX/XX/XXXX per the Date of Last Activity field on the XX/XX/XXXX report, meaning the absence of delinquency on XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX was a deliberate reporting choice, not an oversight. Rather than investigating the dispute and removing the delinquency from XXXX XXXX XXXX as required, CRI responded by expanding adverse reporting to a third bureau that had previously been clean without conducting any investigation and without noting the account as disputed on any bureau. The first delinquency date of XX/XX/XXXX that CRI furnished to XXXX is self-incriminating : it confirms XX/XX/XXXX was the first missed payment and mathematically proves that XX/XX/XXXX should have shown XXXX  days late and XX/XX/XXXX should have shown XXXX days late on every bureau. Neither mark exists anywhere. CRI 's own XXXX data submission proves their XXXX XXXX violation across all three bureaus simultaneously. \nViolation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) Continued and expanded adverse reporting after notice of dispute without XXXX  notation and without investigation. Adding delinquency to XXXX after dispute notice rather than removing from XXXX XXXX XXXX is the direct opposite of the conduct this statute requires. \nViolation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) First delinquency date of XX/XX/XXXX furnished by CRI to XXXX  mathematically proves inaccurate XXXX XXXX reporting across all three bureaus. CRI 's own data submission is the evidence of their own violation. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX pulls all three credit bureau reports. XXXX  now shows XXXX days past due, {$320.00} past due, first delinquency date XX/XX/XXXX none of which appeared on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  unchanged from XX/XX/XXXX. All three bureaus now show delinquency. Cross-bureau inconsistency resolved by CRI expanding adverse reporting rather than correcting it. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX XXXX files CFPB complaint and all three bureau dispute letters. Formal dispute clock starts. Any continued adverse reporting without AID dispute notation after this date constitutes additional violation under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ). \n\nIV. PATTERN OF DECEPTION AND RETALIATORY CONDUCT The record establishes XXXX distinct patterns of conduct that elevate this case beyond negligent servicing into willful noncompliance. \n\nPattern 1 False Statements During Recorded Compliance Inquiries The central evidentiary conflict is the irreconcilable difference between XXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX account and XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX account of CRI 's contact history. When XXXX described how CRI contacted the borrower, she cited XXXX email on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX days later XXXX cited an XXXX letter, XXXX phone calls, and a XXXX email from the same system of record. The borrower 's documentary evidence confirms XXXX 's account entirely and contradicts XXXX 's account entirely. A servicer whose representatives give irreconcilably different accounts of their own contact history within XXXX days does not have a clerical error problem. It has a systemic accuracy and integrity problem. \n\nFalse XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX stated CRI sent a letter on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX made no mention of it. XXXX record contains no corresponding email. XXXX cited XXXX different dates for the same letter within the same call XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFalse Statement XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Phone Call XXXX stated CRI called borrower XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX made no mention of it. Complete call log shows no call on this date. No voicemail. Carrier records pending. \n\nFalse Statement XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Phone Call XXXX stated CRI called borrower XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX made no mention of it. Complete call log shows no call on this date. No voicemail. Date internally inconsistent with claimed account status. Carrier records pending. \n\nFalse Statement XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Pre-Reporting Email XXXX stated CRI sent a pre-reporting notice to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX made no mention of it. XXXX XXXX record including inbox, spam, and trash contains no such email. This is the most consequential false statement because it describes a specific compliance act CRI would rely on to defend the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX report. \n\nFalse Statement XXXX XXXX Loan Receipt Tiara stated CRI received the loan in XXXX. Both representatives confirmed XX/XX/XXXX system load date in their respective calls. CRI 's own welcome email is dated XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFalse Statement XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Call XXXX XXXX stated the XX/XX/XXXX call was at XXXX PM Central Time. XXXX 's call log shows XXXX PM XXXX. XXXX XXXX is XXXX hour behind XXXX XXXX PM XXXX equals XXXX PM XXXX. The six-hour discrepancy can not be explained by any time zone conversion. \n\nThe XXXX XXXX XXXX stated email was CRI 's designated secondary contact method to be activated when mail failed to produce a response. She then used the borrower 's non-enrollment in e-correspondence to justify never using it. These statements are mutually exclusive. Enrollment status governs whether email is the primary channel not whether it is available as the secondary channel CRI 's own policy requires. \n\nPattern XXXX Anticipatory Adverse Furnishing After Dispute Notice On XX/XX/XXXX, borrower informed CRI on a recorded line that a CFPB complaint and bureau disputes would be filed. As of that date XXXX  showed XXXX delinquency Pays As Agreed with no adverse marks. Within 12 days XXXX updated the XXXX  tradeline to add XXXX days past due and a first delinquency date of XX/XX/XXXX. CRI did not investigate. CRI did not remove the delinquency from XXXX XXXX XXXX CRI did not note any bureau account as disputed. Instead CRI expanded the adverse reporting to a bureau they had previously left clean. This conduct expanding derogatory credit reporting in direct response to a borrower announcing a formal dispute is the precise conduct 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) exists to prohibit.\n\nV. SPECIFIC FEDERAL VIOLATIONS Violation 1 20 U.S.C. 1092e : Failure to Provide Advance Notice of Servicer Transfer Federal law requires written notice at least 15 days before the effective transfer date. CRI sent XXXX email on XX/XX/XXXX 14 days after the XX/XX/XXXX transfer. No notice was provided before the transfer. \n\nViolation 2 34 C.F.R. 682.208 ( f ) : Failure to Send Required Billing Statements Servicers are required to send billing statements at least 21 days before each payment due date through a channel reasonably calculated to reach the borrower. No billing statement was ever sent to the borrower 's confirmed email address. Paper statements sent to an unverified mailing address while a confirmed electronic channel existed and was never used do not satisfy this requirement. \n\nViolation 3 34 C.F.R. 682.211 : Failure to Notify of Forbearance CRI failed to notify borrower of forbearance placement on XX/XX/XXXX, failed to notify of interest consequences and capitalization, and failed to notify when forbearance ended XX/XX/XXXX. CRI 's own representatives confirmed the forbearance can not be located in their system. \n\nViolation 4 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) : Inaccurate and Inconsistent Credit Reporting CRI violated this statute in four distinct ways : ( 1 ) reported contradictory information to different bureaus for the same account in the same period ; ( 2 ) reported a delinquency that resulted entirely from CRI 's own notification failures ; ( 3 ) submitted inaccurate XXXX XXXX XXXX codes for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX proven by CRI 's own first delinquency date submission ; ( 4 ) expanded adverse reporting to XXXX after dispute notice rather than investigating and correcting. \n\nViolation 5 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) : Continued Adverse Reporting After Dispute Notice After being put on notice of an imminent dispute on a recorded call on XX/XX/XXXX, CRI added delinquency reporting to XXXX  within 12 days without conducting any investigation and without noting any account as disputed. This is the direct opposite of what this statute requires. \n\nViolation 6 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 : Failure to Maintain Accuracy and Integrity Procedures CRI 's admitted XXXX reporting policy systematically produces inaccurate XXXX XXXX data. CRI 's own first delinquency date submission to XXXX  proves this policy violated XXXX XXXX accuracy requirements across all three bureaus simultaneously. \n\nViolation 7 CFPB Student Loan Servicing Standards : Failure to Maintain Reasonable Communication Policies CRI possessed a confirmed working email address, designated it as secondary contact under their own stated policy, proved it functional via tax correspondence, and failed to use it for any payment-critical communication. CRI also routed urgent payment notifications through XXXX financial aid office rather than contacting borrower directly. \n\nVI. DOCUMENTED IMPACT XXXX-point credit score reduction directly attributable to CRI 's delinquency reporting Delinquency reporting now present on all three bureaus as of XX/XX/XXXX expanded from XXXX bureaus to XXXX within 12 days of borrower announcing intent to dispute No XXXX or XXXX intermediate delinquency markers on any bureau despite CRI 's claimed monthly reporting mathematically impossible timeline First delinquency date of XX/XX/XXXX furnished by CRI to XXXX proves XXXX XXXX XXXX with CRI 's own data Interest capitalization XXXX {$120.00} added to principal without notification or consent Estimated removal date of XX/XX/XXXX on XXXX  XXXX years of ongoing harm XXXX not corrected Damage to borrower 's creditworthiness affecting eligibility for future financing, housing, and employment Multiple false statements made across XXXX recorded compliance calls Anticipatory adverse furnishing to XXXX  after dispute notice rather than investigation and correction","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-26T01:35:56.000Z","issue":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"212XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20604758","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Central Research Inc","date_received":"2026-03-26T00:54:12.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Received bad information about your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Rather than <em>investigating</em> the dispute and removing the <em>delinquency</em> from XXXX XXXX XXXX as required, CRI responded by expanding adverse reporting to a third bureau that had previously been clean without conducting any <em>investigation</em> and without noting the <em>account</em> as disputed on any bureau."]},"sort":[10.880606,"20604758"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14511494","_score":10.223864,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this formal complaint against TransUnion for reporting multiple inaccurate, outdated, and unverifiable items on my credit report which are causing ongoing harm to my creditworthiness and financial well-being. Despite my attempts to address these inaccuracies directly with TransUnion, the agency has failed to remove or correct the erroneous items in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S. Code 1681, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The following specific issues are being raised for immediate investigation and correction. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Wrong Address Issue : This is not and has never been my residential or mailing address. I have no affiliation or connection with this location. Its appearance on my credit report is misleading and likely a result of identity confusion or mixed file reporting. \nLaw Violated : FCRA 1681e ( b ) requires consumer reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. \nXXXX : Due to this incorrect address, my personal identity and credit profile have been compromised. I fear this address may be linked to fraudulent or unrelated accounts. I requested its removal, but TransUnion continues to report it without conducting a proper investigation. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Late Payment Issue : The late payment reporting on this mortgage account is inaccurate. I was under temporary financial hardship due to medical and employment-related disruptions and requested assistance from the lender.\n\nLaw Violated : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) furnishers must report accurate information ; FCRA 1681i CRA must investigate disputed information. \nXXXX : I was never informed adequately of delinquency before it was reported. I submitted documentation and explained my situation, yet TransUnion refused to re-investigate or correct the payment history. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge-Off Issue : This account has been reported as a charge-off, yet I was never provided proper written notice, nor any documentation to verify the validity or breakdown of the debt. \nLaw Violated : FCRA 1681e ( b ) ; FDCPA 809 ( b ) right to debt validation.\n\nXXXX : This negative entry is severely impacting my credit, and I have attempted to dispute it multiple times. The bank never responded with sufficient proof, and TransUnion failed to verify before reporting. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge-Off Issue : XXXX charged off this account and continues to report a balance, despite unresolved disputes and lack of validation. \nLaw Violated : FCRA 1681i ( a ) ; FDCPA 809. \nXXXX  : I never received account statements or a detailed breakdown of how this balance accrued. Reporting unverifiable information is a violation of federal law and has caused me credit denials. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Charge-Off Issue : The charge-off is inaccurate and unverified. The creditor did not properly notify me before reporting the negative mark. \nLaw Violated : FCRA 1681e ( b ) ; FDCPA 809 ( a ). \nXXXX : XXXX failed to respond to my written disputes. I believe this account may be misreported or belong to another consumer. TransUnion refused to remove it without proof from the creditor. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Charge-Off Issue : This charge-off is disputed due to lack of validation and inaccurate reporting. The balance and terms reported are inconsistent.\n\nLaw Violated : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) ; FDCPA 809. \nXXXX : I was undergoing financial hardship during this period, and XXXX did not work with me or provide notice before charge-off. Ive asked TransUnion for investigation, but they failed to fulfill their duty. \nXXXX XXXX * Charge-Off Issue : I do not recall this account and have requested full validation, which I never received. I suspect identity theft or reporting error. \nLaw Violated : FCRA 1681i ( a ) ; FDCPA 809.\n\nXXXX  : This account is unfamiliar. Its presence is hurting my credit report, and despite submitting disputes, TransUnion has not deleted or validated it. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Duplicate ) Charge-Off Issue : This is a duplicate charge-off for the same account listed above, falsely inflating my debt. \nLaw Violated : FCRA 1681e ( b ) requires accurate, non-duplicated data. \nXXXX : The same XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account is being reported twice with different balances, which is misleading and impacts my debt-to-income ratio unfairly. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Charge-Off Issue : This account is being reported with a charge-off status without proper validation or consumer notice. \nLaw Violated : FDCPA 809 ; FCRA 1681e ( b ). \nXXXX : I was unaware of any delinquency until I saw the charge-off. XXXX XXXX never contacted me properly, and TransUnion failed to validate the dispute. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Late Payment Issue : Multiple late payments were reported without reflecting the forbearance agreement I had during COVID-related hardship. \nLaw Violated : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) ; CARES Act guidance. \nXXXX  : I submitted proof of forbearance status, but XXXX XXXX and TransUnion refused to update or correct the report accordingly. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Charge-Off Issue : This charge-off is not accurate. I was never notified of default and dispute the total balance. \nLaw Violated : FDCPA 809 ( b ) ; FCRA 1681i. \nXXXX  : I requested validation and account details. No response was given. TransUnion has allowed this to remain despite lack of verification. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Late Payment Issue : These late payments are due to verifiable temporary hardship. Ally did not update my hardship assistance status. \nLaw Violated : FCRA 1681e ( b ) ; 1681i. \nXXXX : I was in contact with XXXX  and provided documents showing hardship. They failed to update the payment schedule or inform TransUnion. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Charge-Off Issue : The charge-off was reported while the account was in dispute and without resolving open concerns.\n\nLaw Violated : FDCPA 809 ; FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ). \nXXXX : I never received an updated account status or validation. TransUnion did not pause reporting during investigation and continues to harm my score. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Late Payment Issue : The payment history is misrepresented. XXXX did not reflect an approved deferral in their report. \nLaw Violated : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ). \nXXXX  : I had a deferred payment plan during financial hardship, which was not honored in credit reporting. This inaccurate data is misleading. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Charge-Off Issue : This charge-off is unvalidated, and I received no final statements or notice prior to reporting. \nLaw Violated : FDCPA 809 ; FCRA 1681e ( b ). \nXXXX : I was making payments and believed the account was in good standing. The charge-off notice came without warning or explanation. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Collection Issue : This debt is unverified and no documentation has been provided upon request. \nLaw Violated : FDCPA 809 ( b ) ; FCRA 1681i. \nXXXX : XXXX is reporting a collection that I am not familiar with, and they have refused to provide itemized details or original account information. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Collection Issue : This collection is likely invalid or already paid, and no verification has been given.\n\nLaw Violated : FDCPA 809 ( a ) ; FCRA 1681e ( b ). \nXXXX : I disputed this collection but never received anything beyond generic statements. This account should be removed unless fully validated. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Collection Issue : XXXX XXXX is reporting this collection without furnishing adequate details or proof of debt ownership. \nLaw Violated : FDCPA 809 ( b ) ; FCRA 1681i. \nXXXX : I have not received any mailed notice from XXXX and believe this may be a re-aged or duplicate account. TransUnion continues to report it without investigation. \nThese multiple inaccurate, unverifiable, and outdated entries are causing irreversible harm to my credit profile, resulting in denial of credit, higher interest rates, and emotional distress. TransUnion has failed to fulfill its duty to maintain accurate data and to conduct timely reinvestigations upon dispute under FCRA 1681i. I request CFPB 's urgent intervention to force TransUnion to : 1. Delete all unverifiable or inaccurate accounts and addresses XXXX. Provide proper validation and documentation for all negative entries XXXX. Cease reporting of disputed accounts until proper verification is completed as required under federal law I demand full investigation and resolution in accordance with my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-08T00:06:47.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"92507","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14511494","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-08T00:00:40.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Law Violated : FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) furnishers must report accurate information ; FCRA 1681i CRA must <em>investigate</em> disputed information. \nXXXX : I was never <em>informed</em> adequately of <em>delinquency</em> before it was reported. I submitted documentation and explained my situation, yet TransUnion refused to re-<em>investigate</em> or correct the payment history."]},"sort":[10.223864,"14511494"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11087255","_score":9.094307,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This was their letter to me : XXXX XXXX XXXX | XXXX, DE | XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX RE : JetBlue Plus Card account ending in XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX : I have received correspondence forwarded to Barclays Bank Delaware ( 'Barclays XXXX ) from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX I understand your concerns about the above-referenced account, and would like to detail the results of my investigation, following our last conversation. \nIn your correspondence, you shared your concerns over a hold that was placed on your abovereferenced account. You also expressed concern that when you tried to book a flight with JetBlue, you were not able to do so. We take security very seriously, and to ensure that actions are not granted to an unauthorized third party, there may be instances when we will need to verify account information. I confirmed that we placed a hold on your above-referenced account on XX/XX/XXXX. On this day, since we were not able to complete an outbound call to verify your transaction attempt with JetBlue, we requested for account-verifying documents, such as a utility bill, drivers license, and a clear front and back copy of your Social Security card with a government seal, or the latest 1040 tax form with your signature. We received documents from you and we were able to accept the utility bill and drivers license ; however, as the Social Security card did not have a government seal on it, we were unable to accept it. When we spoke previously, you advised that you were unable to do your taxes for last year as you were not able to view your statements on line due to the security hold. Per your request, we have mailed your XXXX billing statements to the address on file. When you are able to complete the 1040 tax form, the document can be sent to : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DE XXXX Fax : XXXX Once received, the documents may take 7 to10 business days for processing. If you wish to verify that the documents have been received, you may contact XXXX, Monday through Friday from XXXX to XXXX XXXX. \nIn your correspondence, you also advised that you made a payment for {$200.00} that did not post to your account, which caused your account to become past due. After receiving your recent proof of payment, we were able to locate the payment of {$200.00} and backdated it to the original receipt date of XX/XX/XXXX. Additionally, we have credited back {$4.00} in interest charges, which reflected in your XX/XX/XXXX billing statement. \nYou also shared your concerns over a credit line decrease that occurred on the account. As part of our account-management process, we periodically monitor accounts, as well as overall credit history, and may take action based on this monitoring. I confirmed that on XX/XX/XXXX, we decided to lower your credit line from {$15000.00} to {$3700.00} and we sent a letter to you about this change, which is I have enclosed for your records. As stated in the terms of your Cardmember Agreement, we reserve the right to decrease your credit line at any time, without prior notification. Unfortunately, at this time we would not be able to consider an increase until your overall debt is brought down. \nI understand your concerns regarding your FICO Score ; however, your FICO Score is not modified or validated by Barclays. \nWhen we spoke, you mentioned that you had been affected by Hurricane Milton. You also advised that you were not going to make a payment for two months until your issues had been resolved. At that time, I advised that we could enroll your account in our Payment Relief Program. This program allows you to skip 2 consecutive minimum monthly payments. At this time, you can receive this payment relief only once per account, up to a maximum of 2 months. We will continue to send you billing statements during the enrollment of the program. The minimum payment due will still appear on your statement even though you do not need to make a payment. Interest will continue to accrue in accordance with the terms of your account ; therefore, increasing the account balance. If your account was current, and in good standing, at the time you enrolled in the Payment Relief Program, we will continue to report your account as current to the credit bureaus. If your account was delinquent at the time of enrollment in the program, we will continue to report your account at that stage of delinquency to the credit bureaus. Once your participation in the program ends, you will need to resume making the monthly minimum payment due, according to your account terms. This will include any past due payments that existed at the time we granted you this relief. Your account is now enrolled in this Payment Relief Program. As your account was showing that a minimum payment had not been met for your XX/XX/XXXX, due date, the relief was backdated to cover your XX/XX/XXXX due date and your XX/XX/XXXX, due date. The next payment due will be on XX/XX/XXXX. When you log in to your account online, there is an enrollment banner along with your enrollment end date. \nIn your correspondence, you requested for compensation and points. Respectfully, we decline to honor this request. \nYou also expressed concerns about the possibility that discrimination occurred. We assure you that this is not the case, and that Barclays Bank Delaware fully complies with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as well as all other applicable consumer protection laws. Customer service is very important to us. I'm sorry we did not meet your servicing expectations. \nIf you have questions, please call me at XXXX. My office hours are XXXX XXXX to XXXXXXXX XXXX PT, Monday through Friday. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX of the President Enclosure CC : Consumer Financial Protection Burea And this was my response : Dear XXXX XXXX, I am writing in response to your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. I find the resolution and explanation provided unsatisfactory, as it fails to address the significant issues I experienced with your organization. Below, I outline my concerns in greater detail : ________________________________________ 1. Security Hold and Customer Service Treatment When speaking with your customer service representative, I explained that I could not receive outbound calls due to international travel, as they would either go directly to voicemail or not go through. I asked for alternative verification methods such as a text, a callback, an email, or a verification code. Despite this, the representative, after learning my name and location ( XXXX ), responded with hostility, stating, \" I cant help you, '' and abruptly ended the call. \nFive minutes later, I called again and reached another representative who was initially helpful. This person sent me a verification code, which I provided successfully. However, after being placed on hold, this representative returned with a rude and hostile tone. He informed me that my account access would be blocked, my card would be canceled, and I would need to provide excessive documentation, including : A copy of my passport or drivers license. \nA recent utility bill. \nA front and back copy of my Social Security card. \nThis approach was extreme, especially given that the issue was caused by your system wrongfully declining a JetBlue transactiontwice. Your organizations actions were punitive rather than supportive, and it is unacceptable to subject customers to such treatment while overseas. Furthermore, these demands for documentation far exceeded what was required when the account was opened, and the situation was clearly not related to fraud or a scheme. \n________________________________________ 2. Request for Back of Social Security Card Your letter mentions that my Social Security card was rejected due to the absence of a government seal on it, and you requested a copy of both the front and back of the card. This raises serious concerns about your internal policies, as : The back of the Social Security card is standard for all issued cards and contains no unique information.\n\nOlder Social Security cards were not issued with government seals or stamps. \nThis demonstrates a lack of knowledge or logic within the policies your team is enforcing. Additionally, I was never asked for my most recent signed 1040 tax form during my initial interactions. This demand was introduced later during our phone calls and in your correspondence, further showcasing inconsistency in your procedures. \n________________________________________ XXXX. Rejection of Valid Government-Issued Identification The rejection of my legal, government-issued Social Security card is deeply concerning. As an American citizen, I provided a legitimate document, which your team refused to accept. This action raises a significant red flag about your practices. If your organization refuses to accept American government-issued documents, I believe it calls into question your eligibility to do business in the United States XXXX and I am considering escalating this matter to the appropriate regulatory bodies. \n________________________________________ 4. Delayed Delivery of Billing Statements Your letter states that, per my request, my XXXX billing statements were mailed to the address on file. However, this process took over three months, causing unnecessary delays in resolving my tax filings. Such inefficiency is unacceptable and demonstrates poor customer service. \n________________________________________ XXXX. FICO Score Impact and Credit Line Reduction While you correctly noted that Barclays does not validate or modify FICO Scores, your actions significantly affected my credit. On XX/XX/XXXX, your organization reduced my credit line from {$15000.00} to {$3700.00} without prior notification. This drastic reduction had an immediate negative impact on my credit utilization ratio. \nAdditionally, your team erroneously reported a 30-day delinquency to the credit bureaus due to delays in processing a {$200.00} payment, which was sent via regular mail and cashed by your third-party processor. This delay, caused entirely by your organization, unfairly affected my credit score. \n________________________________________ 6. Payment Relief Program and Credit Reporting When I informed you that I had been affected by Hurricane Milton, you offered enrollment in the Payment Relief Program, allowing me to skip two consecutive minimum payments. You assured me twice, both in writing and over the phone, that the program would cover my XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX due dates, with the next payment due on XX/XX/XXXX. \nDespite these assurances, you reported a delinquent payment for XX/XX/XXXX, causing my credit score to drop by XXXX points. This breach of trust is unacceptable, and your lack of communication has caused further harm to my credit. \n________________________________________ XXXX. Request for Compensation I initially requested compensation for the damages and inconvenience caused by your representatives ' actions and your organizations failures. You declined to honor this request. As a result, I am now compelled to pursue legal action to recover damages and will escalate this matter to ensure accountability, including making it a matter of public record if necessary. \n________________________________________ XXXX. Alleged Discrimination Your letter denies any discrimination, yet the behavior of your representatives raises serious concerns. I will insist on a review of the recorded calls between myself and your representatives to determine whether discriminatory practices occurred. This investigation will also ensure compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and other applicable consumer protection laws. \n________________________________________ I look forward to your timely response. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-09T20:19:10.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32819","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11087255","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","date_received":"2024-12-09T19:42:38.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Interest will <em>continue</em> to <em>accrue</em> in accordance with the terms of your <em>account</em> ; therefore, increasing the <em>account</em> balance. If your <em>account</em> was current, and in good standing, at the time you enrolled in the Payment Relief Program, we will <em>continue</em> to report your <em>account</em> as current to the credit bureaus. If your <em>account</em> was delinquent at the time of enrollment in the program, we will <em>continue</em> to report your <em>account</em> at that stage of <em>delinquency</em> to the credit bureaus."],"sub_issue":["<em>Account</em> status incorrect"]},"sort":[9.094307,"11087255"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11085313","_score":9.08671,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This was their letter to me : XXXX XXXX XXXX | XXXX, DE | XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX RE : XXXX XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX : I have received correspondence forwarded to XXXX XXXX  Delaware ( 'Barclays XXXX ) from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX I understand your concerns about the above-referenced account, and would like to detail the results of my investigation, following our last conversation. \nIn your correspondence, you shared your concerns over a hold that was placed on your abovereferenced account. You also expressed concern that when you tried to book a flight with XXXX, you were not able to do so. We take security very seriously, and to ensure that actions are not granted to an unauthorized third party, there may be instances when we will need to verify account information. I confirmed that we placed a hold on your above-referenced account on XX/XX/XXXX. On this day, since we were not able to complete an outbound call to verify your transaction attempt with XXXX, we requested for account-verifying documents, such as a utility bill, drivers license, and a clear front and back copy of your Social Security card with a government seal, or the latest 1040 tax form with your signature. We received documents from you and we were able to accept the utility bill and drivers license ; however, as the Social Security card did not have a government seal on it, we were unable to accept it. When we spoke previously, you advised that you were unable to do your taxes for last year as you were not able to view your statements on line due to the security hold. Per your request, we have mailed your XXXX billing statements to the address on file. When you are able to complete the 1040 tax form, the document can be sent to : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, DE XXXX Fax : XXXX Once received, the documents may take 7 to10 business days for processing. If you wish to verify that the documents have been received, you may contact XXXX, Monday through Friday from XXXX to XXXX XXXX. \nIn your correspondence, you also advised that you made a payment for {$200.00} that did not post to your account, which caused your account to become past due. After receiving your recent proof of payment, we were able to locate the payment of {$200.00} and backdated it to the original receipt date of XX/XX/XXXX. Additionally, we have credited back {$4.00} in interest charges, which reflected in your XX/XX/XXXX billing statement. \nYou also shared your concerns over a credit line decrease that occurred on the account. As part of our account-management process, we periodically monitor accounts, as well as overall credit history, and may take action based on this monitoring. I confirmed that on XX/XX/XXXX, we decided to lower your credit line from {$15000.00} to {$3700.00} and we sent a letter to you about this change, which is I have enclosed for your records. As stated in the terms of your Cardmember Agreement, we reserve the right to decrease your credit line at any time, without prior notification. Unfortunately, at this time we would not be able to consider an increase until your overall debt is brought down.\n\nI understand your concerns regarding your FICO Score ; however, your FICO Score is not modified or validated by XXXX. \nWhen we spoke, you mentioned that you had been affected by XXXX XXXX. You also advised that you were not going to make a payment for two months until your issues had been resolved. At that time, I advised that we could enroll your account in our Payment Relief Program. This program allows you to skip 2 consecutive minimum monthly payments. At this time, you can receive this payment relief only once per account, up to a maximum of 2 months. We will continue to send you billing statements during the enrollment of the program. The minimum payment due will still appear on your statement even though you do not need to make a payment. Interest will continue to accrue in accordance with the terms of your account ; therefore, increasing the account balance. If your account was current, and in good standing, at the time you enrolled in the Payment Relief Program, we will continue to report your account as current to the credit bureaus. If your account was delinquent at the time of enrollment in the program, we will continue to report your account at that stage of delinquency to the credit bureaus. Once your participation in the program ends, you will need to resume making the monthly minimum payment due, according to your account terms. This will include any past due payments that existed at the time we granted you this relief. Your account is now enrolled in this Payment Relief Program. As your account was showing that a minimum payment had not been met for your XX/XX/XXXX, due date, the relief was backdated to cover your XX/XX/XXXX due date and your XX/XX/XXXX, due date. The next payment due will be on XX/XX/XXXX. When you log in to your account online, there is an enrollment banner along with your enrollment end date. \nIn your correspondence, you requested for compensation and points. Respectfully, we decline to honor this request. \nYou also expressed concerns about the possibility that discrimination occurred. We assure you that this is not the case, and that XXXX XXXX  Delaware fully complies with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as well as all other applicable consumer protection laws. Customer service is very important to us. I'm sorry we did not meet your servicing expectations. \nIf you have questions, please call me at XXXX. My office hours are XXXX XXXX  to XXXX XXXX  PT, Monday through Friday. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX of the President Enclosure CC : Consumer Financial Protection Burea And this was my response : Dear XXXX XXXX, I am writing in response to your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. I find the resolution and explanation provided unsatisfactory, as it fails to address the significant issues I experienced with your organization. Below, I outline my concerns in greater detail : ________________________________________ 1. Security Hold and Customer Service Treatment When speaking with your customer service representative, I explained that I could not receive outbound calls due to international travel, as they would either go directly to voicemail or not go through. I asked for alternative verification methods such as a text, a callback, an email, or a verification code. Despite this, the representative, after learning my name and location ( XXXX ), responded with hostility, stating, \" I cant help you, '' and abruptly ended the call. \nFive minutes later, I called again and reached another representative who was initially helpful. This person sent me a verification code, which I provided successfully. However, after being placed on hold, this representative returned with a rude and hostile tone. He informed me that my account access would be blocked, my card would be canceled, and I would need to provide excessive documentation, including : A copy of my passport or drivers license. \nA recent utility bill. \nA front and back copy of my Social Security card. \nThis approach was extreme, especially given that the issue was caused by your system wrongfully declining a XXXX transactiontwice. Your organizations actions were punitive rather than supportive, and it is unacceptable to subject customers to such treatment while overseas. Furthermore, these demands for documentation far exceeded what was required when the account was opened, and the situation was clearly not related to fraud or a scheme. \n________________________________________ 2. Request for Back of Social Security Card Your letter mentions that my Social Security card was rejected due to the absence of a government seal on it, and you requested a copy of both the front and back of the card. This raises serious concerns about your internal policies, as : The back of the Social Security card is standard for all issued cards and contains no unique information.\n\nOlder Social Security cards were not issued with government seals or stamps. \nThis demonstrates a lack of knowledge or logic within the policies your team is enforcing. Additionally, I was never asked for my most recent signed 1040 tax form during my initial interactions. This demand was introduced later during our phone calls and in your correspondence, further showcasing inconsistency in your procedures.\n\n________________________________________ 3. Rejection of Valid Government-Issued Identification The rejection of my legal, government-issued Social Security card is deeply concerning. As an American citizen, I provided a legitimate document, which your team refused to accept. This action raises a significant red flag about your practices. If your organization refuses to accept American government-issued documents, I believe it calls into question your eligibility to do business in the United States XXXX and I am considering escalating this matter to the appropriate regulatory bodies. \n________________________________________ 4. Delayed Delivery of Billing Statements Your letter states that, per my request, my XXXX billing statements were mailed to the address on file. However, this process took over three months, causing unnecessary delays in resolving my tax filings. Such inefficiency is unacceptable and demonstrates poor customer service.\n\n________________________________________ 5. FICO Score Impact and Credit Line Reduction While you correctly noted that XXXX does not validate or modify FICO Scores, your actions significantly affected my credit. On XX/XX/XXXX, your organization reduced my credit line from {$15000.00} to {$3700.00} without prior notification. This drastic reduction had an immediate negative impact on my credit utilization ratio. \nAdditionally, your team erroneously reported a 30-day delinquency to the credit bureaus due to delays in processing a {$200.00} payment, which was sent via regular mail and cashed by your third-party processor. This delay, caused entirely by your organization, unfairly affected my credit score. \n________________________________________ 6. Payment Relief Program and Credit Reporting When I informed you that I had been affected by XXXX XXXX, you offered enrollment in the Payment Relief Program, allowing me to skip XXXX consecutive minimum payments. You assured me twice, both in writing and over the phone, that the program would cover my XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX due dates, with the next payment due on XX/XX/XXXX. \nDespite these assurances, you reported a delinquent payment for XX/XX/XXXX, causing my credit score to drop by XXXX points. This breach of trust is unacceptable, and your lack of communication has caused further harm to my credit. \n________________________________________ 7. Request for Compensation I initially requested compensation for the damages and inconvenience caused by your representatives ' actions and your organizations failures. You declined to honor this request. As a result, I am now compelled to pursue legal action to recover damages and will escalate this matter to ensure accountability, including making it a matter of public record if necessary.\n\n________________________________________ 8. Alleged Discrimination Your letter denies any discrimination, yet the behavior of your representatives raises serious concerns. I will insist on a review of the recorded calls between myself and your representatives to determine whether discriminatory practices occurred. This investigation will also ensure compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and other applicable consumer protection laws. \n________________________________________ I look forward to your timely response. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-09T20:19:31.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32819","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11085313","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-12-09T20:19:23.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Interest will <em>continue</em> to <em>accrue</em> in accordance with the terms of your <em>account</em> ; therefore, increasing the <em>account</em> balance. If your <em>account</em> was current, and in good standing, at the time you enrolled in the Payment Relief Program, we will <em>continue</em> to report your <em>account</em> as current to the credit bureaus. If your <em>account</em> was delinquent at the time of enrollment in the program, we will <em>continue</em> to report your <em>account</em> at that stage of <em>delinquency</em> to the credit bureaus."],"sub_issue":["<em>Account</em> status incorrect"]},"sort":[9.08671,"11085313"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14479151","_score":8.87723,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is a formal challenge to TransUnions ongoing failure to reinvestigate and correct the inaccurate reporting of my XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX credit card accounts. I am not disputing the existence of these accounts, but rather challenging the following : False and Unverifiable Ownership Claims Improper Billing After Account Closure Deceptive Settlement Practices Misreporting of Payment Activity Failure to Verify Information with Evidence Refusal to Correct or Delete Unverifiable Data XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dispute Investigations Challenged : CFPB Complaint # XXXX Response dated XX/XX/XXXX TransUnion Investigation Results dated XX/XX/XXXX TransUnion Investigation Results XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Despite submitting extensive documentationincluding bank records, settlement communications, and contradictory letters from the furnishers themselvesTransUnion marked both accounts as verified as accurate on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, and issued a vague investigation summary in the XX/XX/XXXX, response to CFPB Complaint # XXXX. This repeated pattern of superficial responses and refusal to correct known inaccuracies violates my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nSupporting evidence previously submitted in full. This complaint includes only updated investigation results, creditor letters, and SEC ownership documents to avoid duplication. \n\nThe issues outlined in this challenge apply to all three reinvestigation attempts, as they reflect a systemic failure by TransUnion to conduct a good faith and meaningful investigation in accordance with FCRA 611 ( a ) and Metro 2 compliance standards. \n\nThe sections that follow will outline specific discrepancies, timeline contradictions, ownership concerns, and regulatory violations supporting my request for full deletion or immediate correction of both accounts. \n\n1. Unverifiable Ownership Supported by SEC Filings ( EX-10.2 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  is not the legal owner of the debts associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts. As shown in the attached Amended and Restated Receivables Sales Agreement ( EX-10.2 ) between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( a subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank hereby agrees to sell, transfer, assign, set-over, and otherwise convey to Receivables Purchaser, without recourse one hundred percent ( 100 % ) of the Receivables generated by Bank EX-10.2, Section 2 ( a ) This agreement confirms : 100 % of credit card receivables are sold by the XXXX XXXX XXXX \nThe sale is without recourse and structured as a true sale, not a secured loan. \nThe Bank retains only servicing duties, not ownership. \n\nAs a result, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  lacks legal standing to furnish tradeline data or pursue settlement collection after sale. Therefore, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX brands under this structureare not legally reporting with verified ownership authority. Any credit reporting after the transfer constitutes a violation of the FCRA and must be corrected. This confirms XXXX, XXXX XXXX nor XXXX XXXX had the authority to credit report or collect on the account and neither entity retains ownership. So what entity verified and or validated this account? \n\nXXXX. Illegally Billing After Account Closure Contradictory letters and billing statements reveal that both XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX continued to charge fees and send billing statements for 6 months after the accounts were officially closed. This is illegal and violates federal consumer protection standards, including the Credit CARD Act and FCRA. \nXXXX XXXX Account closed on XX/XX/XXXX, per creditor response letters. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX continued billing late fees through at least XX/XX/XXXX, disguised as settlement activity. \nTheir XX/XX/XXXX, letter explicitly admits : The fees continued to bill on the unpaid balance correctly.This is legally questionable. Once the account is closed and restricted, the creditor can not bill additional monthly fees unless expressly permitted in a settlement contract, which they refused to provide as stated in all of their letters. \n\nKey Timeline & Amounts : XX/XX/XXXX email : Account balance stated as {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX email : Account balance increased to {$430.00} a {$41.00} increase in under XXXX weeks without explanation XX/XX/XXXX : I paid a total of {$400.00} Remaining amount due ( based on {$430.00} ) : {$34.00}, or at most {$75.00} if you consider the higher balance Despite this, I made additional payments : {$41.00} on XX/XX/XXXX {$50.00} on XX/XX/XXXX Yet on XX/XX/XXXX, I received another email stating I owed {$100.00}, with {$73.00} due to bring the account current. If the account was closed in XXXX how would {$73.00} bring the account current. Internal billing errors do not excuse this abusive behavior. \nXX/XX/XXXX email : Claimed account was past due {$150.00} I paid {$120.00} over the {$75.00} potentially remainingyet continued receiving emails stating I was past due and being forced into an unverifiable settlement arrangement with no written terms, no proof of what the fees represented, and no disclosure of why my balance continued increasing. \n\nSummary : I made four post-closure payments, totaling {$520.00}, on an account they admitted was closed. The additional billing was illegal, lacked transparency, and held no contractual justification. \n\nXXXX XXXX Account closed on XX/XX/XXXX, per creditor response letters. \nYet XXXX XXXX also continued charging fees and requiring payments through XX/XX/XXXX, with the same vague language as XXXX XXXX. \nIn the XX/XX/XXXX, letter, they stated the account continued to bill on the unpaid balance correctly after closuredespite no legal or contractual authority to do so. \nKey Timeline & Amounts : XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance stated as {$440.00} XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance increased to {$450.00} XX/XX/XXXX : I paid {$400.00} Remaining amount should have been no more than {$54.00} {$50.00} payment on XX/XX/XXXX made under pressure from phone agents claiming fees would continue even though the account was closed Yet : XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance claimed was {$160.00}, with {$110.00} due XX/XX/XXXX email : Account reported as {$200.00} past due In total, I paid {$450.00} after closure on an account that shouldve only had a {$54.00} balance. There was no explanation for how balances increased to over {$200.00} after closure. I received monthly billing statements for 7 consecutive months with no activity, and again was never provided with written settlement terms despite multiple requests. \n\nAccording to federal billing standards and the Credit CARD Act, once a credit card account is closed and restricted : No further interest or fees should accrue unless transparently disclosed Creditors can not bill as if the account is still open without violating consumer rights Neither XXXX XXXX XXXXor XXXX XXXX  met these standards. They failed to explain what fees were being charged, how balances increased post-closure, or why settlement terms could not be documented. This pattern of ongoing billing on closed accounts, paired with refusal to provide settlement confirmation, constitutes illegal, unfair, and abusive practices under UDAAP, the FCRA, and the CARD Act. In additional all of this illegal creditor behavior on account they do not have ownership on, but Transunion verified and validated accounts as reporting accurately. All of this was documented in my XX/XX/XXXX CFPB complaint. \n\nXXXX. Contradictory Statements by Furnishers The written responses provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  contain multiple contradictions, making it clear that the information reported to TransUnion was not only unverifiable but based on inconsistent and unreliable records. These contradictions reinforce the conclusion that TransUnion failed to properly investigate under the FCRA. \n\nXXXX. Payment Denial vs. ConfirmationIn the CFPB responses dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX claimed that only a {$55.00} payment had been received, and XXXX XXXX claimed only a {$54.00} payment had been received. However, in subsequent responses dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, both furnishers confirmed that all payments from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX had been received and properly posted. These are the exact payments I referenced in my initial disputes, including the {$300.00} and {$100.00} payments made in XX/XX/XXXX, that they also stated to have never received. \n\nThis directly contradicts their earlier denial of those same payments and clearly demonstrates that their recordkeeping is flawed, and their credit reporting can not be relied upon. TransUnions decision to mark these tradelines as verified based on such conflicting information shows a failure to review or assess the accuracy of the evidence provided by the furnishers. \n\nXXXX. Post-Closure Billing In multiple lettersincluding the XX/XX/XXXX responsesboth furnishers acknowledge that the accounts were closed due to delinquency in XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Despite this, both companies continued to bill fees and send monthly statements well into XX/XX/XXXX. This contradicts their own closure dates and suggests that they improperly treated the accounts as active long after they were legally closed and restricted. The billing of late fees and continued monthly updates during this period is misleading, unlawful, and unsupported by any transparent contractual basis. \n\nXXXX. Settlement Completed After Closure In the XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX letter, the creditor states that the settlement was completed on XX/XX/XXXX. However, they had already confirmed that the account was closed on XX/XX/XXXX. This means they continued billing, collecting, and reporting the account for over seven months after it was no longer open. This timeline is inherently contradictoryan account can not simultaneously be closed and restricted and active and accruing fees toward a settlement. These contradictions show that no accurate or consistent account history exists. \n\nXXXX. Claims of Original Creditor StatusNeither XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  clearly identify XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the original creditor in their CFPB responses. Instead, they repeatedly state that no third party is involved, which is false and misleading by omission. This omission is significant, because it misrepresents the true ownership structure of the accounts and conceals the securitization and sale of the receivables. \nSEC-filed documentationspecifically the Amended and Restated Receivables Sales Agreement ( EX-10.2 ) proves that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sells 100 % XXXX its receivables ( credit card debt ) to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX subsidiary XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, without recourse . The agreement states : Bank hereby agrees to sell, transfer, assign, set-over, and otherwise convey to Receivables Purchaser, without recourse one hundred percent ( 100 % ) of the Receivables generated by Bank EX-10.2 , Section 2 ( a ) This confirms that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  does not retain ownership of the accounts and has no legal standing to furnish derogatory tradelines or collect post-sale. Its role is limited to servicing. Therefore, by failing to acknowledge the role of XXXX or XXXX, and by denying any third-party involvement, the furnishers have provided materially false and misleading information. \n\nThis misrepresentation of ownership and reporting authority directly violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and undermines the legal basis for TransUnions verification of these tradelines. \n\nWhy These Contradictions Are Legally Significant and Undermine Verification Each of the contradictions outlined above represents a direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Credit Reporting Agencies ' duty to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer credit information. According to FCRA 611 ( a ), TransUnion is legally obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of any disputed account. That includes evaluating whether the information furnished is consistent, supported by documentation, and based on accurate account records. None of those conditions were met here. \nThe payment denial vs. confirmation issue proves that furnishers initially misrepresented the facts of payment history. This means material account data was falseyet TransUnion still marked the information as verified, despite having my bank records and the creditors later confirmations that all payments were received. \nThe post-closure billing contradiction shows that both furnishers treated the accounts as active months after closure, billing fees and updating balances. This is not just misleadingit is illegal under federal law, including the Credit CARD Act, which restricts new charges or fees after closure unless properly disclosed and contractually agreed. TransUnion 's failure to question or investigate this ongoing billing activity on closed accounts shows gross negligence in their reinvestigation. \nThe settlement completion after account closure contradiction makes clear that the furnishers were applying settlement terms to accounts that were no longer legally collectible in the same way. The fact that balances were still increasing and being reported as past due months after closure, without written settlement documentation, renders the reporting inherently unverifiable. \nThe claim that no third party was involved, despite clear evidence from SEC documents that all receivables were sold to a third-party entity ( XXXX XXXX ), represents an intentional concealment of the actual creditor structure. This omission invalidates any claim that the furnishersor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ongoing legal authority to report or collect on the debt. The FCRA requires accurate reporting of both account status and ownership, and TransUnion had a duty to investigate the ownership when I provided this documentation. \nGiven these contradictions, TransUnion could not have reasonably verified the accuracy of these accounts without either ignoring or disregarding the conflicting evidence and lack of supporting documentation. Therefore, TransUnion is in violation of FCRA 611, and the continued reporting of these tradelines is unlawful. These accounts must be corrected to reflect their true post-settlement statusor deleted entirely as unverifiable, misleading, and harmful to the consumer. \n\nTransUnion Continued Reporting After Account Closure Violates FCRA Accuracy Requirements Both the XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX accounts were formally closed in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, respectively. This is not speculativeit is clearly documented within TransUnions own credit report entries, which list the closure months explicitly. \nDespite this, TransUnion continued to allow furnishers to report balances, delinquencies, and settlement activity on these closed accounts well into XXXX, with past due statuses and payment updates reflected through XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nMost egregiously, TransUnion allowed : Past due balances to be reported in months when the accounts were already closed Monthly activity updates for accounts with no legitimate post-closure usage Settlement remarks and delinquency notations based on unverifiable, post-closure charges Ongoing tradeline updates without properly marking the accounts as Closed To date, TransUnion has still failed to notate either account as Closed, which creates the false impression that these are active or collectible debts. This is inaccurate and harmful, and it directly contradicts the closure information TransUnion already had on file. \nNothing should be reported on a closed accountespecially not delinquency notations or continued balance updates. Once an account is closed and restricted, it must reflect only its final resolved status. \n\nViolation of FCRA 607 ( b ) Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, TransUnion is legally obligated to : Follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. FCRA 607 ( b ) That obligation does not permit blind reliance on furnishers, especially when : The account is documented as closed No purchases or charges occurred post-closure No written settlement documentation exists The consumer has provided contradictory evidence showing overpayment and incorrect balances By continuing to report : Post-closure delinquency and balance activity Settled status based on no formal agreement Past due amounts for periods when accounts were not even legally billable TransUnion affirmatively misrepresented the nature, status, and accuracy of both accounts. \n\nCRA Liability Is Independent of the Furnisher Even if a furnisher continues sending data after closure, TransUnion is not absolved of its responsibility under the FCRA. Regulatory guidance and case law are clear : a credit reporting agency must : Independently assess whether the data is internally consistent, Confirm that it is factually supported, And determine whether it is legally reportable. \n\nIn this case, none of that occurred. TransUnion ignored the closure dates, overpayment evidence, and contradictory furnisher statements, and chose to continue publishing derogatory data on two accounts that should have been resolved or removed.\n\nTransUnions decision to continue reporting both accounts well into 2024, while knowing they were closed in 2023, is a clear violation of FCRA 607 ( b ). It contradicts their own records, fails to meet basic verification standards, and further confirms that the accounts are inaccurate, unverifiable, and legally reportable only if corrected or deleted entirely. \n\nTransUnions Settled for Less Than Full Balance Remark Is Misleading and Unsubstantiated TransUnion currently reports both the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts with the derogatory remark : SETTLED LESS THAN FULL BALANCE. \nThis is factually inaccurate, legally unsupported, and damaging to my credit profile. The remark implies that I failed to fulfill my repayment obligations when I, in fact, overpaid both accounts based on the actual balances stated at the time of closurenot on the inflated post-closure fees later added by the furnishers. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Overpayment : {$140.00} These are overpayments when measured against the balances provided by the furnishers in their own emails at the time of closure. The only reason the balances later appeared to increase was because unauthorized fees and charges were added post-closure, which I repeatedly disputed as unlawful and unsupported. I did not agree to those fees, nor did I authorize continued billing after account closure. \nAll of this informationincluding my bank statements, creditor emails showing original balances, and objections to the additional feeswas submitted in my initial disputes and was available to TransUnion during their reinvestigation. \n\nTransUnions Verification Failure Despite receiving this supporting documentation, TransUnion : Failed to reconcile the true account balances with the payments made Did not obtain or request any written settlement agreement to justify the settled for less remark Ignored clear evidence that I paid more than what was owed at closure This remark was accepted from the furnisher without verification, despite the fact that the furnishers themselves admitted in their XX/XX/XXXX letters that no settlement letter could be located. \nIn the XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX letter, they stated : Your request for a copy of the letter confirming the settlement terms was reviewed. We do not locate a letter regarding a settlement offer dated XXXX. \nSo how was TransUnion able to verify a settlement occurred, let alone claim it was settled for less, if the creditor couldnt even produce documentation to support it? \nViolation of FCRA and Metro 2 Guidelines Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Metro 2 industry standards, TransUnion is not permitted to : Rely solely on furnisher data that is contradicted by consumer evidence Report settled for less status without written, verifiable settlement terms Ignore overpayment evidence and knowingly furnish inaccurate derogatory remarks This conduct violates : FCRA 607 ( b ) failure to ensure accuracy FCRA 611 ( a ) failure to reinvestigate properly Metro 2 guidelines prohibition on reporting settlement status without documentation 4. Failure to Provide Settlement Letter Despite confirming that I was enrolled in a settlement arrangement, neither XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXr provided a written agreement outlining the settlement terms, payment schedule, or total payoff amount. Instead, they both stated that a settlement letter would only be issued after all payments had been madeleaving me with no written confirmation during the active settlement period. \n\nThis was not a one-time miscommunication. I received multiple settlement offer emails over several months, and I accepted the initial offer because the furnishers kept billing fees on a closed account and refused to stop unless a settlement was reached. However, even after I accepted that first settlement offer, I continued receiving new settlement emails each monthwith different amounts and terms. \n\nWhen I contacted their customer service to ask why settlement offers continued arriving after I had already accepted one, I was told they had no record of ever sending a settlement offer at all. This was deeply concerning. Their denial of the very email offers I received ( and accepted ) led me to request formal documentation proving I was enrolled in a settlementbut they repeatedly refused to provide it, as clearly shown in their CFPB response letters. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : The agent informed you a letter would be sent upon completion of the last settlement payment and to call to confirm it was completed. \nThis left me without any settlement letter during the full payment periodmeaning I had no protection if the terms changed or if they later misapplied payments. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Only XXXX payment of {$54.00} has been received for the settlement... In the absence of any evidence of error in our reporting of the account, we are unable to fulfill the request to remove the account from the credit bureau reports. \nThis statement dismisses the multiple payments I made and my proof of those paymentsand relies on the existence of a settlement they simultaneously deny ever offering or documenting. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : We did not locate a copy of a letter confirming the settlement offer you referenced. \nThis contradicts their earlier acknowledgment that I was in a settlement and further demonstrates their internal records are incomplete, inconsistent, or deliberately withheld. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX ) : On XX/XX/XXXX, you agreed to pay the account for less than the balance and agreed to the amount of {$100.00} ... On XX/XX/XXXX, the settlement was completed, and the remaining balance was written off. \nDespite this acknowledgment of a settlement arrangement and completion, no letter was ever issued confirming the agreed terms, and my repeated requests were either ignored or dismissed. I completed all settlement payments by XX/XX/XXXX, and still received no documentation to reflect this. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Your request for a copy of the letter confirming the settlement terms was reviewed. We do not locate a letter regarding a settlement offer dated XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis is particularly alarming because my payments were made based on that exact offer. Their denial of the agreements existence after accepting the payments reveals a serious procedural flaw or intentional deception. \n\nWhy This Is Deceptive and Legally Problematic The repeated refusal to provide written confirmation of a settlementwhile continuing to bill on a closed account, furnish negative credit data, and send conflicting settlement offersdemonstrates a pattern of deceptive and abusive conduct. \nThis prevented me from : Validating the terms of my agreement Disputing errors with supporting documentation Confirming completion of my obligations Protecting myself from ongoing derogatory credit reporting This conduct violates FCRA, FDCPA, and UDAAP standards by denying me the transparency and documentation I needed to resolve the account. Worse, TransUnion relied on the furnishers undocumented claims to continue verifying negative tradeline data. \nA valid settlement agreement must be documented. If the furnishers can not or will not produce such documentation, the credit reporting must be considered unverifiable and deleted. \n\n\n5. TransUnions Violations of FCRA TransUnion failed to meet its duty under FCRA 611 to : Conduct a reasonable reinvestigation Provide a description of the process Verify the data using competent evidence Delete unverifiable information if the furnisher can not confirm ownership and accuracy Instead, TransUnion relied on data furnishers who issued inconsistent, incomplete, and contradictory responses. \n\nAdditional Section : Why TransUnion 's Verification Was Inadequate and Legally Deficient Despite my submission of clear, documented contradictions and errors, TransUnion closed my disputes dated XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX with claims that no changes were needed or that the items had been verified. This position is not only unsupported by the evidenceit also violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 611 ) and industry standards under Metro 2 guidelines, which require credit reporting agencies to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the data they report. \n\nTransUnions Reporting Confirms the Problem According to the investigation summaries provided by TransUnion : For XXXX XXXX XXXX  TransUnion shows : Account closed : XX/XX/XXXX Last payment received : XX/XX/XXXX Reporting status : Paid, closed ; was 6090 days past due Delinquency listed : 90 days past due in XX/XX/XXXX Remark : \" Settled for less than full balance '' For XXXX XXXX TransUnion shows : Account closed : XX/XX/XXXX Last payment received : XX/XX/XXXX Reporting status : Paid, closed ; was paid as agreed Delinquency listed : 90 days past due in XX/XX/XXXX Remark : \" Settled for less than full balance '' These summaries confirm that TransUnion knowingly accepted and reported post-closure payment activity as settlement payments without requiring proper validation or documentation of the settlement agreements. This is not just carelessit contradicts the FCRAs requirement that data must be verifiable and accurate. \nThe Legal Issues : 1. No Settlement Letter ExistsBoth furnishers refused to provide documentation proving I was under an official settlement arrangement. Without such documentation, TransUnion had no legal or factual basis to verify settled for less status or any associated payment updates. Per FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), CRAs must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate.\n\n2. Account Status vs. Payment Dates ConflictBoth accounts were closed in late XXXX, yet TransUnion shows last payments received in XX/XX/XXXX. This proves that TransUnion accepted ongoing reporting activity on closed accounts, which is a major compliance issue. No explanation was provided as to how payments made 67 months post-closure could lawfully update a closed tradelineespecially without proof of a settlement contract. \nXXXX. Furnisher Contradictions Were IgnoredThe same furnishers that TransUnion relied on to verify these accounts issued multiple CFPB responses that contradict themselves on key points, including : Payment amounts and dates Whether a settlement was ever offered Whether third parties were involved Whether accounts were still being billed post-closure XXXX. TransUnion ignored these contradictions entirely and provided no statement of how they resolved these conflicts before declaring the tradelines verified. \nXXXX. TransUnions Dispute Results Do Not Satisfy FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) I was never provided with : A description of how the reinvestigation was conducted The name, address, and documentation relied on from the furnisher Any explanation of how contradictory or missing information was reconciled Legal Grounds for Immediate Removal Based on the documented record of contradictions, misrepresentations, and TransUnions failure to lawfully reinvestigate or validate the disputed information, the continued reporting of these XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX tradelines is a clear violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Since XXXX, I have consistently provided accurate and detailed documentationincluding payment confirmations, closure notices, and regulatory filingsthat directly refute the furnishers claims. \n\nDespite this, TransUnion has willfully ignored the facts and maintained inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete tradelines, acting in partnership with the furnishers to suppress necessary corrections that would reflect my true credit history. This conduct violates : FCRA 611 ( a ) for failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) for failure to delete or correct information that can not be verified, FCRA 607 ( b ) for failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports, And violates the principles of Metro 2 compliance and the CFPBs guidance on dispute resolution and data accuracy obligations. \n\nGiven the overwhelming evidence that : The furnishers statements are internally inconsistent, The accounts were closed months prior to the reported payment activity, And payments were initially denied, then later acknowledged by the furnishers TransUnion had no legal or factual basis to validate or continue reporting these accounts as accurate or verifiable. \n\nAccordingly, I demand the immediate and permanent deletion of both tradelines from my TransUnion credit file and request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hold TransUnion accountable for its failure to protect consumers from inaccurate and unverifiable credit reporting in violation of federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-06T20:58:45.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14479151","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-06T20:24:03.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["TransUnion ignored the closure dates, overpayment evidence, and contradictory furnisher statements, and chose to <em>continue</em> publishing derogatory data on two <em>accounts</em> that should have been resolved or removed.\n\nTransUnions decision to <em>continue</em> reporting both <em>accounts</em> well into 2024, <em>while</em> knowing they were closed in 2023, is a clear violation of FCRA 607 ( b )."],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[8.87723,"14479151"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14781582","_score":8.775501,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint - FirstTech Federal Credit Union Subject : Complaint Regarding Arbitrary Account Closure, Denial of Hardship Relief, Withholding of Earned Rewards, and Severe Impact on Credit Score and Available Credit Institution Address : First Tech Federal Credit Union Credit Card Correspondence XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, OR XXXX Headquarters / Legal Department : Attn : General Counsel XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXX Corporate Headquarters ( Operations ) : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX OR XXXX Product : Credit Card Account Ending : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX WITHOUT PREJUDICE To Whom It May Concern at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau : This formal complaint is submitted regarding First Tech Federal Credit Unions ( FirstTech ) handling of my credit card account ending in XXXX XXXXXXXX. Their conduct includes : 1. The arbitrary and unexplained closure of a well-managed account ; 2. Repeated denial of hardship relief despite clear documentation of financial distress ; 3. The unlawful withholding of earned rewards ; and 4. Substantial negative consequences to my credit and financial profile as a direct result of these actions.\n\n1. Chronology and Factual Background On XX/XX/XXXX, my FirstTech Credit Card account ending on XXXX XXXXXXXX had an available Credit Limit of {$27000.00} ( Exhibit 1 ) and a history of on-time payments since its opening date on XX/XX/XXXX as stated in a XX/XX/XXXX XXXX  Credit Report ( Exhibit 29 ). \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received an adverse action letter from FirstTech ( Exhibit 2 ) stating that my credit card account was being closed due to \" delinquent credit obligations with others. '' The letter referenced XXXX  but provided no specific account details or derogatory entries. According to XXXX credit file records ( Exhibit 16 ), however, the account was not closed until XX/XX/XXXX, indicating that the XX/XX/XXXX notice was premature and inaccurate, in violation of 12 C.F.R. 1002.9 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( iii ), which requires creditors to issue truthful and timely notice of any adverse action taken on an existing account. This aligned with my FirstTech Credit Card Statement from XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 4 ) which shows {$0.00} in available credit. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a written inquiry through the FirstTech Message Center ( Exhibit 3 ) questioning the basis of the closure and clarifying that I had only experienced a temporary overdraft of one day on one unrelated XXXX XXXX account, which had already been resolved. In that message, I also expressed surprise given my long-standing positive relationship with the institution and requested reconsideration. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 3 ), FirstTech replied not by confirming the XX/XX/XXXX claim of delinquency, but instead offered an entirely different rationale : that the account had been closed as a result of a periodic credit score and account performance review. No mention of delinquency or XXXX  was made. This contradiction directly undermined the factual integrity of the original adverse action letter. \nThen, on XX/XX/XXXX, FirstTech sent a new letter consisting of two pages with conflicting adverse action letters ( Exhibit 5 ). The first page stated that the XXXX notice had included an incorrect adverse action reason and replaced it with a policy-based explanation citing FICO scores below XXXX and institutional cost pressures. The second page of the XX/XX/XXXX letter offered a generic list of credit factors : such as high utilization, short credit history, and recent inquiries, without citing any specific credit report entries. These justifications also referenced an outdated XXXX  XXXX score from XX/XX/XXXX, raising further questions as to the timing, accuracy, and procedural integrity of the decision. \nThe existence of three adverse action letters over two months, each citing a different reason, with contradictory factual timelines, reflects not only a failure to comply with Regulation B, but a lack of transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness.\n\n2. Cascading Credit Damage and Denied Relief 2.1. Available Credit Reduction Impact The abrupt closure of this account triggered a sequence of negative financial events. FirstTechs action resulted in an immediate reduction in my available credit in the amount of {$35000.00}, from {$160000.00} ( Exhibit 17 ) down to {$130000.00} ( Exhibit 18 ) within XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ( 42 days ), which in turn spiked my utilization ratio from 37 % ( which is considered by Credit Reporting Agencies like XXXX, XXXX  and XXXX  to be within the fair or okay range up to 54 % ( which is considered by Credit Reporting Agencies to fall into the high or high-risk zone ). \n\nThis appears to have prompted other creditors to close unrelated accounts, despite my continued good standing. These include : 2.2. Credit Limit Closures Cascade : FirstTech XXXX {$27000.00} - Closed XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 16 ) XXXX - {$8500.00} - Closed XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 31 and Exhibit 32 ) XXXX - {$6000.00} - Closed XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 33 and Exhibit 34 ) XXXX  {$1000.00} - Closed XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 35 and Exhibit 36 ) XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) - {$5500.00} Closed XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 37 and Exhibit 38 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX - {$7500.00} - Closed XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 39 and Exhibit 40 ) o Total Credit Limit Lost : {$55000.00} 2.3. Denied Relief During and After Unemployment Due to financial hardship during my unemployment time from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 6 ), I had to rely on usage of credit cards, use of funds from 401k, IRA and other savings to comply with minimum payments which led to an increase to 79 % in my utilization ratio by XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 28 ), and a further decrease in score by XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 41 ) with an increase in utilization ratio of 96 % during the effort to stabilize my finances ( see Section 2.4 ). \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, two months after starting a new job and having exhausted my whole 401k and Roth IRA to meet my obligations, I submitted multiple internal requests for assistance via FirstTechs secure Message Center ( Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 9 ). I proposed reduced payments, interest-only periods, or structured hardship plans. My efforts were met with generic replies and refusals to communicate in writing, despite my clear request for secure written documentation due to work constraints.\n\n2.4. Ongoing Credit Recovery Attempts and Lingering Damage After securing new employment in XX/XX/XXXX, I initiated an effort to stabilize my finances and recover from the damage caused by the abrupt account closure. However, the elevated interest rates on my remaining credit obligations, particularly on the closed FirstTech account, severely limited my monthly cash flow and made it difficult to regain financial balance. In an attempt to improve my credit utilization and rebuild my profile, I sought additional tradelines through services such as XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, among others and focused on responsible use of the limited revolving credit still available to me. These efforts produced only minimal improvements and did not replace the high-limit revolving capacity that had previously supported my financial stability.\n\nMy XXXX credit score fell from XXXX to XXXX between XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 17 ) and XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 41 ), primarily due to increased utilization following the closure of my {$27000.00} FirstTech account and the subsequent loss of {$55000.00} in total revolving credit capacity across multiple institutions. To quantify the impact of this cascade, I used multiple score simulators. \n\nAt XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which uses the XXXX  VantageScore 3.0 model, paying down {$55000.00} in balances ( Exhibit 46 ) resulted in a XXXX-point increase ( XXXX  to XXXX  ). Increasing credit limits by the same amount ( Exhibit 47 ) produced a smaller XXXX-point increase ( XXXX  to XXXX  ). When both actions were simulated together ( Exhibit 48 ), the score rose XXXX points ( XXXX to XXXX ), confirming that utilization ratio is the driving factor in score suppression.\n\nSeparately, I used the Experian FICO Score Simulator, where a {$55000.00} paydown ( Exhibit 49 ) generated a XXXX-point increase ( XXXX to XXXX ), and a {$35000.00} credit limit increase ( the simulators maximum allowed input ) generated a XXXX-point increase ( XXXX to XXXX ) ( Exhibit 50 ). \n\nThese simulations consistently show that restoring revolving credit capacity significantly improves credit scores. Had FirstTech maintained my account in good standing, my utilization ratio would have remained under 30 percent. Based on typical scoring behavior and these independently generated simulations, my credit score would have reasonably remained near XXXX. In fact, this estimate may be conservative. If the FirstTech account had remained active, I likely would have qualified for lower-interest loans, improved consolidation offers, and lower monthly outflows on other obligations. This would have accelerated my ability to reduce balances across other accounts, further improving utilization and credit score. Instead, I was repeatedly denied credit or offered loan terms exceeding 26 percent APR, leaving me trapped in a compounding cycle of suppressed score, denied access, and punitive interest, all stemming from FirstTechs unilateral closure during my financial recovery.\n\nAlthough my credit score has gradually improved, the damage caused by FirstTechs actions remains the primary obstacle to recovery. My credit report still reflects elevated utilization, significantly reduced available credit, and multiple closed accounts that signal increased risk to lenders. This situation continues to block access to affordable credit, hinder debt restructuring efforts, and trap me in a financially unsustainable cycle that began with FirstTechs decision and their continued refusal to provide any remedy.\n\nThis continuous damage over the months was reflected as follows : 2.4.1. XXXX  Credit Score Damage XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 17 ) XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 18 ) XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 19 ) XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 20 ) XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 41 ) XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 23 ) XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 26 ) XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 27 ) 2.4.2. XXXX  Credit Score Damage : XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 21 ) XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 42 ) XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 24 ) XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 44 ) 2.4.3. XXXX  Credit Scores Damage XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 22 ) XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 43 ) XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 25 ) XXXX  Credit Score XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit 45 ) 3. Rewards Points Withheld Without Justification As of early XXXX, I had accrued XXXX rewards points with an approximate cash value of {$370.00} ( Exhibit 30 page 3 ). Due to my inability to meet the minimum payment on FirstTechs account on XX/XX/XXXX, I immediately attempted to redeem these points in order to meet my payment obligation. FirstTech told me to contact FirstTechs designated vendor, XXXX. At FirstTechs instruction ( Exhibit 10 ), I contacted XXXX directly ( Exhibit 11 ), but was informed that my account no longer appeared in their system. I then followed up with FirstTech multiple times to request resolution, as documented in Exhibit 10. In XX/XX/XXXX, FirstTech confirmed that the rewards had been forfeited due to account closure. \n\nAt no time was I advised verbally, in writing, or through the cardholder agreement that closure of the account would result in automatic forfeiture of accrued rewards. These points had already been earned through completed transactions and constituted a valid, vested asset. FirstTechs refusal to release the rewards value constitutes unjust enrichment and may violate disclosure obligations under federal consumer protection law.\n\n4. Additional Misconduct I was also forced to repeatedly demand access to basic account documentation ( Exhibit 12 ). My Message Center history disappeared from the online portal after XX/XX/XXXX, despite multiple communications occurring before that date. Only after escalating my request did FirstTech reissue the full message history and adverse action notice in XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 08 ). \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX, XXXX, I again submitted a structured hardship proposal including a reduced APR of 9 %, interest-only payment options, and a formal plan for resolution. I received no viable offer ( Exhibit 13 ). \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, FirstTech granted a 2-month payment deferral ( XXXX XXXX ), requiring payments to resume on XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15 ). This deferral was appreciated but did not address the broader financial harm already incurred.\n\n5. Legal Violations 5.1. Ongoing Demand for Interest Without Service FirstTech is currently requiring monthly payments at an interest rate of 15.90 percent ( Protected Purchase Balance ) and 18.00 percent ( Purchases ) with a minimum payment of 2 percent of the balance ( Exhibit 30 ). At the same time, they are providing no functional service. The account is closed. No credit card is active or accessible. No available credit is being reported to the credit bureaus. This damages my credit utilization ratio and overall score. If I stop payments to prioritize other active credit lines, my score will be further harmed. FirstTech is benefiting from interest and repayment obligations while denying all consumer-facing services. This arrangement is one-sided, predatory, and unsustainable.\n\nThis conduct violates several consumer protection laws and regulatory obligations : 5.2. Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) Regulation Z, 12 CFR 1026.9 ( c ) ( 2 ) This regulation requires a creditor to provide written notice of any significant change in account terms affecting open-end credit plans, including credit cards, at least 45 days prior to the effective date. A significant change includes a change to the APR, minimum payment, or repayment structure. The notice must include clear tabular formatting and a summary of the consumers right to reject the changes.\n\n5.2.1. While FirstTech issued a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 2 ), that referenced closure of the account, this letter failed to satisfy the requirements of 12 CFR 1026.9 ( c ) ( 2 ). It did not disclose any changes to repayment structure, failed to present APR terms or minimum payment requirements, included no tabular disclosure, and omitted any explanation of the consumers right to reject or respond. In addition, it relied on inaccurate and conflicting justifications, later contradicted by FirstTechs own subsequent letters ( Exhibit 5 ). Despite materially altering the credit relationship, FirstTech provided no compliant change-in-terms of disclosure and continued charging 15.90 % and 18.00 % interest while requiring 2 % minimum payments on a closed account, absent informed consent.\n\n5.2.2. FirstTech failed to comply with : 5.2.2.1. 1026.9 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( ii ) : Disclosure of changes to APR and repayment terms 5.2.2.2. 1026.9 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( iv ) : Proper formatting and consumer rights disclosure 5.2.2.3. 1026.9 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( v ) : Exceptions do not apply, as this was not a delinquency-based suspension The failure to notify me of these material changes is a direct violation of Regulation Z and deprives me of informed consent to the continued charges and obligations on a functionally closed account.\n\n5.3. Consumer Financial Protection Act - UDAAP Provisions, 12 U.S.C. 5531 Section 5531 ( a ) grants the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau authority to prevent any covered entity from engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ).\n\n5.3.1. Under subsection ( c ), an act is unfair if it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable.\n\n5.3.2. Under subsection ( d ), an act is abusive if it materially interferes with a consumers understanding of terms, or takes unreasonable advantage of a consumers lack of understanding, inability to protect their interests, or reasonable reliance on the institution.\n\nFirstTechs practice of demanding interest payments while providing no card access, no credit reporting benefits, and no explanation for closure constitutes both unfair and abusive conduct. It interferes with the understanding of the credit obligation, and takes advantage of the imbalance of power and information between consumer and creditor.\n\n5.4. Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) The continued imposition of interest charges on a closed credit account that provides no access, functionality, or consumer-facing benefit constitutes an unlawful billing practice under the Fair Credit Billing Act. Once closed, the account no longer operates as an open-end credit plan within the meaning of 12 CFR 1026.2 ( a ) ( 20 ), yet FirstTech continues to assess finance charges as if the account were active and accessible.\n\n5.4.1. Under 15 U.S.C. 1666 ( a ), a creditor must investigate and correct billing errors, including charges not properly imposed. A billing error includes the imposition of a charge for a transaction or service that was never rendered or that the consumer has no ongoing ability to access. By continuing to assess interest on a closed account with no credit availability or usage, FirstTech is in ongoing violation of its duty to ensure fair and accurate billing practices under the FCBA and its implementing Regulation Z ( Subpart B ).\n\n5.5. CFPB Supervision and Examination Manual - Credit Card Account Management 5.5.1. Section IV ( A ) ( 1 ) : Account Closures and Restrictions. Institutions must provide timely and clear notice of account closures and base decisions on reasonable criteria. FirstTech failed to do both.\n\n5.5.2. Section IV ( A ) ( 4 ) : Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ). Servicing closed accounts with high interest while denying all benefits and access constitutes consumer harm.\n\n5.5.3. Section IV ( B ) ( 2 ) : Hardship Programs and Account Assistance. Creditors are expected to offer consistent and reasonable hardship options. FirstTech ignored multiple hardship requests without rationale.\n\n5.5.4. Section IV ( A ) ( 5 ) : Credit Bureau Reporting. Reporting must be accurate and not misleading. Reporting a closed, high-limit account without delinquency damaged my credit score and may constitute a violation.\n\nThis pattern of behavior reveals a systemic disregard for regulatory compliance, transparency, and fairness.\n\n5.6. Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) - 12 CFR 1002.9 This regulation requires creditors to issue timely and specific adverse action notices when closing or reducing access to existing credit accounts.\n\n5.6.1. Under 12 C.F.R. 1002.9 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( iii ), a creditor must notify a consumer of adverse action within 30 days of taking such action, and that notice must accurately describe the action taken. FirstTech issued an adverse action notice dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 2 ), stating that my credit card account had already been closed due to delinquent credit obligations with others. However, XXXX records confirm that the account remained open until XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 16 ), nearly three weeks after the date of the notice. \n\nThis discrepancy shows the XXXX notice was either premature, inaccurate, or both, and therefore fails to satisfy the legal standard for timely and truthful consumer notification.\n\n5.6.2. Compounding this error, FirstTech later issued two additional adverse action letters on XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit 5 ), each contradicting the original. One letter acknowledged that the XX/XX/XXXX4 notice ( Exhibit 2 ) had contained an incorrect adverse action reason, and instead cited a FICO score below XXXX and an internal policy affecting similarly situated accounts ( Exhibit 5 page 1 ). The second letter cited entirely different credit factors, such as high utilization, limited credit history, and excessive inquiries, without referencing the earlier delinquency claim ( Exhibit 5 page 2 ).\n\n5.6.3. The issuance of three conflicting notices over two months, each citing a different rationale, reflects a breakdown in compliance with both the timing requirement under 1002.9 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( iii ) and the specificity requirement under 1002.9 ( b ) ( 2 ). These procedural failures constitute direct violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), 15 U.S.C. 1691 ( d ), and its implementing regulation, Regulation B.\n\n5.6.4. Under 1002.9 ( a ) ( 2 ), the notice must be in writing and must include the action taken, the name and address of the creditor, a statement of rights under ECOA, and either the specific reasons for the adverse action or the consumers right to request them within 60 days.\n\n5.6.5. FirstTech provided no such written notice, no rationale, and no reference to any consumer rights.\n\n5.6.6. Under 1002.9 ( b ) ( 2 ), if reasons are given, they must be specific. Generic references such as internal policy are insufficient. FirstTech gave no explanation whatsoever.\n\n5.6.7. Under 1002.9 ( b ) ( 1 ), the adverse action notice must include a required ECOA disclosure to inform the consumer of their rights and enforcement agency. This was never provided.\n\nThe closure of a {$27000.00} credit line without delinquency, without notice, and without explanation deprived me of any ability to respond or prepare. This is a direct violation of ECOA Regulation B.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-21T09:44:57.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"554XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14781582","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"First Technology Federal Credit Union","date_received":"2025-07-21T09:18:33.000Z","state":"MN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite materially altering the credit relationship, FirstTech provided no compliant change-in-terms of disclosure and <em>continued</em> charging 15.90 % and 18.00 % interest <em>while</em> requiring 2 % minimum payments on a closed <em>account</em>, absent <em>informed</em> consent.\n\n5.2.2."],"issue":["Closing your <em>account</em>"],"sub_issue":["Company closed your <em>account</em>"]},"sort":[8.775501,"14781582"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14476796","_score":8.510225,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is a formal challenge to Equifaxs ongoing failure to reasonably reinvestigate and correct the inaccurate reporting of my XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX credit card accounts. I am not disputing the existence of these accounts, but rather challenging the following : False and Unverifiable Ownership Claims Improper Billing After Account Closure Deceptive Settlement Practices Misreporting of Payment Activity Failure to Verify Information with Competent Evidence Refusal to Correct or Delete Unverifiable Data Supporting evidence previously submitted in full. This complaint includes only updated investigation results, creditor letters, and SEC ownership documents to avoid duplication. \n\nThe issues outlined in this challenge apply to all three reinvestigation attempts, as they reflect a systemic failure by Equifax to conduct a good faith and meaningful investigation in accordance with FCRA 611 ( a ) and Metro 2 compliance standards.\n\nThe sections that follow will outline specific discrepancies, timeline contradictions, ownership concerns, and regulatory violations supporting my request for full deletion or immediate correction of both accounts.\n\n1. Unverifiable Ownership Supported by SEC Filings ( EX-10.2 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not the legal owner of the debts associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts. As shown in the attached Amended and Restated Receivables Sales Agreement ( EX-10.2 ) between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : Bank hereby agrees to sell, transfer, assign, set-over, and otherwise convey to Receivables Purchaser, without recourse one hundred percent ( 100 % ) of the Receivables generated by Bank EX-10.2, Section 2 ( a ) This agreement confirms : 100 % of credit card receivables are sold by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nThe sale is without recourse and structured as a true sale, not a secured loan. \nThe Bank retains only servicing duties, not ownership. \nAs a result, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX lack legal standing to furnish tradeline data or pursue settlement collection after sale. Therefore, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX as brands under this structure are not legally reporting with verified ownership authority. Any credit reporting after the transfer constitutes a violation of the FCRA and must be corrected. \n\nXXXX. Illegally Billing After Account Closure Contradictory letters and billing statements reveal that both XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX continued to charge fees and send billing statements for months after the accounts were officially closed. This is deceptive and violates federal consumer protection standards, including the Credit CARD Act and FCRA. \nXXXX XXXX Account closed on XX/XX/XXXX, per creditor response letters. \nDespite this, XXXX XXXX continued billing late fees through at least XX/XX/XXXX, disguised as settlement activity. \nTheir XX/XX/XXXX, letter explicitly admits : The fees continued to bill on the unpaid balance correctly.This is legally questionable. Once the account is closed and restricted, the creditor should not be billing additional monthly fees unless expressly permitted in a settlement contractwhich they refused to provide. \nKey Timeline & Amounts : XX/XX/XXXX email : Account balance stated as {$390.00} XX/XX/XXXX email : Account balance increased to {$430.00} a {$41.00} increase in under 3 weeks without explanation XX/XX/XXXX : I paid a total of {$400.00} Remaining amount due ( based on {$430.00} ) : {$34.00}, or at most {$75.00} if you consider the higher balance Despite this, I made additional payments : {$41.00} on XX/XX/XXXX {$50.00} on XX/XX/XXXX Yet on XX/XX/XXXX, I received another email stating I owed {$100.00}, with {$73.00} due to bring the account current XX/XX/XXXX email : Claimed account was past due {$150.00} XXXX paid {$120.00} over the {$75.00} potentially remainingyet continued receiving emails stating I was past due and being forced into an unverifiable settlement arrangement with no written terms, no proof of what the fees represented, and no disclosure of why my balance continued increasing. \nSummary : I made four post-closure payments, totaling {$520.00}, on an account they admitted was closed. The additional billing was deceptive, lacked transparency, and had no legal or contractual justification. \nXXXX XXXX Account closed on XX/XX/XXXX, per creditor response letters. \nYet XXXX XXXX also continued charging fees and requiring payments through XX/XX/XXXX, with the same vague language as XXXX XXXX. \nIn the XX/XX/XXXX, letter, they stated the account continued to bill on the unpaid balance correctly after closuredespite no legal or contractual authority to do so. \nKey Timeline & Amounts : XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance stated as {$440.00} XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance increased to {$450.00} XX/XX/XXXX : I paid {$400.00} Remaining amount should have been no more than {$54.00} {$50.00} payment on XX/XX/XXXX made under pressure from phone agents claiming fees would continue even though the account was closed Yet : XX/XX/XXXX email : Balance claimed was {$160.00}, with {$110.00} due XX/XX/XXXX email : Account reported as {$200.00} past due In total, I paid {$450.00} after closure on an account that XXXX only had a {$54.00} balance. There was no explanation for how balances increased to over {$200.00} after closure. I received monthly billing statements for 7 consecutive months with no activity, and againwas never provided with written settlement terms despite multiple requests. \n\nLegal Concern According to federal billing standards and the Credit CARD Act, once a credit card account is closed and restricted : No further interest or fees should accrue unless transparently disclosed Creditors can not bill as if the account is still open without violating consumer rights Neither XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX met these standards. They failed to explain what fees were being charged, how balances increased post-closure, or why settlement terms could not be documented. This pattern of ongoing billing on closed accounts, paired with refusal to provide settlement confirmation, constitutes deceptive, unfair, and abusive practices under UDAAP, the FCRA, and the CARD Act. \n\n3. Contradictory Statements by Furnishers The written responses provided by Total Visa and First Access Visa contain multiple contradictions, making it clear that the information reported to Equifax was not only unverifiable but based on inconsistent and unreliable records. These contradictions reinforce the conclusion that Equifax failed to properly investigate under the FCRA.\n\n1. Payment Denial vs. ConfirmationIn the CFPB responses dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX claimed that only a {$55.00} payment had been received, and XXXX XXXX  claimed only a {$54.00} payment had been received. However, in subsequent responses dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, both furnishers confirmed that all payments from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX had been received and properly posted. These are the exact payments I referenced in my initial disputes, including the {$300.00} and {$100.00} payments made in XX/XX/XXXX, that they also stated to have never received. \n\nThis directly contradicts their earlier denial of those same payments and clearly demonstrates that their recordkeeping is flawed, and their credit reporting can not be relied upon. Equifaxs decision to mark these tradelines as verified based on such conflicting information shows a failure to review or assess the accuracy of the evidence provided by the furnishers. \n\n2. Post-Closure Billing In multiple lettersincluding the XX/XX/XXXX responsesboth furnishers acknowledge that the accounts were closed due to delinquency in XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) and XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ). Despite this, both companies continued to bill fees and send monthly statements well into XX/XX/XXXX. This contradicts their own closure dates and suggests that they improperly treated the accounts as active long after they were legally closed and restricted. The billing of late fees and continued monthly updates during this period is misleading, unlawful, and unsupported by any transparent contractual basis. \n\n3. Settlement Completed After Closure In the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX letter, the creditor states that the settlement was completed on XX/XX/XXXX. However, they had already confirmed that the account was closed on XX/XX/XXXX. This means they continued billing, collecting, and reporting the account for over seven months after it was no longer open. This timeline is inherently contradictoryan account can not simultaneously be closed and restricted and active and accruing fees toward a settlement. These contradictions show that no accurate or consistent account history exists.\n\n4. Claims of Original Creditor StatusNeither First Access nor XXXX XXXX clearly identify XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the original creditor in their CFPB responses. Instead, they repeatedly state that no third party is involved, which is false and misleading by omission. This omission is significant, because it misrepresents the true ownership structure of the accounts and conceals the securitization and sale of the receivables. \nSEC-filed documentationspecifically the Amended and Restated Receivables Sales Agreement ( EX-10.2 ) proves that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  sells 100 % of its receivables ( credit card debt ) to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX, without recourse . The agreement states : Bank hereby agrees to sell, transfer, assign, set-over, and otherwise convey to Receivables Purchaser, without recourse one hundred percent ( 100 % ) of the Receivables generated by Bank EX-10.2 , Section 2 ( a ) This confirms that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  does not retain ownership of the accounts and has no legal standing to furnish derogatory tradelines or collect post-sale. Its role is limited to servicing. Therefore, by failing to acknowledge the role of XXXX or XXXX, and by denying any third-party involvement, the furnishers have provided materially false and misleading information. \nThis misrepresentation of ownership and reporting authority directly violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and undermines the legal basis for Equifaxs verification of these tradelines. \n\nWhy These Contradictions Are Legally Significant and Undermine Verification Each of the contradictions outlined above represents a direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Credit Reporting Agencies ' duty to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer credit information. According to FCRA 611 ( a ), Equifax is legally obligated to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of any disputed account. That includes evaluating whether the information furnished is consistent, supported by documentation, and based on accurate account records. None of those conditions were met here. \nThe payment denial vs. confirmation issue proves that furnishers initially misrepresented the facts of payment history. This means material account data was falseyet Equifax still marked the information as verified, despite having my bank records and the creditors later confirmations that all payments were received. \nThe post-closure billing contradiction shows that both furnishers treated the accounts as active months after closure, billing fees and updating balances. This is not just misleadingit is illegal under federal law, including the Credit CARD Act, which restricts new charges or fees after closure unless properly disclosed and contractually agreed. Equifax 's failure to question or investigate this ongoing billing activity on closed accounts shows gross negligence in their reinvestigation. \nThe settlement completion after account closure contradiction makes clear that the furnishers were applying settlement terms to accounts that were no longer legally collectible in the same way. The fact that balances were still increasing and being reported as past due months after closure, without written settlement documentation, renders the reporting inherently unverifiable. \nThe claim that no third party was involved, despite clear evidence from SEC documents that all receivables were sold to a third-party entity ( XXXX XXXX ), represents an intentional concealment of the actual creditor structure. This omission invalidates any claim that the furnishersor XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ongoing legal authority to report or collect on the debt. The FCRA requires accurate reporting of both account status and ownership, and Equifax had a duty to investigate the ownership when I provided this documentation. \nGiven these contradictions, Equifax could not have reasonably verified the accuracy of these accounts without either ignoring or disregarding the conflicting evidence and lack of supporting documentation. Therefore, Equifax is in violation of FCRA 611, and the continued reporting of these tradelines is unlawful. These accounts must be corrected to reflect their true post-settlement statusor deleted entirely as unverifiable, misleading, and harmful to the consumer. \n\n\nEquifax Continued Reporting After Account Closure Violates FCRA Accuracy Requirements Both the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  accounts were formally closed in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, respectively. This is not speculativeit is clearly documented within Equifaxs own credit report entries, which list the closure months explicitly. \nDespite this, Equifax continued to allow furnishers to report balances, delinquencies, and settlement activity on these closed accounts well into XXXX, with past due statuses and payment updates reflected through XX/XX/XXXX. \nMost egregiously, Equifax allowed : Past due balances to be reported in months when the accounts were already closed Monthly activity updates for accounts with no legitimate post-closure usage Settlement remarks and delinquency notations based on unverifiable, post-closure charges Ongoing tradeline updates without properly marking the accounts as Closed To date, Equifax has still failed to notate either account as Closed, which creates the false impression that these are active or collectible debts. This is inaccurate and harmful, and it directly contradicts the closure information Equifax already had on file. \nNothing should be reported on a closed accountespecially not delinquency notations or continued balance updates. Once an account is closed and restricted, it must reflect only its final resolved status. \nViolation of FCRA 607 ( b ) Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Equifax is legally obligated to : Follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.FCRA 607 ( b ) That obligation does not permit blind reliance on furnishers, especially when : The account is documented as closed No purchases or charges occurred post-closure No written settlement documentation exists The consumer has provided contradictory evidence showing overpayment and incorrect balances By continuing to report : Post-closure delinquency and balance activity Settled status based on no formal agreement Past due amounts for periods when accounts were not even legally billable Equifax affirmatively misrepresented the nature, status, and accuracy of both accounts. \nCRA Liability Is Independent of the Furnisher Even if a furnisher continues sending data after closure, Equifax is not absolved of its responsibility under the FCRA. Regulatory guidance and case law are clear : a credit reporting agency must : Independently assess whether the data is internally consistent, Confirm that it is factually supported, And determine whether it is legally reportable. \nIn this case, none of that occurred. Equifax ignored the closure dates, overpayment evidence, and contradictory furnisher statements, and chose to continue publishing derogatory data on two accounts that should have been resolved or removed. \nConclusion Equifaxs decision to continue reporting both accounts well into XXXX, while knowing they were closed in XXXX, is a clear violation of FCRA 607 ( b ). It contradicts their own records, fails to meet basic verification standards, and further confirms that the accounts are inaccurate, unverifiable, and legally reportable only if corrected or deleted entirely. \n\n\nEquifaxs Verification Failure Despite receiving this supporting documentation, Equifax : Failed to reconcile the true account balances with the payments made Did not obtain or request any written settlement agreement to justify the settled for less remark Ignored clear evidence that I paid more than what was owed at closure This remark was accepted from the furnisher without verification, despite the fact that the furnishers themselves admitted in their XX/XX/XXXX letters that no settlement letter could be located. \nIn the XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX letter, they stated : Your request for a copy of the letter confirming the settlement terms was reviewed. We do not locate a letter regarding a settlement offer dated XXXX. \nSo how was Equifax able to verify a settlement occurred, let alone claim it was settled for less, if the creditor couldnt even produce documentation to support it? \nViolation of FCRA and Metro 2 Guidelines Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Metro 2 industry standards, Equifax is not permitted to : Rely solely on furnisher data that is contradicted by consumer evidence Report settled for less status without written, verifiable settlement terms Ignore overpayment evidence and knowingly furnish inaccurate derogatory remarks This conduct violates : FCRA 607 ( b ) failure to ensure accuracy FCRA 611 ( a ) failure to reinvestigate properly Metro 2 guidelines prohibition on reporting settlement status without documentation 4. Failure to Provide Settlement Letter Despite confirming that I was enrolled in a settlement arrangement, neither Total Visa nor First Access Visa ever provided a written agreement outlining the settlement terms, payment schedule, or total payoff amount. Instead, they both stated that a settlement letter would only be issued after all payments had been madeleaving me with no written confirmation during the active settlement period. \n\nThis was not a one-time miscommunication. I received multiple settlement offer emails over several months, and I accepted the initial offer because the furnishers kept billing fees on a closed account and refused to stop unless a settlement was reached. However, even after I accepted that first settlement offer, I continued receiving new settlement emails each month with different amounts and terms. \n\nWhen I contacted their customer service to ask why settlement offers continued arriving after I had already accepted one, I was told they had no record of ever sending a settlement offer at all. This was deeply concerning. Their denial of the very email offers I received ( and accepted ) led me to request formal documentation proving I was enrolled in a settlement but they repeatedly refused to provide it, as clearly shown in their CFPB response letters. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : The agent informed you a letter would be sent upon completion of the last settlement payment and to call to confirm it was completed. \nThis left me without any settlement letter during the full payment period meaning I had no protection if the terms changed or if they later misapplied payments. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Only one payment of {$54.00} has been received for the settlement... In the absence of any evidence of error in our reporting of the account, we are unable to fulfill the request to remove the account from the credit bureau reports. \nThis statement dismisses the multiple payments I made and my proof of those payments and relies on the existence of a settlement they simultaneously deny ever offering or documenting. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : We did not locate a copy of a letter confirming the settlement offer you referenced. \nThis contradicts their earlier acknowledgment that I was in a settlement and further demonstrates their internal records are incomplete, inconsistent, or deliberately withheld. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : On XX/XX/XXXX, you agreed to pay the account for less than the balance and agreed to the amount of {$100.00} ... On XX/XX/XXXX, the settlement was completed, and the remaining balance was written off. \nDespite this acknowledgment of a settlement arrangement and completion, no letter was ever issued confirming the agreed terms, and my repeated requests were either ignored or dismissed. I completed all settlement payments by XX/XX/XXXX, and still received no documentation to reflect this. \n\nFrom XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Your request for a copy of the letter confirming the settlement terms was reviewed. We do not locate a letter regarding a settlement offer dated XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis is particularly alarming because my payments were made based on that exact offer. Their denial of the agreements existence after accepting the payments reveals a serious procedural flaw or intentional deception. \n\nWhy This Is Deceptive and Legally Problematic The repeated refusal to provide written confirmation of a settlementwhile continuing to bill on a closed account, furnish negative credit data, and send conflicting settlement offersdemonstrates a pattern of deceptive and abusive conduct. \nThis prevented me from : Validating the terms of my agreement Disputing errors with supporting documentation Confirming completion of my obligations Protecting myself from ongoing derogatory credit reporting This conduct violates FCRA, FDCPA, and UDAAP standards by denying me the transparency and documentation I needed to resolve the account. Worse, Equifax relied on the furnishers undocumented claims to continue verifying negative tradeline data. \nA valid settlement agreement must be documented. If the furnishers can not or will not produce such documentation, the credit reporting must be considered unverifiable and deleted. \n\n5. Equifaxs Violations of FCRA Equifax failed to meet its duty under FCRA 611 to : Conduct a reasonable reinvestigation Provide a description of the process Verify the data using competent evidence Delete unverifiable information if the furnisher can not confirm ownership and accuracy Instead, Equifax relied on data furnishers who issued inconsistent, incomplete, and contradictory responses. \n\nWhy Equifax 's Verification Was Inadequate and Legally Deficient Despite my submission of clear, documented contradictions and errors, Equifax closed my disputes with claims that no changes were needed or that the items had been verified. This position is not only unsupported by the evidenceit also violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 611 ) and industry standards under Metro 2 guidelines, which require credit reporting agencies to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the data they report. \nKey Errors in XXXX Verification : 1. {$400.00} XX/XX/XXXX Payment Not Reflected on Either Account I made {$400.00} in total payments across these two accounts in XX/XX/XXXX. \nThese payments are missing from both tradelines in Equifaxs updated investigation results. \nThe account histories fail to reflect these payments, and there is no update showing a balance reduction, paid status, or accurate application of payments in XXXX. \n\nIf Equifax had truly verified this information with the original furnisher, these XX/XX/XXXX payments would have been included in the payment history. \n\n2. Continued Reporting of Scheduled Payments and Past Due Balances AFTER Account Closure The XXXX XXXX  account was closed in XX/XX/XXXX, and XXXX XXXX was closed in XX/XX/XXXX. \nYet Equifax continues to report scheduled payments, due dates, and past due balances well into XXXX for both accounts. \nFor example, both reports show activity dated through XX/XX/XXXX, which is 78 months after the official account closure. \n\nAccording to Metro 2 reporting standards and FCRA 607 ( b ), no payment activity should appear after the closure date, and no pay status should be reported as Pay As Agreed on a closed account. \n\nXXXX. Equifax Contradicts Its Own Data Equifaxs investigation results confirm the accounts were closed in late XXXX, yet the updated reports include : Scheduled Payment Amounts of {$41.00} each Next Payment Due Dates of XX/XX/XXXX Pay Status as Pay As Agreed instead of Paid/Closed or Closed/Paid Settled This is internally contradictory : Equifax acknowledges the closure date, but still reports the accounts as active and delinquent into XXXX. \n\n4. No Explanation or Verification Details Provided Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ), Equifax is required to provide : A description of the reinvestigation process ; The name and contact details of the furnisher ; And the documentation used to verify the disputed information. \n\nEquifaxs response included none of this information and simply stated the item was updated without showing any substantive correction or reconciliation with the actual payment history I provided. \n\nThese summaries confirm that Equifax knowingly accepted and reported post-closure payment activity as settlement payments without requiring proper validation or documentation of the settlement agreements. This is not just carelessit contradicts the FCRAs requirement that data must be verifiable and accurate. \nThe Legal Issues : 1. No Settlement Letter ExistsBoth furnishers refused to provide documentation proving I was under an official settlement arrangement. Without such documentation, Equifax had no legal or factual basis to verify settled for less status or any associated payment updates. Per FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), CRAs must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate.\n\n2. Account Status vs. Payment Dates ConflictBoth accounts were closed in late XXXX, yet Equifax shows last payments received in XX/XX/XXXX. This proves that Equifax accepted ongoing reporting activity on closed accounts, which is a major compliance issue. No explanation was provided as to how payments made 67 months post-closure could lawfully update a closed tradelineespecially without proof of a settlement contract. \n3. Furnisher Contradictions Were IgnoredThe same furnishers that Equifax relied on to verify these accounts issued multiple CFPB responses that contradict themselves on key points, including : Payment amounts and dates Whether a settlement was ever offered Whether third parties were involved Whether accounts were still being billed post-closure 4. Equifax ignored these contradictions entirely and provided no statement of how they resolved these conflicts before declaring the tradelines verified. \n5. Equifaxs Dispute Results Do Not Satisfy FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 7 ) I was never provided with : A description of how the reinvestigation was conducted The name, address, and documentation relied on from the furnisher Any explanation of how contradictory or missing information was reconciled Legal Grounds for Immediate Removal Based on the documented record of contradictions, misrepresentations, and Equifaxs failure to lawfully reinvestigate or validate the disputed information, the continued reporting of these XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX tradelines is a clear violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Since XXXX, I have consistently provided accurate and detailed documentationincluding payment confirmations, closure notices, and regulatory filingsthat directly refute the furnishers claims. \n\nDespite this, Equifax has willfully ignored the facts and maintained inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete tradelines, acting in partnership with the furnishers to suppress necessary corrections that would reflect my true credit history. This conduct violates : FCRA 611 ( a ) for failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation, FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) for failure to delete or correct information that can not be verified, FCRA 607 ( b ) for failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports, And violates the principles of Metro 2 compliance and the CFPBs guidance on dispute resolution and data accuracy obligations. \n\nGiven the overwhelming evidence that : The furnishers statements are internally inconsistent, The accounts were closed months prior to the reported payment activity, And payments were initially denied, then later acknowledged by the furnisher. \n\nEquifax had no legal or factual basis to validate or continue reporting these accounts as accurate or verifiable. \n\nAccordingly, I demand the immediate and permanent deletion of both tradelines from my Equifax credit file and request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hold Equifax accountable for its failure to protect consumers from inaccurate and unverifiable credit reporting in violation of federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-06T22:33:30.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"483XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14476796","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-06T22:20:30.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Nothing should be reported on a closed accountespecially not <em>delinquency</em> notations or <em>continued</em> balance updates. Once an <em>account</em> is closed and restricted, it must reflect only its final resolved status."],"issue":["Problem with a company's <em>investigation</em> into an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[8.510225,"14476796"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20701516","_score":8.421215,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, Exeter Finance LLC transmitted a four-page Payment Extension Agreement offering to extend XXXX scheduled payments originally due XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, respectively. This agreement advances the loan 's maturity date from XXXX/XXXX/XXXX to XXXX/XXXX/XXXX and, by Exeter 's own written admission, imposes an estimated additional cost of {$1700.00} on the consumer, increasing the projected final payment from {$6300.00} to {$8100.00}. This constitutes a material modification of a consumer credit contract governed by the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 1026. Exeter issued this modification agreement without providing any of the redisclosures required by federal law. I am a XXXX  consumer and respectfully request that the CFPB forward this complaint to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX, which independently regulates Exeter Finance 's lending operations in this state.\n\nThe most foundational violation in this agreement is Exeter 's failure to redisclose material credit terms upon modification as required by Regulation Z 1026.20. When a creditor makes a material change to the terms of an existing closed-end consumer credit transaction including any change to the payment schedule or maturity date it is required to furnish the consumer with a new, complete TILA disclosure statement reflecting the updated annual percentage rate, finance charge, amount financed, and total of payments. The Payment Extension Agreement contains none of these disclosures. There is no TILA disclosure box anywhere in the four-page document. The dollar cost of the extension appears only in narrative form, buried in the body of a cover letter, with no APR computation, no updated total-of-payments figure, and no formatting compliant with 12 C.F.R. 1026.18. This is a facial violation of federal law that is plainly visible from the face of the attached document. \nClosely related to that failure is Exeter 's inadequate disclosure of the finance charge itself. Although the agreement acknowledges in narrative language that interest will continue to accrue on the unpaid principal balance on a daily basis throughout the extension period and that all such accrued interest will be applied to the account before any principal reduction resumes Exeter never quantifies this interest in the form of a finance charge as required by 15 U.S.C. 1638 ( a ) ( 3 ) and Regulation Z 1026.18 ( d ). Stating in a letter that the estimated cost is \" {$1700.00} '' does not satisfy the statutory requirement to express the finance charge as a specific dollar amount in a clearly labeled, conspicuous TILA disclosure. Narrative cost disclosures embedded in letter text fall well below the clear and conspicuous standard mandated by 12 C.F.R. 1026.17 ( a ), and Exeter 's treatment of this figure does not come close to meeting it. \nExeter 's failure to disclose any impact on the annual percentage rate compounds these violations. The extension materially increases the total finance charge and restructures the payment schedule in ways that directly affect the effective APR of the underlying loan. Under 15 U.S.C. 1638 ( a ) ( 4 ) and Regulation Z 1026.18 ( e ), any material modification must be accompanied by a recalculated APR disclosure. No such disclosure appears anywhere in this agreement. The consumer is left with no ability to compare the true cost of accepting this extension against any alternative course of action, because the APR impact has been entirely omitted. This is simultaneously a TILA violation and a deceptive omission under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5531, because a consumer reading this document can not determine what they are actually agreeing to pay. \nThe most abusive provision in this agreement is found on page XXXX under the heading \" RELEASE. '' As a non-negotiable condition of receiving the payment extension, Exeter requires the consumer to release and hold harmless Exeter Finance LLC, its affiliates, officers, directors, employees, agents, successors, and assigns from any and all claims, actions, and causes of action arising out of or in any way connected with the Agreement or Exeter 's servicing of the Agreement, through the date of this Payment Extension Agreement. This provision requires the consumer to waive all legal claims including TILA claims in exchange for a modification to a loan the consumer is already a party to. This constitutes an unfair, deceptive, and abusive act or practice under 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ) for several independent reasons. First, it is presented in fine print without conspicuous disclosure or any opportunity for independent negotiation. Second, the consumer is given no meaningful ability to accept the extension without simultaneously surrendering all legal claims. Third, and most critically, TILA rights may not be waived by private contract 15 U.S.C. 1638 ( a ) provides statutory protections that exist as a matter of federal law and can not be contracted away. Conditioning a credit modification on the surrender of those rights is per se unenforceable and constitutes an independently actionable UDAAP violation. Fourth, the release is being extracted at a moment of deliberate financial vulnerability the extension is offered precisely because the consumer 's payments are overdue making the coercive dynamic of this provision particularly egregious under the abusiveness prong of 1031 ( d ).\n\nThe ten-day expiration deadline attached to the agreement reinforces the abusive character of these omissions. The agreement states it expires XXXX days from the XX/XX/XXXX date of notice, creating a deadline of approximately XX/XX/XXXX. This compressed window, combined with the total absence of legally required APR and finance charge disclosures, denies the consumer any meaningful opportunity to consult counsel, compare the effective cost of the extension against alternatives, or evaluate the full scope of the release provision before signing. The CFPB 's own commentary on Regulation Z 1026.20 contemplates that consumers be given a reasonable opportunity to evaluate material modifications to their credit terms. A ten-day deadline is not a reasonable opportunity when the consumer lacks the very disclosures federal law requires to make an informed decision. \nThe Payment Extension Agreement contains state-specific consumer notices for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX residents on pages XXXX and XXXX, but contains no corresponding notice for California residents XXXX despite the consumer 's mailing address on the face of the agreement being clearly identified as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX imposes disclosure and fairness obligations on licensees servicing XXXX  consumers, and Exeter 's omission of any XXXXspecific consumer rights notice while including notices for XXXX other states raises an independent question of whether Exeter is providing XXXX consumers with the protections they are entitled to under state law. \nI further advise the CFPB that I was compelled to execute this agreement under protest and under financial duress. My signature on the Payment Extension Agreement bears the notation \" signed under protest due to need for payment relief, '' which reflects the coercive circumstances under which Exeter extracted execution of this document. The agreement was signed solely because of the immediate financial necessity of securing payment relief, not as a voluntary or informed acceptance of its terms. The Release provision on page XXXX is expressly rejected as void and unenforceable, and execution of the agreement should not be construed as a waiver of any claims against Exeter Finance LLC. This directly illustrates the abusive dynamic described above Exeter structured this agreement knowing that consumers in payment distress have no practical choice but to sign, making the embedded release of claims not merely deceptive but coercive as a matter of law under the abusiveness prong of 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ). A consumer who must choose between signing away all legal rights or losing their vehicle is not exercising a meaningful choice, and that is precisely the population Exeter 's standardized extension agreement is designed to reach. \nI further note that Exeter Finance LLC 's own online account document portal reflects a gap in the document history that is independently relevant to this complaint. The portal displays a complete record of monthly billing statements dating back to at least XX/XX/XXXX, as well as a Delinquency Cures notice dated XX/XX/XXXX, yet conspicuously omits a prior payment extension agreement that was previously executed by this consumer. The absence of that prior executed extension from Exeter 's document record raises serious concerns about record retention, document integrity, and whether the terms of that prior extension were properly disclosed and preserved. I respectfully request that the CFPB require Exeter Finance LLC to produce the complete document history for this account, including all executed extension agreements, as part of any investigation into this complaint.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-27T00:50:02.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"91745","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20701516","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Exeter Finance, LLC.","date_received":"2026-03-27T00:21:00.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with fees charged"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Although the agreement acknowledges in narrative language that interest will <em>continue</em> to <em>accrue</em> on the unpaid principal balance on a daily basis throughout the extension period and that all such <em>accrued</em> interest will be applied to the <em>account</em> before any principal reduction resumes Exeter never quantifies this interest in the form of a finance charge as required by 15 U.S.C. 1638 ( a ) ( 3 ) and Regulation Z 1026.18 ( d )."]},"sort":[8.421215,"20701516"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6711637","_score":6.6381197,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing this complaint against SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union and it's Loss Mitigation Department in response to their abusive and negligent loan servicing practices. Despite the length of this complaint, it is by no means a comprehensive accounting of my experience and I am willing to elaborate and/or provide additional documentation if requested.\n\nAfter falling behind on my mortgage due to a COVID related hardship, I was contacted by a representative from SchoolsFirst who recommended enrolling into their COVID-19 Forbearance program. I was initially hesitant at the idea of a lump sum payment, but agreed after being reassured that I would have multiple options upon conclusion of the forbearance such as a forbearance extension, reduced monthly payments via a loan modification, as well as a deferral. Prior to this hardship I had maintained over 200 consecutive mortgage payments that spanned 12 years of owning one home and six years of owning two homes. Having never been in this sort of situation before, I felt that I could trust SchoolsFirst and appreciated their offer of a reprieve. \n\nAs my forbearance was drawing to a close, SchoolsFirst once again reached out to me to discuss my options. I remember this call vividly because it was such an unusual occurrence for them to contact me through my work number. We discussed my intention to remain in forbearance for the full year with an expected start payment date of XXXX XXXX XXXX, as well as the plan to defer the past due amount. Upon the conclusion of the extended forbearance I resumed making my regular monthly payment. After encountering an issue with making the payment in the third month, I called SchoolsFirst and was informed that my payment had been refused because I had a past due balance of over XXXX XXXX  dollars, which was due in full. I recalled the plan that we had discussed in the fall of XXXX  at which point SchoolsFirst informed me that a deferral was not something that was granted automatically as the forbearance had been, and that I needed to process the paperwork. Although I was alarmed to learn that the suspended payments had not been deferred like I'd been led to believe, I was told not to worry because they would work with me to restructure any arrearage once I'd submitted my application.\n\nIt then took several weeks for their application packet to arrive in the mail in spite of their claims that they had already sent it out multiple times. The weeks evolved into months (and eventually years) of an endless cycle of my application being denied any sort of consideration, and returned to me as \"incomplete\". Reasons for being deemed \"incomplete\" included but were not limited to: Document not received (even though I had confirmations of receipt),  expired documents required resubmittal (among them documents with no expiration date and documents that had not expired, such as a w-2 form in XXXX), document missing a signature (it was not) (see attachment 1), incorrect form entirely (even though they were the ones who had provided the form to me in the first place), and the list goes on. I was repeatedly required to submit documentation that I'd already resubmitted multiple times. On more than one occasion they claimed they hadn't received the required \"missing\" documentation in time, closing out my application, and forcing me to start the application process all over again.  At the same time I was also inundated with a barrage of (what I would describe in retrospect as) XXXX  from SchoolsFirst which appeared to not be written with any context whatsoever, as they would request that I submit an entirely new application from scratch (along with requesting the exact same information and documentation all over again), as if that had been our very first and only communication thus far. These letters would also ignore any of the phone call transactions I'd had with them during that time. This all served to further confound my understanding of where I was at in the process, and what was being asked of me, thus hindering my ability to jump through their absurd hoops. \n\nAccording to SchoolsFirst, they are the owner, assignee, and servicer of my loan. Despite the fact that SchoolsFirst provides services exclusively to California, they contract with a New Jersey-based third party subservicer. SchoolsFirst uses this distance as an excuse for the delay in sending and receiving time-sensitive mail. It would often take several weeks for them to notify me in writing of whatever new barrier existed now. Considering today's technology, their decision to utilize antiquated methods of communication like this speaks volumes. This is all undoubtedly by design, as it had originally taken only one phone call with an incomplete application for SchoolsFirst to agree to \"assist\" me with a forbearance in the first place. And of course when I initially applied for the loan, and when I opened a Home Equity Line of Credit on my home I was immediately notified through a Single Point of Contact via direct phone call and/or email- of exactly what was missing and exactly what they still needed, even going so far as to meet me in person to retrieve these documents. Naturally the severity of my delinquency, my perceived creditworthiness, and the fate of my home (my most valuable asset and investment to date), have been held as a hostage along a timeline that SchoolsFirst has moved forward only to their benefit and at their leisure. \n\nI had eventually begun calling Loss Mitigation almost daily, sometimes multiple times throughout the day just to check on the status of my application. I learned to take every conversation with a grain of salt, as the sheer volume and scope of the downright lies, misinformation, and misrepresentations I've been provided from one representative to the next has been truly inconceivable. Among the representatives I have spoken to I have been: yelled at, hung up on, lied to, told that there is simply nothing that they can do to help me and to just \"sit tight\", spoken to in a condescending manner, left on hold for an obscene amount of time often just to be hung up on anyway, and my personal favorite- being hung up on and (when I called back) finding out my file had been notated as a \"Spanish-Speaker only\". Information I have been given has varied between unhelpful, incorrect, inconsistent, and illegal. For example, one of the more innocuous lies I'd been told was that my actual lender was XXXX XXXX. According to XXXX XXXX and SchoolsFirst, it is not. \n\nEven when these agents were competent enough to understand the issue at hand, or considerate enough to pretend like they cared, there was still no point in talking to them because they did not have any decision making authority. They had no ability to rectify errors, and they could not (or would not) transfer you to anyone who did. On more than one occasion I requested to be provided a Single Point of Contact under the California Homeowner Bill Of Rights. In response I was either outright refused, ignored, or told that they were simply unable to transfer me. During one phone call in particular I spoke with a lady who specifically introduced herself as my Single Point of Contact. When I requested to be transferred to her in a subsequent phone call, I was told that I could not be transferred, and I have never heard from that woman again. \n\nIn fact, there was no escalation process. Their scam is to hide behind a seemingly incompetent and undertrained call center that is ultimately incapable of providing accurate information, and incapable of providing any actual assistance to distressed homeowners. I've had to take off what's amounted to weeks from work in an attempt to find a resolution on this matter (being restricted to east coast business hours while living in a west coast time zone has made this all the more difficult). A review of two months of cell phone bills showed that I had called in 27 times and spent 343 minutes on the phone in that span alone. And yet my time has just been wasted away while on the phone for hours, with no resolution in sight. \n\nFor a while I could not even figure out who my servicer was because that answer varies depending on who you ask or which documents you're looking at. The information is obfuscated by the fact that SchoolsFirst misleads their borrowers by referring to their third party subservicer as simply their \"Loss Mitigation Department\". It took some time (over two years) and some serious investigating just for me to even figure out that I was dealing with two entirely different businesses because both businesses claim only one name. I have only ever received mail from \"SchoolsFirst\" and never \"XXXX\" even when the letter has indeed been sent by XXXX. XXXX  employees specifically introduce themselves as SchoolsFirst employees (despite the fact that their company exists on the opposite side of the country). Its not just via telephone conversations; they do this on legal documents as well. The woman who filed the Substitution Of Trustee appointing XXXX XXXX XXXX as the new trustee for my loan- swore to a notary in Missouri that she was the \"Vice President Document Execution\" for \"SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union\". Yet this same woman represented herself with the exact same title in the Notice of Default that was recorded in my county in California, but instead working for \"XXXX XXXX, servicer for SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union (see attachments 2 and 3). Another person I spoke with refused to even confirm whether he worked for XXXX  or SchoolsFirst. They would not confirm which company they worked for, and yet SchoolsFirst both gives free access to and forces me to furnish private and confidential information to every random work-from-home low level call center employee who picks up the call, just to get information on my own loan. Their misrepresentations have made it nearly impossible to know who it is I should be in contact with and who it is that I have been in contact with. \n\nTheir fraudulent and obscured identity has also made it easier for SchoolsFirst to provide varying degrees of conflicting information, and nobody to be held accountable. One example of this was on one occasion in particular I had called Loss Mitigation while at my wits end, wanting answers to a myriad of questions, and during this conversation I received the following information (information in italics) which contradicted the information I had been given previously: The forbearance I had been granted had been a \"regular\" forbearance. I had not been granted a \"COVID forbearance\" because my \"hardship did not qualify.\". (Prior to this I had no idea that there was more than one type, I've since been told that there isn't, and I'm still not sure where the truth is in either of those statements. None of the CARES act had applied to me because my loan was/is not federally backed, and therefore my loan had not been protected under any state or federal guidelines. Learning that I did not have a federally backed loan was both shocking and infuriating as this was in direct conflict with what I had been previously told by another agent and with what SchoolsFirst had communicated in writing. These communications were therefore intentionally misleading, as they had made it very clear to me at the time that I did in fact have a federally backed loan (see attachments 4,5 and 6). It was during this conversation that I was informed for the first time that the forbearance I had entered into had only been for a total of 3 months (XXXX XXXX and XXXX of XXXX), not for the year as we had discussed. According to their records, the phone call I had with Loss Mitigation in which I extended the forbearance never happened. While I am unable to retrieve my employer's phone records from nearly 3 years ago, I have attached the loan statement that had been prepared in the month following what would have been the end of the forbearance that clearly stated You accepted a forbearance. (see attachment 7). After being confronted with this shocking disregard for any truth, I requested an investigation into the recordings of my conversations. I was initially told that they do not keep recordings. I've since been told that they only keep up to six months worth of recordings. These conversations took place two and a half years ago.\n\nI was recently provided a copy of the Loan Activity correspondence between Loss Mitigation and I. I've attached a few of those excerpts to this complaint (See attachments 8, 18, and 31). It serves as a window, but it is not complete. This is because the \"complete\" report omits information, and omits entire conversations such as the one in which I extended the forbearance (as well as others that can be substantiated through my cell phone records). For example, it logs numerous attempts to call me often followed by \"customer hung up\", but omits that when these calls actually did occur, they were in fact robocalls that did not lead to a live person, but instead an automated message informing me to call SchoolsFirst. Each time I would return the call, the agent would have no idea why I'd been told to call. There were several instances upon which I would receive this notice mere minutes before the close of business, which left me no time to call back even if I'd wanted to. I thought this was a particularly cruel sort of call to receive, as I was already being held captive in a desperate and indefinite state of worry and XXXX  over my home. The notes also log their attempts to contact me via email, but they omit how I cannot view whatever was written in that email because my \"account status\" prevents it. There are also several notations on there that are very clearly not related to me. For example on XXXX \"POSTDATED CHECK.. TAD XXXX MADE PMNT XXXX DATED FOR FRIDAY XXXX RFD LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT THANK YOU FOR CALLING BCU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR MEMBERSHIP\" (see attachment 8). I do not own checks; its XXXX  for Gods sake. I have never owed nor paid specifically XXXX to SchoolsFirst, I have never even heard of XXXX, and I have never  been let go from my place of employment. While this meticulous record keeping has nothing to do with me, perhaps they should find and review the notes of the person who wrote that post dated check (if they even exist) to see if my notes are with theirs.\n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, over a year after I had exited the forbearance, I finally received a letter from SchoolsFirst which stated, \"A review on XXXX determined the application is complete and no further information is needed at this timeWe will not initiate any foreclosure actions or proceedings by sending first notice or filing first legal documents until your complete assistance package has been evaluated.\" (see attachment 9). The following day, like a sick joke, I received another letter from SchoolsFirst which stated \"Please be informed your mortgage loan has been referred for foreclosure proceedings. We did not receive a response to the previous letters we sent regarding foreclosure prevention alternatives, but if you are still interested, it is not too late\" (see attachment 10). I received two additional letters dated XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX informing me that a Notice of Default had been recorded against my property. In response I sent three separate Qualified Written Requests via certified mail in which I contested the Notice of Default and requested an itemized statement, but those letters have never been acknowledged (see Attachment 11). The Notice of Default specifically indicated \"XXXX XXXX XXXX\" as \"the date contact with the borrower was accomplished pursuant to Civil Code Section XXXX\". However, according to the loan activity notes as provided by Loss Mitigation,  no such contact ever occurred on that date.\n\nImmediately leading up to the filing of the Notice of Default my application had been refused for months as SchoolsFirst kept refusing my application and repeatedly asking me to submit a \"signed financial form\". This was several months of me calling back in a perpetual state of confusion and having them look through my application to verify that it was: a.Received b.The correct form and c.Not missing a signature. This would be followed up with receiving yet another letter from SchoolsFirst informing me to submit a \"signed financial form\". They finally let me know months later that I had been submitting the wrong form the entire time because they had sent the wrong form to me. I've attached one of my latter responses to SchoolsFirst that directly addressed this (attachment 1). Coincidentally, this had lasted right up until they had filed the Notice of Default. \n\nSoon after, SchoolsFirst resumed their \"missing documents game. Their new document request was originally posted with such a vague description that I was forced to call Loss Mitigation in an attempt to get clarification on what was even being asked of me. Loss Mitigation's original interpretation of the request was wrong of course, which prolonged the delay even further. Even after I had successfully submitted the requested document, SchoolsFirst continued to refuse acceptance of the document for weeks. Attached is my 3rd submission to them regarding this (see attachment 12). Despite the multi-colored map I drew outlining how this document was indeed what they asked for, it was also rejected.\n\nIn spite of my tireless efforts to meet their demands and in spite of their promises to work with me, on XXXX XXXX  my request for assistance was denied. The three programs I was considered for were  FORBEARANCE PLAN, REPAYMENT PLAN  and  LOAN MODIFICATION. I was denied a forbearance because my hardship reason does not meet program guidelines. The repayment plan was denied because after they reviewed my financial information, it was determined that your income is insufficient to qualify for any foreclosure alternative programs at this time. And lastly I was denied a loan modification because after reviewing my housing expense to income ratio we determined that it does not meet the requirement for a loan modification (see attachment 13). Using my \"housing expense to income ratio\" to deny assistance is a highly self-seeking decision for a lender to make after playing a significant role in shredding the figure before evaluating it. My income is also XXXX higher now than it was when I originally qualified to both refinance and open a HELOC in XXXX. It is approximately XXXX higher now than it was when they approved a forbearance in XXXX. But now my income is no longer a \"sufficient amount\"? More importantly, a deferment was not even included among the list of loss mitigation options I was considered for despite my request in my application and repeated assurances from SchoolsFirst. Attachment 14 is just one of many emails Ive sent to SchoolsFirst about a deferral and attachment 15 is a screenshot from SchoolsFirst's website that unequivocally states that you can defer payments after the forbearance period. Denied any assistance, my only option now was to pay the full amount in one lump sum.\n\nTaking a comprehensive accounting of my loan has been a nearly impossible task since I do not have access to my full mortgage payment history. I am no longer sent monthly paper statements, and my website access and app access to all past and current statements have been blocked by SchoolsFirst due to my \"account status\" (see attachment 16). SchoolsFirst states that you can have 24/7 access to your loan and updates regarding your loss mitigation requests online at loansolutioncenter.com. That is yet another lie (see attachment 16). Whatever numbers I have been able to retrieve are extremely unclear and inconsistent. Lack of access and equivocal information is problematic since throughout this time I have had the financial ability to resume my monthly payment, and I have made multiple attempts to make those payments. Despite these attempts, my payment history appears hit-or-miss as SchoolsFirst has either accepted or refused my payments at-random. There were several months where I was prohibited from making a payment because I was told that it was considered a \"partial payment\" and they would \"not accept anything less than the full amount of the delinquency\". One representative stated that they would not accept the payment because \"it was not going to cure the delinquency\". Of course neither were my interest-only HELOC payments (that were secured by the same collateral), and they've had no problem regularly removing that payment from my account every month.\n\nWhen my payments were accepted, I breathed a sigh of relief and did not realize at the time that I should scrutinize where my payments were going after I'd been provided confirmation of receipt. So when I went through my escrow transactions, one of the few things related to my mortgage that I still have unrestricted access to (see attachment 17), I was shocked and confused at how irregular my payments had been applied and whether or not they even had. I compared the escrow transactions to the loan statements I had and noticed that several payments were misapplied, not applied when received, or not applied at all. Several of my payments did not move forward my delinquency date, making it appear as though I am even further behind than I actually am. Monthly late fees and \"property preservation\" fees have accumulated regardless of whether or not I'd made a payment (see attachment 19). On several instances, Schools First refused payment until the payment was past due, which resulted in assessing frivolous late fees (see attachments 18 and 19). Some months my payments were even shown as being accepted but then \"refunded\", subsequently accruing more late fees. In reality those \"refunded\" payments were never actually reimbursed to my account. I went through and compared every bank statement from the past two years and noticed that there were several instances where I had received emails indicating to me that my payment had been accepted, in spite of whether or not that was even true. In XXXX XXXX for example, I received three separate emails from SchoolsFirst that thanked me for making three individual mortgage payments. Despite having not authorized all three of these payments, my bank account at the time indicated that my account had been debited for them. These payments are still shown on my loan statements and escrow transactions, yet not one of those payments were ever applied towards reducing the loan, and the withdrawals from my bank account are no longer reflected in the transaction history. Meanwhile, an XXXX XXXX mortgage statement indicated that a full periodic payment was fully applied to my negative escrow balance. Yet according to my bank statements, no such amount ever even left my bank account at that time! In fact my bank statements show several mortgage payments which resulted in an actual decrease of my total available account balance, but my loan statements do not accurately account for each of those payments. The money in my  \"Unapplied Funds\" account seems to appear out of nowhere and disappear just as quickly. I've recently found the most success in being allowed to make a payment by going into an actual branch, and I recently discovered that they would print my past statements for me at my request. Yet even when paying inside of an actual branch, my payments are still not accounted for appropriately nor are they applied upon receipt, and the transactions do not make any sense even to SchoolsFirst! The manager at the nearest SchoolsFirst branch can't explain any of this. I know because I have sat down with her and she has tried. In addition to this, I have also attempted to address the discrepancies with them in detail via telephone and email, and the issue continues to be either ignored or dismissed (See attachments 20 and 21). The most recent time I brought this up, I was told that Loss Mitigation had attempted to call me three times on one particular day (along with leaving a message for me). According to my cell phone records, this is simply not true. \n\nAs a result of this apparent book cooking, Ive made several attempts to request an itemized accounting of my loan and a full payment history beginning with the date of delinquency. In addition to the previously mentioned ignored Qualified Written Requests, I also attempted to contact the lawyer/trustee that had been assigned to my loan. Their phone number led to an automated recording which instructed me to contact them via email. I attempted to email and was charged XXXX for an emailed response of a payoff statement that was neither itemized, nor accurate, in spite of that being the specific point of my request (see attachments 22 and 23) However that statement stated \"For itemization please call XXXX. So I did this, and I was connected to an automated recording stating that Id reached XXXX XXXX XXXX, although I do not bank there nor hold a loan with that credit union. The man who answered claimed to be from \"Schools Credit Union\", claimed to have never heard of XXXX XXXX XXXX, and had no idea what I meant when I asked for a simple itemization. The man had the audacity to ask me if I was calling the correct number and ultimately stated that he would forward the request to the attorney assigned to my loan. I was then charged another XXXX to be sent another emailed statement that was again neither itemized nor accurate, and like the statement before, it said \"For itemization please call XXXX\" (See attachment 24). \n\nBy letter and by email I've submitted a Request To Know under the California Consumer Privacy Act, and in response they denied my inquiry for my own personal information and they stated that they were unwilling to complete my request. SchoolsFirst simply refuses to provide accurate and timely information regarding my loan or anything at all for that matter! Whether it's regarding my own personal information, or the total amount I owe, to who actually owns and/or services my loan, to when exactly (and if) my home has a sale date, or who to contact regarding any of this information. One payoff statement I received directed me to send payment to XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX (See attachment 25), so even who to pay is questionable! My purported monthly mortgage payment changes from one document to the next as well. The amount that they provided to the IRS on my 1098 was a different amount than the one shown on my loan statements. So they do not report accurate information to the IRS (in addition to the wrong mortgage payment on two 1098s, they also reported inaccurate amounts regarding what I have paid to them and what they have refunded to me). In XXXX  and XXXX  they reported that they had paid out money from my escrow in order to refund several of my periodic payments. While I did receive those checks, I did not cash them. However that money was still reported as being removed from my escrow account. I had asked to have those checks reissued and instead, according to my loan statements, it appears as though that money was applied towards my loan, (where it was sent by me in the first place several months prior). I can only assume that this is what happened since according to my loan statements- money was applied to my loan, and it was money that did not come from out of my bank account at the time. I was told however, that the checks \"were reissued\" to me. I never received a reissue of these checks. \n\nThey also do not report accurate information to any of the credit bureaus. Their incorrect reporting played a significant role in the status of my alleged past due balance and the debt to income ratio that SchoolsFirst used to justify their determination to deny my request for a loan modification. Specifically, their denial letter stated \"The consumer reporting agency contacted that provided information that influenced our decision in whole or in part was XXXX XXXX.\" So I requested the report from that agency and according to that report, my loan has had no payments made since XXXX  of XXXX, (see attachment 26) despite the fact that I have made more than 15 payments since then according to my escrow balance sheet (see attachment 17 highlights).\n\nShortly after receiving the denial letter, I had gotten into contact with  a \"Loss Mitigation Specialist\" from the Real Estate Servicing Department, after emailing and then calling their department in a desperate attempt to find anybody willing to help me. I attempted to explain everything that had led up to this point, and was initially hopeful and relieved to not have to continue communicating with SchoolsFirst's unhelpful call center. I was encouraged to submit an appeal to the denial, and to \"trust the process\". I did so, and on XXXX XXXX I learned I'd been approved for a repayment plan. Fortunately by now I'd had the wherewithal to know better than to rely on their mailed correspondence, and only through my own relentless calling was I able to retrieve this information in a timely manner. Left to SchoolsFirst's mailings, I received the letter with the details of this repayment plan on XXXX XXXX, two days after I was required to communicate my intent, and a full day after I was expected to have made a down payment of an amount that wasnt even possible for me to make.\n\nThe plan was scheduled to begin on XXXX XXXX and the first payment required was a down-payment of XXXX (see attachment 27), just shy of 17 months worth of payments. On top of this, the repayment plan indicated that my mortgage payment would nearly double for the next two years. While I have a sizable down payment saved because of the gaps in time where they refused to take my payments, XXXX  was an amount they knew I would not have even if I had completely cleared out every cent I had. SchoolsFirst knew precisely what I had and did not have, after I had been forced to send in multiple applications, Financial Forms, bank statements, paystubs, tax returns, w-2s, mortgage statements, hardship letters, letters of employment, and even my divorce decree. Not to mention I had also discussed all of this again with my contact in the Real Estate Department as she easily reviewed my accounts from her side seeing as how my lender is also my bank.\n\nEven if I could've somehow procured XXXX in that short amount of time (they couldn't even deliver their letter requesting the payment within the amount of time they were expecting me to furnish that amount!), they were asking me to completely drain everything I had in my checking and savings combined, and then hike up my total mortgage payment to nearly 60% of my take home pay- to repay an amount that was more than what I ever even owed to them! The \"total amount due\" in the repayment plan once again was not accurate, nor was it consistent with itself or any other document. It stated that the total past due amount was XXXX, yet when I did the math the total amount it had me paying back throughout the life of the repayment plan was XXXX. Why would I have to pay back a different number than the indicated \"total past due amount\"? If what I owe is actually XXXX, why wouldn't it just state that number instead? (see attachment 27) Meanwhile the loan statement for that month stated the total past due amount was XXXX  with a XXXX amount due, and the reinstatement document I received stated the total to reinstate was both XXXX and XXXX! (See attachment 28). \n\nThe repayment plan indicated that I had the option to either accept or refuse these terms by XXXX XXXX  (see attachment 29) or appeal one final time by XXXX XXXX (see attachment 30). I called and spoke with an agent to discuss and confirm my right to appeal (see attachment 31). Not one to be","date_sent_to_company":"2023-03-17T16:20:05.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"91786","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6711637","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2023-03-17T15:40:50.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["There were several months where I was prohibited from making a payment because I was told that it was considered a \"partial payment\" and they would \"not accept anything less than the full amount of the <em>delinquency</em>\". One representative stated that they would not accept the payment because \"it was not going to cure the <em>delinquency</em>\"."]},"sort":[6.6381197,"6711637"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7476099","_score":4.2006598,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Debt collector obligations\n 809. Validation of debts\n(Part 1 of a 2 Part CFPB Complaint)\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Hayt, Hayt XXXX Landau, P.LXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FL XXXX\n\nReference HHL File # XXXX (6 files)\nReceived on XXXX XXXX, XXXX\n\nDear Debt Collector:\n\nIt was a bright cold day in XXXX and the clocks were striking thirteen, XXXX XXXX, XXXX  at 1 (XXXX). In this case, Defendants argument is like the thirteenth chime of a clock: you not only know its wrong, but it causes you to wonder about everything you heard before. Chief United States District Court Judge XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX District of Florida, in case # XXXXXXXX wrote the above OPENING LINE at Page 1 by quoting the famous opening line of XXXX XXXX  dystopian novel XXXX, the book that introduced the world to the concept of XXXX XXXX.  Judge XXXX  OPENING LINE sets the stage of exactly what to expect in his 139 page scathing decision in his Order on Motions for Preliminary Injunctions filed XXXX  The 1XXXX thirteenth strike of all of the clocks at the same time calls into question not only the credibility of itself but of the previous twelve. In the 1XXXX  world of XXXX XXXX, the clocks striking thirteen is not an aberration, but a normal way of life where Every record has been destroyed or falsifiedevery date has been altered.  Was the Novel XXXX writing about and predicting the out of control and never ending Credit Reporting and Debt Collector fiasco ???  Another relevant Orwellian XXXX  quote stated:  In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.  Well Debt Collectors and Creditors, like the totalitarian XXXX  Party, can make outrageous false claims, such as [2 + 2 = 5], but Im not buying it, Im not getting tricked and Im not getting abused as I have the freedom, power, law and common sense to reject them.  Just keep continually revisiting the OPENING LINE many times as you read, take notes, reread, investigate, research, talk to experts, talk to clients, reinvestigate and get to know and understand the following facts and argument!!  Start by first trying to figure out and explain how my credit score, per the attached exhibit, was impossibly reduced to 0 on XXXX XXXX XXXX based on my XXXX  credit report. Did you cause it???  Are you responsible???  But first, should your limited resources be wasted on pursuing an insolvent judgment proof handicapped dying Senior Citizen on Social Security with a ZERO (0) credit score???  Judge Walker needed 139 pages to address the obvious.  Your appropriate response requires many many many more than 139 pages to address my following issues.  It should be a NO-BRAINER that you and your predecessors and successors in interest MUST UNCONDITIONALLY and PERMANENTLY STOP, CEASE AND DESIST ALL COLLECTION EFFORTS on the disputed purported debt to mitigate damages.  Its not rocket science, Its not brain surgery, Its a piece of cake and Its a walk in the park are common phrases that describe concepts or tasks that are easily understood or performed that are certainly applicable here. Dont be XXXX!!  You have no viable ALTERNATIVE! Tell the CFPB in your required response that you permanently cease all collection efforts with a notation that an ARBITRATION filing, if one exists and is applicable, is the only permissible future communication!!!  If an ARBITRATION agreement exists, please be absolutely clear and dont directly or indirectly wrongly threaten or imply filing a prohibited court action or lawsuit as it would be considered a FDCPA violation intended to harass, threaten and abuse!!!\n\nHere's the relevant section of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g, on debt validation, for your response, prohibitions and obligations:\n 809. Validation of debts\n(a) Notice of debt; contents\nWithin five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --\n(1) the amount of the debt;\n(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;\n(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;\n(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and\n(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.\n(b) Disputed debts\nIf the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.\n(c) Admission of liability\nThe failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.\n\n\nI am responding to your attached letter(s) about a purported debt as set forth in your attached letter(s).  I request that you mail me a written Validation of Debt which must include all of the proof and documents described at length below. I vigorously DISPUTE the purported debt in its entirety.  This is NOT my Debt and I DISPUTE it. I want you to send me by USPS mail the name and address of the original creditor and any successors in interest or transferees, if any.  I do not have any responsibility for the purported debt youre referencing and trying to collect. So I DISPUTE it.  This is not my purported collectible debt. Again, I want to make it absolutely clear by repetition that I DISPUTE it in its entirety so that you can clearly red flag and mark your files as DISPUTED to avoid Willful FDCPA violations.  If you have good reason to believe that I am responsible for this DISPUTED purported debt, mail me by USPS every document in your and your clients entire file, including but not limited to every direct and indirect written dispute with the CFPB, CRAs  or otherwise including those documents that make you believe that the purported debt is valid, enforceable and collectible.  Immediately STOP, DESIST and CEASE all other and further communication with me and with this address, (except to respond one time in writing by USPS mail to my request for every piece of proof of the purported debt that would be presented to an ARBITRATOR or in a federal motion for summary judgment with incorporated memorandum of law) and record that I vigorously DISPUTE having any obligation for this purported debt. The USPS, email, text messaging, social media or other unsecured communication means cannot be trusted to safely and securely deliver mail and communications or to prevent receipt by unauthorized individuals, at other addresses, by accident, scammers, fraudsters or negligence.  To wit, much of my USPS mail is delivered opened and tampered with and read by others many times as, for example, the name and address window is not visible due to mailing incompetence. Similarly, the USPS tracking service for certified mail is unreliable and cannot be trusted.  I am requesting no further communication of any kind whatsoever to therefore prevent mail or communications to be received at other addresses due to sender issues, hackers, scammers, and USPS errors and negligence.  Likewise, kindly immediately STOP all further unwanted direct and indirect text messages, emails, phone calls, voice messages, or any other social media or other communication with me regarding your attempts to collect the purported DISPUTED debt.  I have made about 100 CFPB complaints regarding FCRA and other violations and I suspect that the recent XXXX XXXX CFPB DATA BREACH affecting at least 256,000 consumers has almost certainly affected me so I must be overly careful to guard against scammers to limit erroneous release of my private data and communications. For this and other obvious reasons, I need you to STOP further communications and I obviously need the requested documentation proof regarding any claims as any claims are suspect absent complete documentation. Notice is Given that I forever object to the voice recordings of any kind and I therefore do not consent for anyone to record calls with me without my prior written consent which I will never authorize. Once a debt collector receives this letter requesting that they immediately STOP contacting me in any way, theyre not allowed to communicate with me again except to tell me there will be no further contact, provide me with documents requested, or advise me of specific planned legal actions within 20 days that may legally be allowed, such as filing an Arbitration action against me as a lawsuit is not permissible and cannot be threatened under the FDCPA if an Arbitration Agreement exists. So please dont threaten me with any barred court litigation which would violate any Arbitration Agreement as I will consider it a violation of state and federal statutes. If you stop your collection of this purported debt, and forward or return it to another company, please indicate to them that it is DISPUTED in its entirety by forwarding all past documents in the file and communications including this letter. If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), also report that the debt is DISPUTED as required by FCRA, FDCPA and the 350+ page XXXX XXXX Compliance protocols. I insist on compliance with every applicable state and federal statutes, including but not limited to the FCRA and FDCPA.  Any willful past, current or future violations of credit reporting and collection procedures shall incur maximum statutory and punitive damages plus attorneys fees and costs against violators, personally or otherwise.  I have reviewed my entire paper credit reports of Trans Union dateXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and  the account number referenced in your letter is not included in my credit reports, possibly due to reckless negligence in data reporting under the XXXX XXXX compliance protocols contained in its 355+ page manual.  Accurate account number reporting of accounts is required under XXXX XXXX to prevent purported accounts from being inaccurately reported twice (or more) instead of once otherwise additional willful FCRA violations and statutory damages shall accrue.  Since my XXXX and XXXX credit reports do not contain your referenced account number, I must consider that it involves identity theft for which your obligations must be followed exactly as required.  I have never received any Notice from anyone  stating that you are a bona fide authorized agent for Debt collection purposes. So consider this letter a formal Notice that I DISPUTE the purported debt due to IDENTITY THEFT.  The most troubling, malicious and intolerable willful FCRA violations possible occurred when my credit score was impossibly reduced to ZERO on XXXXXXXX based on my XXXX/XXXX XXXXXXXX credit report due to XXXX, BOTS, SCAMMERS, debt/bill collectors and/or FRAUDSTERS illegally tampering with my credit files via XXXX XXXX and other data submissions to purposely damage my credit score to ZERO for a sinister purpose. XXXX XXXX IS WATCHING YOU!!  That includes the CFPB, the FED, the OCC, the FDIC, the DOJ, the FTC and other regulators who are ALL watching every move you make and ready to put you out of business. Moreover, I need to know your opinion and representation as to whether the documents which I need and request will include an ARBITRATION clause which would require disputes to be resolved through ARBITRATION rather than a United States District Court individual or class action lawsuit.  While I believe credit card accounts with your purported client may contain MANDATORY ARBITRATION clauses, I cannot be sure without all the purported agreement documents and a binding representation. The CFPB has warned consumers to be on the lookout for Identity Theft and bill/debt collector SCAMMERS falsely claiming entitlement to amounts not owed.  I obviously need the documents requested and I will continue to consider this a matter of IDENTITY THEFT unless and until I receive an AFFIDAVIT from the purported original creditor providing me all the requested documents.  In September 2022, I was a victim of Identity Theft when scammers wiped out my checking account funds due to my bank breach and bank error when multiple debit card numbers were submitted and approved by possible random guessing without my card expiration date, 3 digit security code, Name, address, or other required data to process a transaction.  I never used the debit card and my debit card was safely locked away and under my exclusive control at all times.  After multiple calls and secure messages to my bank, I filed a complaint with the CFPB and the bank still has not discovered how the breach and fraud happened.  If a random guess at a debit card can wipe out my checking account, it would be easier to guess at bank credit card numbers in a debt collector scam warned by the CFPB.  Are you a SCAMMER victimizing me with IDENTITY THEFT?  Are you trying to SCAM an elderly senior citizen? I need AFFIDAVITS with the requested proof.  I need the requested proof! I will not get scammed again.  I trust NOONE, even ROBO attorneys.  Get your ducks in a row!!!  I would not be happy if I am forced to file a U.S. District Court action only to be faced with a Motion To Compel Arbitration due to concealment of agreement documents.  Any such frivolous conduct would be rightfully countered with my Motion for Summary Judgment and a temporary restraining order request to punish violators for willful FCRA violations and other statutes, further claiming a WAIVER was created by concealment.  If warranted, I will have no problem also naming the CFPB and its Director, Rohit Chopra, in any federal court action to the extent necessary to obtain 100% compliance with the FCRA, FDCPA and related statutes. I also advise you that I am a XXXX  years old elder male and XXXX with XXXX in poor health and judgment proof and all my income is from EXEMPT sources such as federal Social Security benefits with my average balance in my social security account is below my monthly SS deposit and never more than 2 times my monthly deposit.  I simply have no assets or income which anyone can attach from pointless, abusive or frivolous litigation intended merely to harass and XXXX XXXX Moreover, last year I have been affected by XXXX XXXX XXXX a declared natural disaster by a direct hit by Hurricane Ian, illnesses and other medical matters all at the same time.  Plus, as stated ago, my checking account was wiped out by fraudsters.  Moreover, I discovered that my credit file reported false delinquencies even though I actually had a perfect credit payment record and such concealments reduced my credit score by XXXX points totally destroying my credit. Everything bad happened to me all at once starting with medical malpractice, health issues and SCAMMERS and then by Hurricane IAN and then by creditors promising publicized payment deferrals yet then falsely reporting delinquencies.  My credit reports are inaccurate and incomplete as the required coding for my situation is not on my credit report for any listed account. How hard is it to insert the XXXX XXXX  code AW into every account?  Do you even know what AW means?  However, I am ready, willing and able to litigate and defend any frivolous litigation or arbitration including seeking relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for any appealable order including the delay or denial of injunctive relief requests.  I shall also insist on compliance with federal Rule 11 and motions for Rule 11 violations shall be filed promptly after the expiration of applicable safe harbor periods for incurred violations.  Moreover, if I live long enough, I am prepared to seek personal XXXX XXXX bankruptcy relief if and when necessary, filing objections to all claims and submitting my claims for damages through bankruptcy adversary proceedings. Do you want to pay an Arbitrator $50,000 to gain nothing?  Do you think you can avoid my USDC DISCOVERY requests and information subpoenas?  Do you want the CFPB to come after you when you violate your obligations? \n\nAgain, I am responding to your contact about a purported debt you are attempting to collect which, as stated multiple times, I DISPUTE in its entirety.\n\nAgain, please STOP all direct and indirect communication of any kind with me and with this address about this purported debt except to respond to me in writing regarding my requested documents by delivering me requested documents.  Furthermore, due to hearing problems and issues, I am unable to receive phone calls so I am unable to discuss any matter over the phone or otherwise under any scenario.  Just STOP all communications!  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) restricts calls to residential and wireless telephone numbers absent the prior express consent of the called party.   I do not want any calls or direct or indirect communications of any kind whatsoever to be made to me in the future. I do not consent to receiving any calls made to me in the future and any calls received by me after you receive this letter shall be considered willful violations of the TCPA for which maximum possible penalties shall become automatically and immediately due and owing to me by violators without notice.\n\nAgain, record and prominently FLAG in your records that I forever DISPUTE having any obligation for this purported debt.  Again, if you forward or return this purported debt to another company, please indicate to them that it is DISPUTED. If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), also immediately report that the purported debt is DISPUTED.  Once I notify a CRA and/or Furnisher and/or Debt Collector that I DISPUTE data (such as this dispute) my credit report MUST INDEFINITELY include the required PERMANENT Notice that the account is DISPUTED BY CONSUMER even if the CRA/Furnisher/Debt Collector disagrees.  If my credit report from any CRA has at any time in the past (or in the future) included an account related to your purported disputed debt without the required DISPUTED status, then such FCRA violation shall be considered a Willful, wanton, malicious, deliberate, abusive and intentional violation for which the maximum statutory damages of XXXX shall be sought against every violator, plus punitive damages.  XXXX XXXX is quite complex and impossible to comply with so the best procedure of reporting is to never report at all and to never change, delete, update or alter dispute status as such will almost certainly result in manual negligent incompetent user errors for which damages will accumulate quickly to entirely offset purported debts.  While some untrained incompetent employees may willfully violate the FCRA to purposely destroy a consumers credit score in hope to collect purported disputed debts under duress, I demand compliance with the FCRA, FDCPA and every other statute.  In my opinion, Furnishers/Debt Collectors are best served by permanently DELETING from credit files Disputed/Uncollectible accounts to mitigate damages from Furnisher/user errors and willful unlawful conduct.  Every interaction with a creditor, a CRA and/or debt collector constitutes an opportunity for me to obtain statutory, punitive and other damages, including attorney fees, when laws are broken for willful and negligent non-compliance with known statutory requirements and protocols.  The best possible settlement obtainable would be to walk away and abandon any and all disputed purported uncollectible claims otherwise I will be one your creditors with exponentially increasing claims after you continue to violate my rights.  I never agreed to permit anyone to report inaccurate or incomplete information of any kind on my credit report.  I have never been offered my statutory right to OPT-IN or OPT-OUT of credit reporting to protect my right to privacy to prevent FCRA violations.  I hereby unconditionally and unilaterally REVOKE and terminate for CAUSE any imaginable right to report data of any kind on any of my credit files with any CRA.  Obligations under the FCRA, FDCPA and other debt collection and reporting statutes XXXX  any purported creditor claims so compliance of every statutes is a precondition to collect and report any purported claims.  If you want to do business with consumers, you must first learn how to comply with extensive ever changing obligations, including XXXX XXXX, which is impossible to accurately report even by a specialist due to arbitrary and confusing possibilities. Stated another way, an original credit card purported creditor is not entitled to collect claims unless and until all its obligations have been satisfactorily completed without violations of any law.  You should be careful to comply with mandatory statutory imposed record retention requirements to enable the CFPB to administer and carry out the purposes of the FCRA, FDCPA, the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as to prevent evasions thereof. The record retention requirements also will facilitate supervision of debt collectors and the assessment and detection of risks to consumers.  The CFPB has published a comprehensive checklist to audit and insure compliance with regulatory obligations.  I suggest you review the checklist to insure compliance before responding to me.  You should know that as soon as Hurricane IAN hit me directly and my health was affected by XXXX and other health issues with other issues plus a wipe out of my checking account, I diligently contacted every creditor seeking publicized payment deferrals and other relief only to be effectively denied relief by incompetence.  The general creditor response was to retaliate against me for merely asking for relief by inaccurately reporting every account inaccurately.  No one knows how to code XXXX XXXX except for simple payment reporting but when things get changed errors are everywhere, either negligently or willfully.  If I made 100% of my payments and if I was never late how could credit reporting agencies say I was 60 days delinquent?   More importantly, I discovered that each CRA provided me with conflicting data on my paper reports and my paper reports did not contain all the data reported to CRAs under XXXX XXXX.  Why is data reported on XXXX XXXX but concealed from my paper credit reports?  Why do my paper credit reports only contain a small portion of data reported by XXXX XXXX and contained in my credit file?  How can I properly dispute my credit file if 50% of the data in my CRA file is concealed from consumers?  How can I discover inaccurate data on my credit file if 50% of data is concealed from me and excluded from my paper credit reports?  The entire credit reporting system is a disgrace in complete disregard for consumers rights and rights to privacy.  Every communication with a creditor seemed to result in negligent data entry errors by users.  Furnishers are incapable of complying with statutory obligations and the XXXX XXXX system.  Again, I need every document, including every XXXX XXXX submission, submitted to every CRA to compare my numerous paper reports with data in my credit files reported via XXXX XXXX. Moreover, many of the XXXX XXXX data fields are reported blank forcing fraudulent submission overrides rather than blocking incomplete or conflicting data.  Even when errors are discovered and acknowledge by top senior bank officials in charge of USA credit cards, nobody knows how to correct inaccurate reporting even after reporting ETHICAL misconduct to the bank Chairman of the Board.  One bank even hires incompetent High School Graduates to handle CFPB disputes without any knowledge of the FCRA or XXXX XXXX  protocols and obligations.  I subscribe to a variety of services so I see daily changes to my credit files so I see the daily mistakes of credit reporting by erroneous coding under XXXX XXXX.  Many Many Many times I see a DISPUTE ADDED one day and then fraudulently and inaccurately REMOVED the next day.  Everyone knows that Debt Collectors try not to report Disputes, even though required, as a dispute may not negatively affect a credit score which may hinder chances to force consumers to pay even fraudulent disputed claims as consumers generally want good scores.  Well, the system tanked my scores needlessly!   Is your Debt Collector commission of peanuts worth $100,000+ in attorney fees and punitive damages?  Do you want to risk the CFPB coming after you demanding $10,000,000+?  Do you want to lose clients and be put out of business by the CFPB?  I object to having accounts reported on my credit reports as reporting is unconscionable!\n\nWhile your letter fails to disclose what I consider a complete mandatory inclusion of the statutes set forth at the beginning for consumers rights regarding Debt Validation, I am responding even though the failure to respond would not have consequences in litigation.  The CFPB and others suggest some of below type of questions for Debt collectors to respond to.  I like to purposely repeat points so that there can be no misunderstanding about what I am writing about and requesting. \n\nPlease supply the information below so that I can be fully informed:\nWhy you think I owe the purported debt and to whom I owe it, including:\n\n The name and address of the creditor to whom the purported debt is currently allegedly owed, the complete account number used by that creditor and the previously issued account numbers, if any, the complete account number reported to every CRA for current and past account numbers and the detailed amount allegedly owed since inception including amounts and all data reported to every CRA.  Please note that there is no reason to NOT report a complete account number in letters and credit files especially when an account has been closed to future transactions especially if consumers have ZERO liability for unauthorized activity, especially after closure.  If an account has been closed or an account number has changed in the last 7 years, please send documentary proof of the dates of closure and/or account number change and the dates reported of the mandatory mid-cycle update to every CRA to ascertain whether the mandatory  XXXX XXXX protocols have been compliant or violated.  \n\n If this purported debt started with a different creditor, provide the name and address of the original creditor, the entire account number used by that creditor, and the detailed amount owed to that creditor at the time it was transferred. When you identify the original creditor, please provide any other name by which I might know them, if that is different from the official name. In addition, tell me the exact date and complete terms of the relationship when the current creditor and/or debt collector obtained the purported debt and who the current creditor obtained it from.\n\n Provide verification and documentation that there is a valid basis for claiming that I am required to pay the purported debt to the current creditor. For example, can you provide a copy of the written agreement that created my original requirement to pay?  Again, I need to know about any ARBITRATION provision buried into any original or amended agreements as I cannot rely on the search results of the CFPB or other websites. I also need any purported contract provision that authorized the reporting to a CRA (if it exists) which I hereby revoke as invalid ab initio if any data was inaccurately reported to any CRA, either willfully or otherwise.  Reporting to a CRA must be 100% accurate otherwise DELETION is mandatory. Inaccurate credit reporting, standing alone, is unconditional grounds to bar future credit reporting at the request of a consumer to guarantee the consumers right to privacy.  I object to credit reporting of all my closed and disputed accounts due to willful violations of the FCRA and other statutes.  \n\n If you are asking that I pay a purported debt that somebody else is or was required to pay, (such as an insurance company through a credit card benefit) identify that person or entity. Provide verification and documentation about why this is a purported debt that I am required to pay.\n\nThe amount and age of the purported debt, including:\n A copy of the every billing statement sent to me by the purported original creditor since inception.\n\n State the required Date of First Delinquency (month/day/year) with the detailed amount of the purported debt when you obtained it, and when that was.  \n\n If there have been any additional interest, fees or charges added since the last billing statement from the purported original creditor, provide an itemization showing the dates and amount of each added amount. In addition, explain how the added interest, fees or other charges are expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or are permitted by law.  If my purported account has been closed, state the date closed, and every change of interest rate thereafter including rate justification after closing.  If my purported account involves any CFPB claims and disputes for statutory or other damages for willful FCRA or other disputes, please identify precisely offsets of claims in statements and balances reported to every CRA.  \n\n If there have been any payments or other reductions since the last billing statement from the original creditor, provide an itemization showing the dates and amount of each of them.\n\n If there have been any other changes or adjustments since the last billing statement from the original creditor, please provide full verification and documentation of the amount you are trying to collect. Explain how that amount was calculated. In addition, explain how the other changes or adjustments are expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.\n\n Tell me when the creditor claims this debt became due and when it became delinquent.\n\n Identify the date of the last payment and amount made on this account.\n\n Have you made a determination that this debt is within the statute of limitations applicable to it? Tell me when you think the statute of limitations expires for this debt, and how you determined that.\n\nDetails about your authority to collect this debt.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-31T08:52:05.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"32836","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7476099","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Hayt Hayt & Landau, P.L. (FL)","date_received":"2023-08-31T08:42:10.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Accurate <em>account</em> number reporting of <em>accounts</em> is required under XXXX XXXX to prevent purported <em>accounts</em> from being inaccurately reported twice (or more) instead of once otherwise additional willful FCRA violations and statutory damages shall <em>accrue</em>.  Since my XXXX and XXXX credit reports do not contain your referenced <em>account</em> number, I must consider that it involves identity theft for which your obligations must be followed exactly as required."]},"sort":[4.2006598,"7476099"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7588805","_score":4.1959066,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Debt collector obligations\n 809. Validation of debts\n(Part 1 of a 2 Part CFPB Complaint)\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Florida. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Pollack & RosenXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Florida XXXX  \nReference # XXXX  back-dated attached XXXX XXXX XXXX. Notice of XXXX but mailed about XXXX and delivered XXXX and received XXXX\n\nDear Debt Collector:\n\nIt was a bright cold day in XXXX, and the clocks were striking XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX at 1 (XXXX). In this case, Defendants argument is like the XXXX  chime of a clock: you not only know its wrong, but it causes you to wonder about everything you heard before. Chief United States District Court Judge XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  District of Florida, in case # XXXX, wrote the above OPENING LINE at Page 1 by quoting the famous opening line of XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, the book that introduced the world to the concept of XXXX XXXX.  Judge XXXX  OPENING LINE sets the stage of exactly what to expect in his 139 page scathing decision in his Order on Motions for Preliminary Injunctions filed XXXX.  The XXXX  XXXX  strike of all of the clocks at the same time calls into question not only the credibility of itself but of the previous twelve. In the XXXX  world of XXXX XXXX, the clocks striking XXXX  is not an aberration, but a normal way of life where Every record has been destroyed or falsifiedevery date has been altered.  Was the Novel XXXX  writing about and predicting the out of control and never ending Credit Reporting and Debt Collector fiasco ???  Another relevant XXXX XXXX quote stated:  In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.  Well Debt Collectors and Creditors, like the totalitarian XXXX  Party, can make outrageous false claims, such as [2 + 2 = 5], but Im not buying it, Im not getting tricked and Im not getting abused as I have the freedom, power, law and common sense to reject them.  Just keep continually revisiting the OPENING LINE many times as you read, take notes, reread, investigate, research, talk to experts, talk to clients, reinvestigate and get to know and understand the following facts and argument!!  Start by first trying to figure out and explain how my credit score, per the attached exhibit, was impossibly reduced to XXXX  on XXXX XXXX XXXX based on my XXXX  credit report. Did you cause it???  Are you responsible???  But first, should your limited resources be wasted on pursuing an insolvent judgment proof XXXX  dying XXXX  Citizen on Social Security with a XXXX  (XXXX) credit score???  Judge XXXX  needed 139 pages to address the obvious.  Your appropriate response requires many many many more than 139 pages to address my following issues.  It should be a NO-BRAINER that you and your predecessors and successors in interest MUST UNCONDITIONALLY and PERMANENTLY STOP, CEASE AND DESIST ALL COLLECTION EFFORTS on the disputed purported debt to mitigate damages.  Its not rocket science, Its not brain surgery, Its a piece of cake and Its a walk in the park are common phrases that describe concepts or tasks that are easily understood or performed that are certainly applicable here. Dont be STUPID!!  You have no viable ALTERNATIVE! Tell the CFPB in your required response that you permanently cease all collection efforts with a notation that an ARBITRATION filing, if one exists and is applicable, is the only permissible future communication!!!  If an ARBITRATION agreement exists, please be absolutely clear and dont directly or indirectly wrongly threaten or imply filing a prohibited court action or lawsuit as it would be considered a FDCPA violation intended to harass, threaten and abuse!!!\n\nHere's the relevant section of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g, on debt validation, for your response, prohibitions and obligations:\n 809. Validation of debts\n(a) Notice of debt; contents\nWithin five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --\n(1) the amount of the debt;\n(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;\n(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;\n(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and\n(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.\n(b) Disputed debts\nIf the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.\n(c) Admission of liability\nThe failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.\n\n\nI am responding to your attached letter(s) about a purported debt as set forth in your attached letter(s).  I request that you mail me a written Validation of Debt which must include all of the proof and documents described at length below. I vigorously DISPUTE the purported debt in its entirety.  This is NOT my Debt and I DISPUTE it. I want you to send me by USPS mail the name and address of the original creditor and any successors in interest or transferees, if any.  I do not have any responsibility for the purported debt youre referencing and trying to collect. So I DISPUTE it.  This is not my purported collectible debt. Again, I want to make it absolutely clear by repetition that I DISPUTE it in its entirety so that you can clearly red flag and mark your files as DISPUTED to avoid Willful FDCPA violations.  If you have good reason to believe that I am responsible for this DISPUTED purported debt, mail me by USPS every document in your and your clients entire file, including but not limited to every direct and indirect written dispute with the CFPB, CRAs  or otherwise including those documents that make you believe that the purported debt is valid, enforceable and collectible.  Immediately STOP, DESIST and CEASE all other and further communication with me and with this address, (except to respond one time in writing by USPS mail to my request for every piece of proof of the purported debt that would be presented to an ARBITRATOR or in a federal motion for summary judgment with incorporated memorandum of law) and record that I vigorously DISPUTE having any obligation for this purported debt. The USPS, email, text messaging, social media or other unsecured communication means cannot be trusted to safely and securely deliver mail and communications or to prevent receipt by unauthorized individuals, at other addresses, by accident, scammers, fraudsters or negligence.  To wit, much of my USPS mail is delivered opened and tampered with and read by others many times as, for example, the name and address window is not visible due to mailing incompetence. Similarly, the USPS tracking service for certified mail is unreliable and cannot be trusted.  I am requesting no further communication of any kind whatsoever to therefore prevent mail or communications to be received at other addresses due to sender issues, hackers, scammers, and USPS errors and negligence.  Likewise, kindly immediately STOP all further unwanted direct and indirect text messages, emails, phone calls, voice messages, or any other social media or other communication with me regarding your attempts to collect the purported DISPUTED debt.  I have made about 100 CFPB complaints regarding FCRA and other violations and I suspect that the recent XXXX XXXX CFPB DATA BREACH affecting at least 256,000 consumers has almost certainly affected me so I must be overly careful to guard against scammers to limit erroneous release of my private data and communications. For this and other obvious reasons, I need you to STOP further communications and I obviously need the requested documentation proof regarding any claims as any claims are suspect absent complete documentation. Notice is Given that I forever object to the voice recordings of any kind and I therefore do not consent for anyone to record calls with me without my prior written consent which I will never authorize. Once a debt collector receives this letter requesting that they immediately STOP contacting me in any way, theyre not allowed to communicate with me again except to tell me there will be no further contact, provide me with documents requested, or advise me of specific planned legal actions within 20 days that may legally be allowed, such as filing an Arbitration action against me as a lawsuit is not permissible and cannot be threatened under the FDCPA if an Arbitration Agreement exists. So please dont threaten me with any barred court litigation which would violate any Arbitration Agreement as I will consider it a violation of state and federal statutes. If you stop your collection of this purported debt, and forward or return it to another company, please indicate to them that it is DISPUTED in its entirety by forwarding all past documents in the file and communications including this letter. If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), also report that the debt is DISPUTED as required by FCRA, FDCPA and the 350+ page XXXX XXXX  Compliance protocols. I insist on compliance with every applicable state and federal statutes, including but not limited to the FCRA and FDCPA.  Any willful past, current or future violations of credit reporting and collection procedures shall incur maximum statutory and punitive damages plus attorneys fees and costs against violators, personally or otherwise.  I have reviewed my entire paper credit reports of XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX and  the account number referenced in your letter is not included in my credit reports, possibly due to reckless negligence in data reporting under the XXXX XXXX compliance protocols contained in its 355+ page manual.  Accurate account number reporting of accounts is required under XXXX XXXX to prevent purported accounts from being inaccurately reported twice (or more) instead of once otherwise additional willful FCRA violations and statutory damages shall accrue.  Since my XXXX  and XXXX  credit reports do not contain your referenced account number, I must consider that it involves identity theft for which your obligations must be followed exactly as required.  I have never received any Notice from anyone  stating that you are a bona fide authorized agent for Debt collection purposes. So consider this letter a formal Notice that I DISPUTE the purported debt due to IDENTITY THEFT.  The most troubling, malicious and intolerable willful FCRA violations possible occurred when my credit score was impossibly reduced to XXXX  on XXXX based on my XXXX XXXX  credit report due to IDIOTS, BOTS, SCAMMERS, debt/bill collectors and/or FRAUDSTERS illegally tampering with my credit files via XXXX XXXX and other data submissions to purposely damage my credit score to XXXX  for a sinister purpose. XXXX XXXX IS WATCHING YOU!!  That includes the CFPB, the FED, the OCC, the FDIC, the DOJ, the FTC and other regulators who are ALL watching every move you make and ready to put you out of business. Moreover, I need to know your opinion and representation as to whether the documents which I need and request will include an ARBITRATION clause which would require disputes to be resolved through ARBITRATION rather than a United States District Court individual or class action lawsuit.  While I believe credit card accounts with your purported client may contain MANDATORY ARBITRATION clauses, I cannot be sure without all the purported agreement documents and a binding representation. The CFPB has warned consumers to be on the lookout for Identity Theft and bill/debt collector SCAMMERS falsely claiming entitlement to amounts not owed.  I obviously need the documents requested and I will continue to consider this a matter of IDENTITY THEFT unless and until I receive an AFFIDAVIT from the purported original creditor providing me all the requested documents.  In XXXX XXXX, I was a victim of Identity Theft when scammers wiped out my checking account funds due to my bank breach and bank error when multiple debit card numbers were submitted and approved by possible random guessing without my card expiration date, 3 digit security code, Name, address, or other required data to process a transaction.  I never used the debit card and my debit card was safely locked away and under my exclusive control at all times.  After multiple calls and secure messages to my bank, I filed a complaint with the CFPB and the bank still has not discovered how the breach and fraud happened.  If a random guess at a debit card can wipe out my checking account, it would be easier to guess at bank credit card numbers in a debt collector scam warned by the CFPB.  Are you a SCAMMER victimizing me with IDENTITY THEFT?  Are you trying to SCAM an XXXX  XXXX  citizen? I need AFFIDAVITS with the requested proof.  I need the requested proof! I will not get scammed again.  I trust NOONE, even ROBO attorneys.  Get your ducks in a row!!!  I would not be happy if I am forced to file a U.S. District Court action only to be faced with a Motion To Compel Arbitration due to concealment of agreement documents.  Any such frivolous conduct would be rightfully countered with my Motion for Summary Judgment and a temporary restraining order request to punish violators for willful FCRA violations and other statutes, further claiming a WAIVER was created by concealment.  If warranted, I will have no problem also naming the CFPB and its Director, XXXX XXXX, in any federal court action to the extent necessary to obtain 100% compliance with the FCRA, FDCPA and related statutes. I also advise you that I am a XXXX years old XXXX  male and American XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and judgment proof and all my income is from EXEMPT sources such as federal Social Security benefits with my average balance in my social security account is below my monthly SS deposit and never more than 2 times my monthly deposit.  I simply have no assets or income which anyone can attach from pointless, abusive or frivolous litigation intended merely to harass and abuse me. Moreover, last year I have been affected by medical malpractice, COVID-19, a declared natural disaster by a direct hit by Hurricane Ian, illnesses and other medical matters all at the same time.  Plus, as stated ago, my checking account was wiped out by fraudsters.  Moreover, I discovered that my credit file reported false delinquencies even though I actually had a perfect credit payment record and such concealments reduced my credit score by XXXX points totally destroying my credit. Everything bad happened to me all at once starting with medical malpractice, health issues and SCAMMERS and then by Hurricane IAN and then by creditors promising publicized payment deferrals yet then falsely reporting delinquencies.  My credit reports are inaccurate and incomplete as the required coding for my situation is not on my credit report for any listed account. How hard is it to insert the XXXX XXXX code XXXX  into every account?  Do you even know what XXXX  means?  However, I am ready, willing and able to litigate and defend any frivolous litigation or arbitration including seeking relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for any appealable order including the delay or denial of injunctive relief requests.  I shall also insist on compliance with federal Rule 11 and motions for Rule 11 violations shall be filed promptly after the expiration of applicable safe harbor periods for incurred violations.  Moreover, if I live long enough, I am prepared to seek personal XXXX  7 bankruptcy relief if and when necessary, filing objections to all claims and submitting my claims for damages through bankruptcy adversary proceedings. Do you want to pay an Arbitrator $50,000 to gain nothing?  Do you think you can avoid my USDC DISCOVERY requests and information subpoenas?  Do you want the CFPB to come after you when you violate your obligations? \n\nAgain, I am responding to your contact about a purported debt you are attempting to collect which, as stated multiple times, I DISPUTE in its entirety.\n\nAgain, please STOP all direct and indirect communication of any kind with me and with this address about this purported debt except to respond to me in writing regarding my requested documents by delivering me requested documents.  Furthermore, due to hearing problems and issues, I am unable to receive phone calls so I am unable to discuss any matter over the phone or otherwise under any scenario.  Just STOP all communications!  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) restricts calls to residential and wireless telephone numbers absent the prior express consent of the called party.   I do not want any calls or direct or indirect communications of any kind whatsoever to be made to me in the future. I do not consent to receiving any calls made to me in the future and any calls received by me after you receive this letter shall be considered willful violations of the TCPA for which maximum possible penalties shall become automatically and immediately due and owing to me by violators without notice.\n\nAgain, record and prominently FLAG in your records that I forever DISPUTE having any obligation for this purported debt.  Again, if you forward or return this purported debt to another company, please indicate to them that it is DISPUTED. If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), also immediately report that the purported debt is DISPUTED.  Once I notify a CRA and/or Furnisher and/or Debt Collector that I DISPUTE data (such as this dispute) my credit report MUST INDEFINITELY include the required PERMANENT Notice that the account is DISPUTED BY CONSUMER even if the CRA/Furnisher/Debt Collector disagrees.  If my credit report from any CRA has at any time in the past (or in the future) included an account related to your purported disputed debt without the required DISPUTED status, then such FCRA violation shall be considered a Willful, wanton, malicious, deliberate, abusive and intentional violation for which the maximum statutory damages of $XXXX shall be sought against every violator, plus punitive damages.  XXXX XXXX is quite complex and impossible to comply with so the best procedure of reporting is to never report at all and to never change, delete, update or alter dispute status as such will almost certainly result in manual negligent incompetent user errors for which damages will accumulate quickly to entirely offset purported debts.  While some untrained incompetent employees may willfully violate the FCRA to purposely destroy a consumers credit score in hope to collect purported disputed debts under duress, I demand compliance with the FCRA, FDCPA and every other statute.  In my opinion, Furnishers/Debt Collectors are best served by permanently DELETING from credit files Disputed/Uncollectible accounts to mitigate damages from Furnisher/user errors and willful unlawful conduct.  Every interaction with a creditor, a CRA and/or debt collector constitutes an opportunity for me to obtain statutory, punitive and other damages, including attorney fees, when laws are broken for willful and negligent non-compliance with known statutory requirements and protocols.  The best possible settlement obtainable would be to walk away and abandon any and all disputed purported uncollectible claims otherwise I will be one your creditors with exponentially increasing claims after you continue to violate my rights.  I never agreed to permit anyone to report inaccurate or incomplete information of any kind on my credit report.  I have never been offered my statutory right to OPT-IN or OPT-OUT of credit reporting to protect my right to privacy to prevent FCRA violations.  I hereby unconditionally and unilaterally REVOKE and terminate for CAUSE any imaginable right to report data of any kind on any of my credit files with any CRA.  Obligations under the FCRA, FDCPA and other debt collection and reporting statutes TRUMP any purported creditor claims so compliance of every statutes is a precondition to collect and report any purported claims.  If you want to do business with consumers, you must first learn how to comply with extensive ever changing obligations, including XXXX XXXX, which is impossible to accurately report even by a specialist due to arbitrary and confusing possibilities. Stated another way, an original credit card purported creditor is not entitled to collect claims unless and until all its obligations have been satisfactorily completed without violations of any law.  You should be careful to comply with mandatory statutory imposed record retention requirements to enable the CFPB to administer and carry out the purposes of the FCRA, FDCPA, the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as to prevent evasions thereof. The record retention requirements also will facilitate supervision of debt collectors and the assessment and detection of risks to consumers.  The CFPB has published a comprehensive checklist to audit and insure compliance with regulatory obligations.  I suggest you review the checklist to insure compliance before responding to me.  You should know that as soon as Hurricane IAN hit me directly and my health was affected by XXXX and other health issues with other issues plus a wipe out of my checking account, I diligently contacted every creditor seeking publicized payment deferrals and other relief only to be effectively denied relief by incompetence.  The general creditor response was to retaliate against me for merely asking for relief by inaccurately reporting every account inaccurately.  No one knows how to code XXXX XXXX except for simple payment reporting but when things get changed errors are everywhere, either negligently or willfully.  If I made 100% of my payments and if I was never late how could credit reporting agencies say I was 60 days delinquent?   More importantly, I discovered that each CRA provided me with conflicting data on my paper reports and my paper reports did not contain all the data reported to CRAs under XXXX XXXX.  Why is data reported on XXXX XXXX but concealed from my paper credit reports?  Why do my paper credit reports only contain a small portion of data reported by XXXX XXXX and contained in my credit file?  How can I properly dispute my credit file if 50% of the data in my CRA file is concealed from consumers?  How can I discover inaccurate data on my credit file if 50% of data is concealed from me and excluded from my paper credit reports?  The entire credit reporting system is a disgrace in complete disregard for consumers rights and rights to privacy.  Every communication with a creditor seemed to result in negligent data entry errors by users.  Furnishers are incapable of complying with statutory obligations and the XXXX XXXX system.  Again, I need every document, including every XXXX XXXX  submission, submitted to every CRA to compare my numerous paper reports with data in my credit files reported via XXXX XXXX. Moreover, many of the XXXX XXXX data fields are reported blank forcing fraudulent submission overrides rather than blocking incomplete or conflicting data.  Even when errors are discovered and acknowledge by top senior bank officials in charge of USA credit cards, nobody knows how to correct inaccurate reporting even after reporting ETHICAL misconduct to the bank Chairman of the Board.  One bank even hires incompetent High School Graduates to handle CFPB disputes without any knowledge of the FCRA or XXXX XXXX protocols and obligations.  I subscribe to a variety of services so I see daily changes to my credit files so I see the daily mistakes of credit reporting by erroneous coding under XXXX XXXX.  Many Many Many times I see a DISPUTE ADDED one day and then fraudulently and inaccurately REMOVED the next day.  Everyone knows that Debt Collectors try not to report Disputes, even though required, as a dispute may not negatively affect a credit score which may hinder chances to force consumers to pay even fraudulent disputed claims as consumers generally want good scores.  Well, the system tanked my scores needlessly!   Is your Debt Collector commission of peanuts worth $XXXX+ in attorney fees and punitive damages?  Do you want to risk the CFPB coming after you demanding $XXXX+?  Do you want to lose clients and be put out of business by the CFPB?  I object to having accounts reported on my credit reports as reporting is unconscionable!\n\nWhile your letter fails to disclose what I consider a complete mandatory inclusion of the statutes set forth at the beginning for consumers rights regarding Debt Validation, I am responding even though the failure to respond would not have consequences in litigation.  The CFPB and others suggest some of below type of questions for Debt collectors to respond to.  I like to purposely repeat points so that there can be no misunderstanding about what I am writing about and requesting. \n\nPlease supply the information below so that I can be fully informed:\nWhy you think I owe the purported debt and to whom I owe it, including:\n\n The name and address of the creditor to whom the purported debt is currently allegedly owed, the complete account number used by that creditor and the previously issued account numbers, if any, the complete account number reported to every CRA for current and past account numbers and the detailed amount allegedly owed since inception including amounts and all data reported to every CRA.  Please note that there is no reason to NOT report a complete account number in letters and credit files especially when an account has been closed to future transactions especially if consumers have ZERO liability for unauthorized activity, especially after closure.  If an account has been closed or an account number has changed in the last 7 years, please send documentary proof of the dates of closure and/or account number change and the dates reported of the mandatory mid-cycle update to every CRA to ascertain whether the mandatory  XXXX XXXX protocols have been compliant or violated.  \n\n If this purported debt started with a different creditor, provide the name and address of the original creditor, the entire account number used by that creditor, and the detailed amount owed to that creditor at the time it was transferred. When you identify the original creditor, please provide any other name by which I might know them, if that is different from the official name. In addition, tell me the exact date and complete terms of the relationship when the current creditor and/or debt collector obtained the purported debt and who the current creditor obtained it from.\n\n Provide verification and documentation that there is a valid basis for claiming that I am required to pay the purported debt to the current creditor. For example, can you provide a copy of the written agreement that created my original requirement to pay?  Again, I need to know about any ARBITRATION provision buried into any original or amended agreements as I cannot rely on the search results of the CFPB or other websites. I also need any purported contract provision that authorized the reporting to a CRA (if it exists) which I hereby revoke as invalid ab initio if any data was inaccurately reported to any CRA, either willfully or otherwise.  Reporting to a CRA must be 100% accurate otherwise DELETION is mandatory. Inaccurate credit reporting, standing alone, is unconditional grounds to bar future credit reporting at the request of a consumer to guarantee the consumers right to privacy.  I object to credit reporting of all my closed and disputed accounts due to willful violations of the FCRA and other statutes.  \n\n If you are asking that I pay a purported debt that somebody else is or was required to pay, (such as an insurance company through a credit card benefit) identify that person or entity. Provide verification and documentation about why this is a purported debt that I am required to pay.\n\nThe amount and age of the purported debt, including:\n A copy of the every billing statement sent to me by the purported original creditor since inception.\n\n State the required Date of First Delinquency (month/day/year) with the detailed amount of the purported debt when you obtained it, and when that was.  \n\n If there have been any additional interest, fees or charges added since the last billing statement from the purported original creditor, provide an itemization showing the dates and amount of each added amount. In addition, explain how the added interest, fees or other charges are expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or are permitted by law.  If my purported account has been closed, state the date closed, and every change of interest rate thereafter including rate justification after closing.  If my purported account involves any CFPB claims and disputes for statutory or other damages for willful FCRA or other disputes, please identify precisely offsets of claims in statements and balances reported to every CRA.  \n\n If there have been any payments or other reductions since the last billing statement from the original creditor, provide an itemization showing the dates and amount of each of them.\n\n If there have been any other changes or adjustments since the last billing statement from the original creditor, please provide full verification and documentation of the amount you are trying to collect. Explain how that amount was calculated. In addition, explain how the other changes or adjustments are expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.\n\n Tell me when the creditor claims this debt became due and when it became delinquent.\n\n Identify the date of the last payment and amount made on this account.\n\n Have you made a determination that this debt is within the statute of limitations applicable to it? Tell me when you think the statute of limitations expires","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-22T11:30:06.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"32836","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7588805","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Pollack & Rosen, P.A.","date_received":"2023-09-22T11:22:52.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Accurate <em>account</em> number reporting of <em>accounts</em> is required under XXXX XXXX to prevent purported <em>accounts</em> from being inaccurately reported twice (or more) instead of once otherwise additional willful FCRA violations and statutory damages shall <em>accrue</em>.  Since my XXXX  and XXXX  credit reports do not contain your referenced <em>account</em> number, I must consider that it involves identity theft for which your obligations must be followed exactly as required."]},"sort":[4.1959066,"7588805"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7535422","_score":4.1959066,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Debt collector obligations\n 809. Validation of debts\n(Part 1 of a 2 Part CFPB Complaint)\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Florida. XXXX  \nXXXX XXXX, XXXX  \nRAS LaVrar, LLC\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Florida XXXX  \nReference # XXXX  & XXXX  dated XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX  Received on XXXX XXXX, XXXX  \nDear Debt Collector:\n\nIt was a bright cold day in XXXX, and the clocks were striking XXXX, XXXX  XXXX, XXXX  at XXXX  (XXXX). In this case, Defendants argument is like the thirteenth chime of a clock: you not only know its wrong, but it causes you to wonder about everything you heard before. Chief United States District Court Judge XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX District of Florida, in case # XXXX, wrote the above OPENING LINE at Page 1 by quoting the famous opening line of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the book that introduced the world to the concept of BIG BROTHER.  Judge XXXX  OPENING LINE sets the stage of exactly what to expect in his 139 page scathing decision in his Order on Motions for Preliminary Injunctions filed XXXXXXXX.  The XXXX  XXXX  strike of all of the clocks at the same time calls into question not only the credibility of itself but of the previous twelve. In the XXXX  world of BIG BROTHER, the clocks striking XXXX  is not an aberration, but a normal way of life where Every record has been destroyed or falsifiedevery date has been altered.  Was the Novel XXXX  writing about and predicting the out of control and never ending Credit Reporting and Debt Collector fiasco ???  Another relevant XXXX  XXXX  quote stated:  In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.  Well Debt Collectors and Creditors, like the totalitarian XXXX  Party, can make outrageous false claims, such as [2 + 2 = 5], but Im not buying it, Im not getting tricked and Im not getting abused as I have the freedom, power, law and common sense to reject them.  Just keep continually revisiting the OPENING LINE many times as you read, take notes, reread, investigate, research, talk to experts, talk to clients, reinvestigate and get to know and understand the following facts and argument!!  Start by first trying to figure out and explain how my credit score, per the attached exhibit, was impossibly reduced to XXXX  on XXXX XXXX XXXX based on my XXXX  credit report. Did you cause it???  Are you responsible???  But first, should your limited resources be wasted on pursuing an insolvent judgment proof handicapped dying XXXX  Citizen on Social Security with a XXXX  (XXXX) credit score???  Judge Walker needed 139 pages to address the obvious.  Your appropriate response requires many many many more than 139 pages to address my following issues.  It should be a NO-BRAINER that you and your predecessors and successors in interest MUST UNCONDITIONALLY and PERMANENTLY STOP, CEASE AND DESIST ALL COLLECTION EFFORTS on the disputed purported debt to mitigate damages.  Its not rocket science, Its not brain surgery, Its a piece of cake and Its a walk in the park are common phrases that describe concepts or tasks that are easily understood or performed that are certainly applicable here. Dont be XXXX!!  You have no viable ALTERNATIVE! Tell the CFPB in your required response that you permanently cease all collection efforts with a notation that an ARBITRATION filing, if one exists and is applicable, is the only permissible future communication!!!  If an ARBITRATION agreement exists, please be absolutely clear and dont directly or indirectly wrongly threaten or imply filing a prohibited court action or lawsuit as it would be considered a FDCPA violation intended to harass, threaten and abuse!!!\n\nHere's the relevant section of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g, on debt validation, for your response, prohibitions and obligations:\n 809. Validation of debts\n(a) Notice of debt; contents\nWithin five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --\n(1) the amount of the debt;\n(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;\n(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;\n(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and\n(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.\n(b) Disputed debts\nIf the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.\n(c) Admission of liability\nThe failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.\n\n\nI am responding to your attached letter(s) about a purported debt as set forth in your attached letter(s).  I request that you mail me a written Validation of Debt which must include all of the proof and documents described at length below. I vigorously DISPUTE the purported debt in its entirety.  This is NOT my Debt and I DISPUTE it. I want you to send me by USPS mail the name and address of the original creditor and any successors in interest or transferees, if any.  I do not have any responsibility for the purported debt youre referencing and trying to collect. So I DISPUTE it.  This is not my purported collectible debt. Again, I want to make it absolutely clear by repetition that I DISPUTE it in its entirety so that you can clearly red flag and mark your files as DISPUTED to avoid Willful FDCPA violations.  If you have good reason to believe that I am responsible for this DISPUTED purported debt, mail me by USPS every document in your and your clients entire file, including but not limited to every direct and indirect written dispute with the CFPB, CRAs  or otherwise including those documents that make you believe that the purported debt is valid, enforceable and collectible.  Immediately STOP, DESIST and CEASE all other and further communication with me and with this address, (except to respond one time in writing by USPS mail to my request for every piece of proof of the purported debt that would be presented to an ARBITRATOR or in a federal motion for summary judgment with incorporated memorandum of law) and record that I vigorously DISPUTE having any obligation for this purported debt. The USPS, email, text messaging, social media or other unsecured communication means cannot be trusted to safely and securely deliver mail and communications or to prevent receipt by unauthorized individuals, at other addresses, by accident, scammers, fraudsters or negligence.  To wit, much of my USPS mail is delivered opened and tampered with and read by others many times as, for example, the name and address window is not visible due to mailing incompetence. Similarly, the USPS tracking service for certified mail is unreliable and cannot be trusted.  I am requesting no further communication of any kind whatsoever to therefore prevent mail or communications to be received at other addresses due to sender issues, hackers, scammers, and USPS errors and negligence.  Likewise, kindly immediately STOP all further unwanted direct and indirect text messages, emails, phone calls, voice messages, or any other social media or other communication with me regarding your attempts to collect the purported DISPUTED debt.  I have made about 100 CFPB complaints regarding FCRA and other violations and I suspect that the recent XXXX XXXX CFPB DATA BREACH affecting at least 256,000 consumers has almost certainly affected me so I must be overly careful to guard against scammers to limit erroneous release of my private data and communications. For this and other obvious reasons, I need you to STOP further communications and I obviously need the requested documentation proof regarding any claims as any claims are suspect absent complete documentation. Notice is Given that I forever object to the voice recordings of any kind and I therefore do not consent for anyone to record calls with me without my prior written consent which I will never authorize. Once a debt collector receives this letter requesting that they immediately STOP contacting me in any way, theyre not allowed to communicate with me again except to tell me there will be no further contact, provide me with documents requested, or advise me of specific planned legal actions within 20 days that may legally be allowed, such as filing an Arbitration action against me as a lawsuit is not permissible and cannot be threatened under the FDCPA if an Arbitration Agreement exists. So please dont threaten me with any barred court litigation which would violate any Arbitration Agreement as I will consider it a violation of state and federal statutes. If you stop your collection of this purported debt, and forward or return it to another company, please indicate to them that it is DISPUTED in its entirety by forwarding all past documents in the file and communications including this letter. If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), also report that the debt is DISPUTED as required by FCRA, FDCPA and the 350+ page XXXX XXXX Compliance protocols. I insist on compliance with every applicable state and federal statutes, including but not limited to the FCRA and FDCPA.  Any willful past, current or future violations of credit reporting and collection procedures shall incur maximum statutory and punitive damages plus attorneys fees and costs against violators, personally or otherwise.  I have reviewed my entire paper credit reports of XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and  the account number referenced in your letter is not included in my credit reports, possibly due to reckless negligence in data reporting under the XXXX XXXX compliance protocols contained in its 355+ page manual.  Accurate account number reporting of accounts is required under XXXX XXXX  to prevent purported accounts from being inaccurately reported twice (or more) instead of once otherwise additional willful FCRA violations and statutory damages shall accrue.  Since my XXXX  and XXXX  credit reports do not contain your referenced account number, I must consider that it involves identity theft for which your obligations must be followed exactly as required.  I have never received any Notice from anyone  stating that you are a bona fide authorized agent for Debt collection purposes. So consider this letter a formal Notice that I DISPUTE the purported debt due to IDENTITY THEFT.  The most troubling, malicious and intolerable willful FCRA violations possible occurred when my credit score was impossibly reduced to XXXX  on XXXX based on my XXXX XXXX credit report due to XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, debt/bill collectors and/or FRAUDSTERS illegally tampering with my credit files via XXXX XXXX and other data submissions to purposely damage my credit score to XXXX  for a sinister purpose. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!!  That includes the CFPB, the FED, the OCC, the FDIC, the DOJ, the FTC and other regulators who are ALL watching every move you make and ready to put you out of business. Moreover, I need to know your opinion and representation as to whether the documents which I need and request will include an ARBITRATION clause which would require disputes to be resolved through ARBITRATION rather than a United States District Court individual or class action lawsuit.  While I believe credit card accounts with your purported client may contain MANDATORY ARBITRATION clauses, I cannot be sure without all the purported agreement documents and a binding representation. The CFPB has warned consumers to be on the lookout for Identity Theft and bill/debt collector SCAMMERS falsely claiming entitlement to amounts not owed.  I obviously need the documents requested and I will continue to consider this a matter of IDENTITY THEFT unless and until I receive an AFFIDAVIT from the purported original creditor providing me all the requested documents.  In XXXX XXXX, I was a victim of Identity Theft when scammers wiped out my checking account funds due to my bank breach and bank error when multiple debit card numbers were submitted and approved by possible random guessing without my card expiration date, 3 digit security code, Name, address, or other required data to process a transaction.  I never used the debit card and my debit card was safely locked away and under my exclusive control at all times.  After multiple calls and secure messages to my bank, I filed a complaint with the CFPB and the bank still has not discovered how the breach and fraud happened.  If a random guess at a debit card can wipe out my checking account, it would be easier to guess at bank credit card numbers in a debt collector scam warned by the CFPB.  Are you a SCAMMER victimizing me with IDENTITY THEFT?  Are you trying to SCAM an XXXX  XXXX citizen? I need AFFIDAVITS with the requested proof.  I need the requested proof! I will not get scammed again.  I trust NOONE, even ROBO attorneys.  Get your ducks in a row!!!  I would not be happy if I am forced to file a U.S. District Court action only to be faced with a Motion To Compel Arbitration due to concealment of agreement documents.  Any such frivolous conduct would be rightfully countered with my Motion for Summary Judgment and a temporary restraining order request to punish violators for willful FCRA violations and other statutes, further claiming a WAIVER was created by concealment.  If warranted, I will have no problem also naming the CFPB and its Director, XXXX XXXX, in any federal court action to the extent necessary to obtain 100% compliance with the FCRA, FDCPA and related statutes. I also advise you that I am a XXXX  years old XXXX  male and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX  in poor health and judgment proof and all my income is from EXEMPT sources such as federal Social Security benefits with my average balance in my social security account is below my monthly SS deposit and never more than 2 times my monthly deposit.  I simply have no assets or income which anyone can attach from pointless, abusive or frivolous litigation intended merely to harass and abuse me. Moreover, last year I have been affected by medical malpractice, COVID-19, a declared natural disaster by a direct hit by Hurricane Ian, illnesses and other medical matters all at the same time.  Plus, as stated ago, my checking account was wiped out by fraudsters.  Moreover, I discovered that my credit file reported false delinquencies even though I actually had a perfect credit payment record and such concealments reduced my credit score by XXXX  points totally destroying my credit. Everything bad happened to me all at once starting with medical malpractice, health issues and SCAMMERS and then by Hurricane IAN and then by creditors promising publicized payment deferrals yet then falsely reporting delinquencies.  My credit reports are inaccurate and incomplete as the required coding for my situation is not on my credit report for any listed account. How hard is it to insert the XXXX XXXX  code AW into every account?  Do you even know what AW means?  However, I am ready, willing and able to litigate and defend any frivolous litigation or arbitration including seeking relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for any appealable order including the delay or denial of injunctive relief requests.  I shall also insist on compliance with federal Rule 11 and motions for Rule 11 violations shall be filed promptly after the expiration of applicable safe harbor periods for incurred violations.  Moreover, if I live long enough, I am prepared to seek personal XXXX  7 bankruptcy relief if and when necessary, filing objections to all claims and submitting my claims for damages through bankruptcy adversary proceedings. Do you want to pay an Arbitrator $XXXX  to gain nothing?  Do you think you can avoid my XXXX XXXX requests and information subpoenas?  Do you want the CFPB to come after you when you violate your obligations? \n\nAgain, I am responding to your contact about a purported debt you are attempting to collect which, as stated multiple times, I DISPUTE in its entirety.\n\nAgain, please STOP all direct and indirect communication of any kind with me and with this address about this purported debt except to respond to me in writing regarding my requested documents by delivering me requested documents.  Furthermore, due to hearing problems and issues, I am unable to receive phone calls so I am unable to discuss any matter over the phone or otherwise under any scenario.  Just STOP all communications!  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) restricts calls to residential and wireless telephone numbers absent the prior express consent of the called party.   I do not want any calls or direct or indirect communications of any kind whatsoever to be made to me in the future. I do not consent to receiving any calls made to me in the future and any calls received by me after you receive this letter shall be considered willful violations of the TCPA for which maximum possible penalties shall become automatically and immediately due and owing to me by violators without notice.\n\nAgain, record and prominently FLAG in your records that I forever DISPUTE having any obligation for this purported debt.  Again, if you forward or return this purported debt to another company, please indicate to them that it is DISPUTED. If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), also immediately report that the purported debt is DISPUTED.  Once I notify a CRA and/or Furnisher and/or Debt Collector that I DISPUTE data (such as this dispute) my credit report MUST INDEFINITELY include the required PERMANENT Notice that the account is DISPUTED BY CONSUMER even if the CRA/Furnisher/Debt Collector disagrees.  If my credit report from any CRA has at any time in the past (or in the future) included an account related to your purported disputed debt without the required DISPUTED status, then such FCRA violation shall be considered a Willful, wanton, malicious, deliberate, abusive and intentional violation for which the maximum statutory damages of $XXXX  shall be sought against every violator, plus punitive damages.  XXXX XXXX is quite complex and impossible to comply with so the best procedure of reporting is to never report at all and to never change, delete, update or alter dispute status as such will almost certainly result in manual negligent incompetent user errors for which damages will accumulate quickly to entirely offset purported debts.  While some untrained incompetent employees may willfully violate the FCRA to purposely destroy a consumers credit score in hope to collect purported disputed debts under duress, I demand compliance with the FCRA, FDCPA and every other statute.  In my opinion, Furnishers/Debt Collectors are best served by permanently DELETING from credit files Disputed/Uncollectible accounts to mitigate damages from Furnisher/user errors and willful unlawful conduct.  Every interaction with a creditor, a CRA and/or debt collector constitutes an opportunity for me to obtain statutory, punitive and other damages, including attorney fees, when laws are broken for willful and negligent non-compliance with known statutory requirements and protocols.  The best possible settlement obtainable would be to walk away and abandon any and all disputed purported uncollectible claims otherwise I will be one your creditors with exponentially increasing claims after you continue to violate my rights.  I never agreed to permit anyone to report inaccurate or incomplete information of any kind on my credit report.  I have never been offered my statutory right to OPT-IN or OPT-OUT of credit reporting to protect my right to privacy to prevent FCRA violations.  I hereby unconditionally and unilaterally REVOKE and terminate for CAUSE any imaginable right to report data of any kind on any of my credit files with any CRA.  Obligations under the FCRA, FDCPA and other debt collection and reporting statutes TRUMP any purported creditor claims so compliance of every statutes is a precondition to collect and report any purported claims.  If you want to do business with consumers, you must first learn how to comply with extensive ever changing obligations, including XXXX XXXX, which is impossible to accurately report even by a specialist due to arbitrary and confusing possibilities. Stated another way, an original credit card purported creditor is not entitled to collect claims unless and until all its obligations have been satisfactorily completed without violations of any law.  You should be careful to comply with mandatory statutory imposed record retention requirements to enable the CFPB to administer and carry out the purposes of the FCRA, FDCPA, the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as to prevent evasions thereof. The record retention requirements also will facilitate supervision of debt collectors and the assessment and detection of risks to consumers.  The CFPB has published a comprehensive checklist to audit and insure compliance with regulatory obligations.  I suggest you review the checklist to insure compliance before responding to me.  You should know that as soon as Hurricane IAN hit me directly and my health was affected by XXXX and other health issues with other issues plus a wipe out of my checking account, I diligently contacted every creditor seeking publicized payment deferrals and other relief only to be effectively denied relief by incompetence.  The general creditor response was to retaliate against me for merely asking for relief by inaccurately reporting every account inaccurately.  No one knows how to code XXXX XXXX except for simple payment reporting but when things get changed errors are everywhere, either negligently or willfully.  If I made 100% of my payments and if I was never late how could credit reporting agencies say I was 60 days delinquent?   More importantly, I discovered that each CRA provided me with conflicting data on my paper reports and my paper reports did not contain all the data reported to CRAs under XXXX XXXX.  Why is data reported on XXXX XXXX but concealed from my paper credit reports?  Why do my paper credit reports only contain a small portion of data reported by XXXX XXXX and contained in my credit file?  How can I properly dispute my credit file if 50% of the data in my CRA file is concealed from consumers?  How can I discover inaccurate data on my credit file if 50% of data is concealed from me and excluded from my paper credit reports?  The entire credit reporting system is a disgrace in complete disregard for consumers rights and rights to privacy.  Every communication with a creditor seemed to result in negligent data entry errors by users.  Furnishers are incapable of complying with statutory obligations and the XXXX XXXX system.  Again, I need every document, including every XXXX XXXX submission, submitted to every CRA to compare my numerous paper reports with data in my credit files reported via XXXX XXXX  Moreover, many of the XXXX XXXX  data fields are reported blank forcing fraudulent submission overrides rather than blocking incomplete or conflicting data.  Even when errors are discovered and acknowledge by top senior bank officials in charge of USA credit cards, nobody knows how to correct inaccurate reporting even after reporting ETHICAL misconduct to the bank Chairman of the Board.  One bank even hires incompetent High School Graduates to handle CFPB disputes without any knowledge of the FCRA or XXXX XXXX protocols and obligations.  I subscribe to a variety of services so I see daily changes to my credit files so I see the daily mistakes of credit reporting by erroneous coding under XXXX XXXX.  Many Many Many times I see a DISPUTE ADDED one day and then fraudulently and inaccurately REMOVED the next day.  Everyone knows that Debt Collectors try not to report Disputes, even though required, as a dispute may not negatively affect a credit score which may hinder chances to force consumers to pay even fraudulent disputed claims as consumers generally want good scores.  Well, the system tanked my scores needlessly!   Is your Debt Collector commission of peanuts worth $XXXX+ in attorney fees and punitive damages?  Do you want to risk the CFPB coming after you demanding $XXXX+?  Do you want to lose clients and be put out of business by the CFPB?  I object to having accounts reported on my credit reports as reporting is unconscionable!\n\nWhile your letter fails to disclose what I consider a complete mandatory inclusion of the statutes set forth at the beginning for consumers rights regarding Debt Validation, I am responding even though the failure to respond would not have consequences in litigation.  The CFPB and others suggest some of below type of questions for Debt collectors to respond to.  I like to purposely repeat points so that there can be no misunderstanding about what I am writing about and requesting. \n\nPlease supply the information below so that I can be fully informed:\nWhy you think I owe the purported debt and to whom I owe it, including:\n\n The name and address of the creditor to whom the purported debt is currently allegedly owed, the complete account number used by that creditor and the previously issued account numbers, if any, the complete account number reported to every CRA for current and past account numbers and the detailed amount allegedly owed since inception including amounts and all data reported to every CRA.  Please note that there is no reason to NOT report a complete account number in letters and credit files especially when an account has been closed to future transactions especially if consumers have ZERO liability for unauthorized activity, especially after closure.  If an account has been closed or an account number has changed in the last 7 years, please send documentary proof of the dates of closure and/or account number change and the dates reported of the mandatory mid-cycle update to every CRA to ascertain whether the mandatory XXXX XXXX protocols have been compliant or violated.  \n\n If this purported debt started with a different creditor, provide the name and address of the original creditor, the entire account number used by that creditor, and the detailed amount owed to that creditor at the time it was transferred. When you identify the original creditor, please provide any other name by which I might know them, if that is different from the official name. In addition, tell me the exact date and complete terms of the relationship when the current creditor and/or debt collector obtained the purported debt and who the current creditor obtained it from.\n\n Provide verification and documentation that there is a valid basis for claiming that I am required to pay the purported debt to the current creditor. For example, can you provide a copy of the written agreement that created my original requirement to pay?  Again, I need to know about any ARBITRATION provision buried into any original or amended agreements as I cannot rely on the search results of the CFPB or other websites. I also need any purported contract provision that authorized the reporting to a CRA (if it exists) which I hereby revoke as invalid ab initio if any data was inaccurately reported to any CRA, either willfully or otherwise.  Reporting to a CRA must be 100% accurate otherwise DELETION is mandatory. Inaccurate credit reporting, standing alone, is unconditional grounds to bar future credit reporting at the request of a consumer to guarantee the consumers right to privacy.  I object to credit reporting of all my closed and disputed accounts due to willful violations of the FCRA and other statutes.  \n\n If you are asking that I pay a purported debt that somebody else is or was required to pay, (such as an insurance company through a credit card benefit) identify that person or entity. Provide verification and documentation about why this is a purported debt that I am required to pay.\n\nThe amount and age of the purported debt, including:\n A copy of the every billing statement sent to me by the purported original creditor since inception.\n\n State the required Date of First Delinquency (month/day/year) with the detailed amount of the purported debt when you obtained it, and when that was.  \n\n If there have been any additional interest, fees or charges added since the last billing statement from the purported original creditor, provide an itemization showing the dates and amount of each added amount. In addition, explain how the added interest, fees or other charges are expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or are permitted by law.  If my purported account has been closed, state the date closed, and every change of interest rate thereafter including rate justification after closing.  If my purported account involves any CFPB claims and disputes for statutory or other damages for willful FCRA or other disputes, please identify precisely offsets of claims in statements and balances reported to every CRA.  \n\n If there have been any payments or other reductions since the last billing statement from the original creditor, provide an itemization showing the dates and amount of each of them.\n\n If there have been any other changes or adjustments since the last billing statement from the original creditor, please provide full verification and documentation of the amount you are trying to collect. Explain how that amount was calculated. In addition, explain how the other changes or adjustments are expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.\n\n Tell me when the creditor claims this debt became due and when it became delinquent.\n\n Identify the date of the last payment and amount made on this account.\n\n Have you made a determination that this debt is within the statute of limitations applicable to it? Tell me when you think the statute of limitations expires for this debt, and how you determined that.\n\nDetails a","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-12T11:16:45.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"32836","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7535422","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"RAS LaVrar, LLC","date_received":"2023-09-12T11:08:32.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Accurate <em>account</em> number reporting of <em>accounts</em> is required under XXXX XXXX  to prevent purported <em>accounts</em> from being inaccurately reported twice (or more) instead of once otherwise additional willful FCRA violations and statutory damages shall <em>accrue</em>.  Since my XXXX  and XXXX  credit reports do not contain your referenced <em>account</em> number, I must consider that it involves identity theft for which your obligations must be followed exactly as required."]},"sort":[4.1959066,"7535422"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8189166","_score":4.1928515,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Debt collector obligations\n 809. Validation of debts\n(Part 1 of a 2 Part CFPB Complaint)\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX  \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  (ref XXXX)\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, SC XXXX  \nCrown Asset Management,LLC\n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX (Acct # XXXX XXXX)\n\nProposed 3 Arbitration cases with XXXX  and/or XXXX  \n(Case 1) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\n(Case 2) XXXX XXXX XXXX Crown Asset Management, LLC \n(Case 3) XXXX XXXX XXXX Crown Asset Management, LLC Claimants unilateral right and election for a separate THREE-ARBITRATOR panel and tribunal  for every XXXX  case due to the normal mandatory default for complex claims exceeding $XXXX with the 3 Arbitrator panel selected exclusively by Claimant\n\nDear Debt Collector:\n\nIt was a bright cold day in XXXX, and the clocks were striking XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX). In this case, Defendants argument is like the XXXX  chime of a clock: you not only know its wrong, but it causes you to wonder about everything you heard before. Chief United States District Court Judge XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Florida, in case # XXXX, wrote the above OPENING LINE at Page 1 by quoting the famous opening line of XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the book that introduced the world to the concept of XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX OPENING LINE sets the stage of exactly what to expect in his 139 page scathing decision in his Order on Motions for Preliminary Injunctions filed XXXX.  The XXXX XXXX strike of all of the clocks at the same time calls into question not only the credibility of itself but of the previous twelve. In the XXXX  world of XXXX XXXX, the clocks striking thirteen is not an aberration, but a normal way of life where Every record has been destroyed or falsifiedevery date has been altered.  Was the Novel XXXX  writing about and predicting the out of control and never ending Credit Reporting and Debt Collector fiasco ???  Another relevant XXXX XXXX  quote stated:  In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.  Well Debt Collectors and Creditors, like the totalitarian XXXX  Party, can make outrageous false claims, such as [2 + 2 = 5], but Im not buying it, Im not getting tricked and Im not getting abused as I have the freedom, power, law and common sense to reject them.  Just keep continually revisiting the OPENING LINE many times as you read, take notes, reread, investigate, research, talk to experts, talk to clients, reinvestigate and get to know and understand the following facts and argument!!  Start by first trying to figure out and explain how my credit score, per the attached exhibit, was impossibly reduced to XXXX  on XXXX XXXX XXXX based on my XXXX  credit report. Did you cause it???  Are you responsible???  But first, should your limited resources be wasted on pursuing an insolvent judgment proof XXXX  XXXX XXXX  Citizen on Social Security with a XXXX  (XXXX) credit score???  XXXX XXXX needed 139 pages to address the obvious.  Your appropriate response requires many many many more than 139 pages to address my following issues.  It should be a NO-BRAINER that you and your predecessors and successors in interest MUST UNCONDITIONALLY and PERMANENTLY STOP, CEASE AND DESIST ALL COLLECTION EFFORTS on the disputed purported debt to mitigate damages.  Its not rocket science, Its not brain surgery, Its a piece of cake and Its a walk in the park are common phrases that describe concepts or tasks that are easily understood or performed that are certainly applicable here. Dont be STUPID!!  You have no viable ALTERNATIVE! Tell the CFPB in your required response that you permanently cease all collection efforts with a notation that an ARBITRATION filing, if one exists and is applicable, is the only permissible future communication!!!  If an ARBITRATION agreement exists, please be absolutely clear and dont directly or indirectly wrongly threaten or imply filing a prohibited court action or lawsuit as it would be considered a FDCPA violation intended to harass, threaten and abuse!!!\n\nHere's the relevant section of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g, on debt validation, for your response, prohibitions and obligations:\n 809. Validation of debts\n(a) Notice of debt; contents\nWithin five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --\n(1) the amount of the debt;\n(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;\n(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;\n(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and\n(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.\n(b) Disputed debts\nIf the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.\n(c) Admission of liability\nThe failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.\n\n\nI am responding to your attached letter(s) about a purported debt as set forth in your attached letter(s).  I request that you mail me a written Validation of Debt which must include all of the proof and documents described at length below. I vigorously DISPUTE the purported debt in its entirety.  This is NOT my Debt and I DISPUTE it. I want you to send me by USPS mail the name and address of the original creditor and any successors in interest or transferees, if any.  I do not have any responsibility for the purported debt youre referencing and trying to collect. So I DISPUTE it.  This is not my purported collectible debt. Again, I want to make it absolutely clear by repetition that I DISPUTE it in its entirety so that you can clearly red flag and mark your files as DISPUTED to avoid Willful FDCPA violations.  If you have good reason to believe that I am responsible for this DISPUTED purported debt, mail me by USPS every document in your and your clients entire file, including but not limited to every direct and indirect written dispute with the CFPB, CRAs  or otherwise including those documents that make you believe that the purported debt is valid, enforceable and collectible.  Immediately STOP, DESIST and CEASE all other and further communication with me and with this address, (except to respond one time in writing by USPS mail to my request for every piece of proof of the purported debt that would be presented to an ARBITRATOR or in a federal motion for summary judgment with incorporated memorandum of law) and record that I vigorously DISPUTE having any obligation for this purported debt. The USPS, email, text messaging, social media or other unsecured communication means cannot be trusted to safely and securely deliver mail and communications or to prevent receipt by unauthorized individuals, at other addresses, by accident, scammers, fraudsters or negligence.  To wit, much of my USPS mail is delivered opened and tampered with and read by others many times as, for example, the name and address window is not visible due to mailing incompetence. Similarly, the USPS tracking service for certified mail is unreliable and cannot be trusted.  I am requesting no further communication of any kind whatsoever to therefore prevent mail or communications to be received at other addresses due to sender issues, hackers, scammers, and USPS errors and negligence.  Likewise, kindly immediately STOP all further unwanted direct and indirect text messages, emails, phone calls, voice messages, or any other social media or other communication with me regarding your attempts to collect the purported DISPUTED debt.  I have made about 100 CFPB complaints regarding FCRA and other violations and I suspect that the recent XXXX XXXX CFPB DATA BREACH affecting at least 256,000 consumers has almost certainly affected me so I must be overly careful to guard against scammers to limit erroneous release of my private data and communications. For this and other obvious reasons, I need you to STOP further communications and I obviously need the requested documentation proof regarding any claims as any claims are suspect absent complete documentation. Notice is Given that I forever object to the voice recordings of any kind and I therefore do not consent for anyone to record calls with me without my prior written consent which I will never authorize. Once a debt collector receives this letter requesting that they immediately STOP contacting me in any way, theyre not allowed to communicate with me again except to tell me there will be no further contact, provide me with documents requested, or advise me of specific planned legal actions within 20 days that may legally be allowed, such as filing an Arbitration action against me as a lawsuit is not permissible and cannot be threatened under the FDCPA if an Arbitration Agreement exists. So please dont threaten me with any barred court litigation which would violate any Arbitration Agreement as I will consider it a violation of state and federal statutes. If you stop your collection of this purported debt, and forward or return it to another company, please indicate to them that it is DISPUTED in its entirety by forwarding all past documents in the file and communications including this letter. If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), also report that the debt is DISPUTED as required by FCRA, FDCPA and the 350+ page XXXX XXXX  Compliance protocols. I insist on compliance with every applicable state and federal statutes, including but not limited to the FCRA and FDCPA.  Any willful past, current or future violations of credit reporting and collection procedures shall incur maximum statutory and punitive damages plus attorneys fees and costs against violators, personally or otherwise.  I have reviewed my entire paper credit reports of XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and  the account number referenced in your letter is not included in my credit reports, possibly due to reckless negligence in data reporting under the XXXX XXXX  compliance protocols contained in its 355+ page manual.  Accurate account number reporting of accounts is required under XXXX XXXX  to prevent purported accounts from being inaccurately reported twice (or more) instead of once otherwise additional willful FCRA violations and statutory damages shall accrue.  Since my XXXX  and XXXX credit reports do not contain your referenced account number, I must consider that it involves identity theft for which your obligations must be followed exactly as required.  I have never received any Notice from anyone  stating that you are a bona fide authorized agent for Debt collection purposes. So consider this letter a formal Notice that I DISPUTE the purported debt due to IDENTITY THEFT.  The most troubling, malicious and intolerable willful FCRA violations possible occurred when my credit score was impossibly reduced to XXXX  on XXXX based on my XXXX XXXX credit report due to IDIOTS, BOTS, SCAMMERS, debt/bill collectors and/or FRAUDSTERS illegally tampering with my credit files via XXXX XXXX and other data submissions to purposely damage my credit score to XXXX for a sinister purpose. XXXX XXXX  IS WATCHING YOU!!  That includes the CFPB, the FED, the OCC, the FDIC, the DOJ, the FTC and other regulators who are ALL watching every move you make and ready to put you out of business. Moreover, I need to know your opinion and representation as to whether the documents which I need and request will include an ARBITRATION clause which would require disputes to be resolved through ARBITRATION rather than a United States District Court individual or class action lawsuit.  While I believe credit card accounts with your purported client may contain MANDATORY ARBITRATION clauses, I cannot be sure without all the purported agreement documents and a binding representation. The CFPB has warned consumers to be on the lookout for Identity Theft and bill/debt collector SCAMMERS falsely claiming entitlement to amounts not owed.  I obviously need the documents requested and I will continue to consider this a matter of IDENTITY THEFT unless and until I receive an AFFIDAVIT from the purported original creditor providing me all the requested documents.  In XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX I was a victim of Identity Theft when scammers wiped out my checking account funds due to my bank breach and bank error when multiple debit card numbers were submitted and approved by possible random guessing without my card expiration date, 3 digit security code, Name, address, or other required data to process a transaction.  I never used the debit card and my debit card was safely locked away and under my exclusive control at all times.  After multiple calls and secure messages to my bank, I filed a complaint with the CFPB and the bank still has not discovered how the breach and fraud happened.  If a random guess at a debit card can wipe out my checking account, it would be easier to guess at bank credit card numbers in a debt collector scam warned by the CFPB.  Are you a SCAMMER victimizing me with IDENTITY THEFT?  Are you trying to SCAM an XXXX XXXX XXXX? I need AFFIDAVITS with the requested proof.  I need the requested proof! I will not get scammed again.  I trust NOONE, even ROBO attorneys.  Get your ducks in a row!!!  I would not be happy if I am forced to file a U.S. District Court action only to be faced with a Motion To Compel Arbitration due to concealment of agreement documents.  Any such frivolous conduct would be rightfully countered with my Motion for Summary Judgment and a temporary restraining order request to punish violators for willful FCRA violations and other statutes, further claiming a WAIVER was created by concealment.  If warranted, I will have no problem also naming the CFPB and its Director, XXXX XXXX, in any federal court action to the extent necessary to obtain 100% compliance with the FCRA, FDCPA and related statutes. I also advise you that I am a XXXX years XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX  in poor health and judgment proof and all my income is from EXEMPT sources such as federal Social Security benefits with my average balance in my social security account is below my monthly SS deposit and never more than 2 times my monthly deposit.  I simply have no assets or income which anyone can attach from pointless, abusive or frivolous litigation intended merely to harass and abuse me. Moreover, last year I have been affected by medical malpractice, COVID-19, a declared natural disaster by a direct hit by Hurricane Ian, illnesses and other medical matters all at the same time.  Plus, as stated ago, my checking account was wiped out by fraudsters.  Moreover, I discovered that my credit file reported false delinquencies even though I actually had a perfect credit payment record and such concealments reduced my credit score by XXXX  points totally destroying my credit. Everything bad happened to me all at once starting with medical malpractice, health issues and SCAMMERS and then by Hurricane IAN and then by creditors promising publicized payment deferrals yet then falsely reporting delinquencies.  My credit reports are inaccurate and incomplete as the required coding for my situation is not on my credit report for any listed account. How hard is it to insert the XXXX XXXX code XXXX  into every account?  Do you even know what XXXX  means?  However, I am ready, willing and able to litigate and defend any frivolous litigation or arbitration including seeking relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for any appealable order including the delay or denial of injunctive relief requests.  I shall also insist on compliance with federal Rule 11 and motions for Rule 11 violations shall be filed promptly after the expiration of applicable safe harbor periods for incurred violations.  Moreover, if I live long enough, I am prepared to seek personal XXXXXXXX XXXX bankruptcy relief if and when necessary, filing objections to all claims and submitting my claims for damages through bankruptcy adversary proceedings. Do you want to pay an Arbitrator $50,000 to gain nothing?  Do you think you can avoid my XXXX XXXX requests and information subpoenas?  Do you want the CFPB to come after you when you violate your obligations? \n\nAgain, I am responding to your contact about a purported debt you are attempting to collect which, as stated multiple times, I DISPUTE in its entirety.\n\nAgain, please STOP all direct and indirect communication of any kind with me and with this address about this purported debt except to respond to me in writing regarding my requested documents by delivering me requested documents.  Furthermore, due to hearing problems and issues, I am unable to receive phone calls so I am unable to discuss any matter over the phone or otherwise under any scenario.  Just STOP all communications!  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) restricts calls to residential and wireless telephone numbers absent the prior express consent of the called party.   I do not want any calls or direct or indirect communications of any kind whatsoever to be made to me in the future. I do not consent to receiving any calls made to me in the future and any calls received by me after you receive this letter shall be considered willful violations of the TCPA for which maximum possible penalties shall become automatically and immediately due and owing to me by violators without notice.\n\nAgain, record and prominently FLAG in your records that I forever DISPUTE having any obligation for this purported debt.  Again, if you forward or return this purported debt to another company, please indicate to them that it is DISPUTED. If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), also immediately report that the purported debt is DISPUTED.  Once I notify a CRA and/or Furnisher and/or Debt Collector that I DISPUTE data (such as this dispute) my credit report MUST INDEFINITELY include the required PERMANENT Notice that the account is DISPUTED BY CONSUMER even if the CRA/Furnisher/Debt Collector disagrees.  If my credit report from any CRA has at any time in the past (or in the future) included an account related to your purported disputed debt without the required DISPUTED status, then such FCRA violation shall be considered a Willful, wanton, malicious, deliberate, abusive and intentional violation for which the maximum statutory damages of $1,000 shall be sought against every violator, plus punitive damages.  XXXX XXXX  is quite complex and impossible to comply with so the best procedure of reporting is to never report at all and to never change, delete, update or alter dispute status as such will almost certainly result in manual negligent incompetent user errors for which damages will accumulate quickly to entirely offset purported debts.  While some untrained incompetent employees may willfully violate the FCRA to purposely destroy a consumers credit score in hope to collect purported disputed debts under duress, I demand compliance with the FCRA, FDCPA and every other statute.  In my opinion, Furnishers/Debt Collectors are best served by permanently DELETING from credit files Disputed/Uncollectible accounts to mitigate damages from Furnisher/user errors and willful unlawful conduct.  Every interaction with a creditor, a CRA and/or debt collector constitutes an opportunity for me to obtain statutory, punitive and other damages, including attorney fees, when laws are broken for willful and negligent non-compliance with known statutory requirements and protocols.  The best possible settlement obtainable would be to walk away and abandon any and all disputed purported uncollectible claims otherwise I will be one your creditors with exponentially increasing claims after you continue to violate my rights.  I never agreed to permit anyone to report inaccurate or incomplete information of any kind on my credit report.  I have never been offered my statutory right to OPT-IN or OPT-OUT of credit reporting to protect my right to privacy to prevent FCRA violations.  I hereby unconditionally and unilaterally REVOKE and terminate for CAUSE any imaginable right to report data of any kind on any of my credit files with any CRA.  Obligations under the FCRA, FDCPA and other debt collection and reporting statutes TRUMP any purported creditor claims so compliance of every statutes is a precondition to collect and report any purported claims.  If you want to do business with consumers, you must first learn how to comply with extensive ever changing obligations, including XXXX XXXX which is impossible to accurately report even by a specialist due to arbitrary and confusing possibilities. Stated another way, an original credit card purported creditor is not entitled to collect claims unless and until all its obligations have been satisfactorily completed without violations of any law.  You should be careful to comply with mandatory statutory imposed record retention requirements to enable the CFPB to administer and carry out the purposes of the FCRA, FDCPA, the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as to prevent evasions thereof. The record retention requirements also will facilitate supervision of debt collectors and the assessment and detection of risks to consumers.  The CFPB has published a comprehensive checklist to audit and insure compliance with regulatory obligations.  I suggest you review the checklist to insure compliance before responding to me.  You should know that as soon as Hurricane IAN hit me directly and my health was affected by XXXXXXXX and other health issues with other issues plus a wipe out of my checking account, I diligently contacted every creditor seeking publicized payment deferrals and other relief only to be effectively denied relief by incompetence.  The general creditor response was to retaliate against me for merely asking for relief by inaccurately reporting every account inaccurately.  No one knows how to code XXXX XXXX except for simple payment reporting but when things get changed errors are everywhere, either negligently or willfully.  If I made 100% of my payments and if I was never late how could credit reporting agencies say I was 60 days delinquent?   More importantly, I discovered that each CRA provided me with conflicting data on my paper reports and my paper reports did not contain all the data reported to CRAs under XXXX XXXX.  Why is data reported on XXXX XXXX but concealed from my paper credit reports?  Why do my paper credit reports only contain a small portion of data reported by XXXX XXXX and contained in my credit file?  How can I properly dispute my credit file if 50% of the data in my CRA file is concealed from consumers?  How can I discover inaccurate data on my credit file if 50% of data is concealed from me and excluded from my paper credit reports?  The entire credit reporting system is a disgrace in complete disregard for consumers rights and rights to privacy.  Every communication with a creditor seemed to result in negligent data entry errors by users.  Furnishers are incapable of complying with statutory obligations and the XXXX XXXX system.  Again, I need every document, including every XXXX XXXX submission, submitted to every CRA to compare my numerous paper reports with data in my credit files reported via XXXX XXXX Moreover, many of the XXXX XXXX data fields are reported blank forcing fraudulent submission overrides rather than blocking incomplete or conflicting data.  Even when errors are discovered and acknowledge by top senior bank officials in charge of USA credit cards, nobody knows how to correct inaccurate reporting even after reporting ETHICAL misconduct to the bank Chairman of the Board.  One bank even hires incompetent High School Graduates to handle CFPB disputes without any knowledge of the FCRA or XXXX XXXX protocols and obligations.  I subscribe to a variety of services so I see daily changes to my credit files so I see the daily mistakes of credit reporting by erroneous coding under XXXX XXXX.  Many Many Many times I see a DISPUTE ADDED one day and then fraudulently and inaccurately REMOVED the next day.  Everyone knows that Debt Collectors try not to report Disputes, even though required, as a dispute may not negatively affect a credit score which may hinder chances to force consumers to pay even fraudulent disputed claims as consumers generally want good scores.  Well, the system tanked my scores needlessly!   Is your Debt Collector commission of peanuts worth $XXXX+ in attorney fees and punitive damages?  Do you want to risk the CFPB coming after you demanding $XXXX+?  Do you want to lose clients and be put out of business by the CFPB?  I object to having accounts reported on my credit reports as reporting is unconscionable!\n\nWhile your letter fails to disclose what I consider a complete mandatory inclusion of the statutes set forth at the beginning for consumers rights regarding Debt Validation, I am responding even though the failure to respond would not have consequences in litigation.  The CFPB and others suggest some of below type of questions for Debt collectors to respond to.  I like to purposely repeat points so that there can be no misunderstanding about what I am writing about and requesting. \n\nPlease supply the information below so that I can be fully informed:\nWhy you think I owe the purported debt and to whom I owe it, including:\n\n The name and address of the creditor to whom the purported debt is currently allegedly owed, the complete account number used by that creditor and the previously issued account numbers, if any, the complete account number reported to every CRA for current and past account numbers and the detailed amount allegedly owed since inception including amounts and all data reported to every CRA.  Please note that there is no reason to NOT report a complete account number in letters and credit files especially when an account has been closed to future transactions especially if consumers have ZERO liability for unauthorized activity, especially after closure.  If an account has been closed or an account number has changed in the last 7 years, please send documentary proof of the dates of closure and/or account number change and the dates reported of the mandatory mid-cycle update to every CRA to ascertain whether the mandatory  XXXX XXXX protocols have been compliant or violated.  \n\n If this purported debt started with a different creditor, provide the name and address of the original creditor, the entire account number used by that creditor, and the detailed amount owed to that creditor at the time it was transferred. When you identify the original creditor, please provide any other name by which I might know them, if that is different from the official name. In addition, tell me the exact date and complete terms of the relationship when the current creditor and/or debt collector obtained the purported debt and who the current creditor obtained it from.\n\n Provide verification and documentation that there is a valid basis for claiming that I am required to pay the purported debt to the current creditor. For example, can you provide a copy of the written agreement that created my original requirement to pay?  Again, I need to know about any ARBITRATION provision buried into any original or amended agreements as I cannot rely on the search results of the CFPB or other websites. I also need any purported contract provision that authorized the reporting to a CRA (if it exists) which I hereby revoke as invalid ab initio if any data was inaccurately reported to any CRA, either willfully or otherwise.  Reporting to a CRA must be 100% accurate otherwise DELETION is mandatory. Inaccurate credit reporting, standing alone, is unconditional grounds to bar future credit reporting at the request of a consumer to guarantee the consumers right to privacy.  I object to credit reporting of all my closed and disputed accounts due to willful violations of the FCRA and other statutes.  \n\n If you are asking that I pay a purported debt that somebody else is or was required to pay, (such as an insurance company through a credit card benefit) identify that person or entity. Provide verification and documentation about why this is a purported debt that I am required to pay.\n\nThe amount and age of the purported debt, including:\n A copy of the every billing statement sent to me by the purported original creditor since inception.\n\n State the required Date of First Delinquency (month/day/year) with the detailed amount of the purported debt when you obtained it, and when that was.  \n\n If there have been any additional interest, fees or charges added since the last billing statement from the purported original creditor, provide an itemization showing the dates and amount of each added amount. In addition, explain how the added interest, fees or other charges are expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or are permitted by law.  If my purported account has been closed, state the date closed, and every change of interest rate thereafter including rate justification after closing.  If my purported account involves any CFPB claims and disputes for statutory or other damages for willful FCRA or other disputes, please identify precisely offsets of claims in statements and balances reported to every CRA.  \n\n If there have been any payments or other reductions since the last billing statement from the original creditor, provide an itemization showing the dates and amount of each of them.\n\n If there have been any other changes or adjustments since the last billing statement from the original creditor, please provide full verification and documentation of the amount you are trying to collect. Explain how that amount was calculated. In addition, explain how the other changes or adjustments are expressly authorized by the agreem","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-19T16:35:42.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"32836","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8189166","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Crown Asset Management, LLC, Duluth, GA Branch","date_received":"2024-01-19T16:35:38.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Accurate <em>account</em> number reporting of <em>accounts</em> is required under XXXX XXXX  to prevent purported <em>accounts</em> from being inaccurately reported twice (or more) instead of once otherwise additional willful FCRA violations and statutory damages shall <em>accrue</em>.  Since my XXXX  and XXXX credit reports do not contain your referenced <em>account</em> number, I must consider that it involves identity theft for which your obligations must be followed exactly as required."]},"sort":[4.1928515,"8189166"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8189093","_score":4.191729,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Debt collector obligations\n 809. Validation of debts\n(Part 1 of a 2 Part CFPB Complaint)\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Florida. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (ref XXXX)\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, SC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX (Acct # XXXX XXXX)\n\nProposed 3 Arbitration cases with XXXX  and/or XXXX  \n(Case 1) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  \n(Case 2) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\n(Case 3) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  \n\nClaimants unilateral right and election for a separate THREE-ARBITRATOR panel and tribunal  for every XXXX  case due to the normal mandatory default for complex claims exceeding $XXXX with the 3 Arbitrator panel selected exclusively by Claimant\n\nDear Debt Collector:\n\nIt was a bright cold day in XXXX, and the clocks were striking thirteen, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. In this case, Defendants argument is like the thirteenth chime of a clock: you not only know its wrong, but it causes you to wonder about everything you heard before. Chief United States District Court Judge XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Florida, in case # XXXX, wrote the above OPENING LINE at Page 1 by quoting the famous opening line of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the book that introduced the world to the concept of XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sets the stage of exactly what to expect in his XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX decision in his Order on Motions for Preliminary Injunctions filed XXXXXXXX.  The 1984 thirteenth strike of all of the clocks at the same time calls into question not only the credibility of itself but of the previous twelve. In the XXXX world of XXXX XXXX, the clocks striking thirteen is not an aberration, but a normal way of life where Every record has been destroyed or falsifiedevery date has been altered.  Was the XXXX XXXX writing about and predicting the out of control and never ending Credit Reporting and Debt Collector fiasco ???  Another relevant XXXX XXXX quote stated:  In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it.  Well Debt Collectors and Creditors, like the XXXX XXXX Party, can make outrageous false claims, such as [2 + 2 = 5], but Im not buying it, Im not getting tricked and Im not getting abused as I have the freedom, power, law and common sense to reject them.  Just keep continually revisiting the OPENING LINE many times as you read, take notes, reread, investigate, research, talk to experts, talk to clients, reinvestigate and get to know and understand the following facts and argument!!  Start by first trying to figure out and explain how my credit score, per the attached exhibit, was impossibly reduced to XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX based on my XXXX  credit report. Did you cause it???  Are you responsible???  But first, should your limited resources be wasted on pursuing an insolvent judgment proof handicapped dying XXXX  Citizen on Social Security with a XXXX  (XXXX) credit score???  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to address the obvious.  Your appropriate response requires many many many more than XXXX  pages to address my following issues.  It should be a NO-BRAINER that you and your predecessors and successors in interest MUST UNCONDITIONALLY and PERMANENTLY STOP, CEASE AND DESIST ALL COLLECTION EFFORTS on the disputed purported debt to mitigate damages.  Its not rocket science, Its not brain surgery, Its a piece of cake and Its a walk in the park are common phrases that describe concepts or tasks that are easily understood or performed that are certainly applicable here. Dont be XXXX!!  You have no viable ALTERNATIVE! Tell the CFPB in your required response that you permanently cease all collection efforts with a notation that an ARBITRATION filing, if one exists and is applicable, is the only permissible future communication!!!  If an ARBITRATION agreement exists, please be absolutely clear and dont directly or indirectly wrongly threaten or imply filing a prohibited court action or lawsuit as it would be considered a FDCPA violation intended to harass, threaten and abuse!!!\n\nHere's the relevant section of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g, on debt validation, for your response, prohibitions and obligations:\n 809. Validation of debts\n(a) Notice of debt; contents\nWithin five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --\n(1) the amount of the debt;\n(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;\n(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;\n(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and\n(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.\n(b) Disputed debts\nIf the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection activities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue during the 30-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities and communication during the 30-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the debt or request the name and address of the original creditor.\n(c) Admission of liability\nThe failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.\n\n\nI am responding to your attached letter(s) about a purported debt as set forth in your attached letter(s).  I request that you mail me a written Validation of Debt which must include all of the proof and documents described at length below. I vigorously DISPUTE the purported debt in its entirety.  This is NOT my Debt and I DISPUTE it. I want you to send me by USPS mail the name and address of the original creditor and any successors in interest or transferees, if any.  I do not have any responsibility for the purported debt youre referencing and trying to collect. So I DISPUTE it.  This is not my purported collectible debt. Again, I want to make it absolutely clear by repetition that I DISPUTE it in its entirety so that you can clearly red flag and mark your files as DISPUTED to avoid Willful FDCPA violations.  If you have good reason to believe that I am responsible for this DISPUTED purported debt, mail me by USPS every document in your and your clients entire file, including but not limited to every direct and indirect written dispute with the CFPB, CRAs  or otherwise including those documents that make you believe that the purported debt is valid, enforceable and collectible.  Immediately STOP, DESIST and CEASE all other and further communication with me and with this address, (except to respond one time in writing by USPS mail to my request for every piece of proof of the purported debt that would be presented to an ARBITRATOR or in a federal motion for summary judgment with incorporated memorandum of law) and record that I vigorously DISPUTE having any obligation for this purported debt. The USPS, email, text messaging, social media or other unsecured communication means cannot be trusted to safely and securely deliver mail and communications or to prevent receipt by unauthorized individuals, at other addresses, by accident, scammers, fraudsters or negligence.  To wit, much of my USPS mail is delivered opened and tampered with and read by others many times as, for example, the name and address window is not visible due to mailing incompetence. Similarly, the USPS tracking service for certified mail is unreliable and cannot be trusted.  I am requesting no further communication of any kind whatsoever to therefore prevent mail or communications to be received at other addresses due to sender issues, hackers, scammers, and USPS errors and negligence.  Likewise, kindly immediately STOP all further unwanted direct and indirect text messages, emails, phone calls, voice messages, or any other social media or other communication with me regarding your attempts to collect the purported DISPUTED debt.  I have made about 100 CFPB complaints regarding FCRA and other violations and I suspect that the recent XXXX XXXX  CFPB DATA BREACH affecting at least 256,000 consumers has almost certainly affected me so I must be overly careful to guard against scammers to limit erroneous release of my private data and communications. For this and other obvious reasons, I need you to STOP further communications and I obviously need the requested documentation proof regarding any claims as any claims are suspect absent complete documentation. Notice is Given that I forever object to the voice recordings of any kind and I therefore do not consent for anyone to record calls with me without my prior written consent which I will never authorize. Once a debt collector receives this letter requesting that they immediately STOP contacting me in any way, theyre not allowed to communicate with me again except to tell me there will be no further contact, provide me with documents requested, or advise me of specific planned legal actions within 20 days that may legally be allowed, such as filing an Arbitration action against me as a lawsuit is not permissible and cannot be threatened under the FDCPA if an Arbitration Agreement exists. So please dont threaten me with any barred court litigation which would violate any Arbitration Agreement as I will consider it a violation of state and federal statutes. If you stop your collection of this purported debt, and forward or return it to another company, please indicate to them that it is DISPUTED in its entirety by forwarding all past documents in the file and communications including this letter. If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), also report that the debt is DISPUTED as required by FCRA, FDCPA and the 350+ page XXXX XXXX  Compliance protocols. I insist on compliance with every applicable state and federal statutes, including but not limited to the FCRA and FDCPA.  Any willful past, current or future violations of credit reporting and collection procedures shall incur maximum statutory and punitive damages plus attorneys fees and costs against violators, personally or otherwise.  I have reviewed my entire paper credit reports of XXXX XXXX dated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and  the account number referenced in your letter is not included in my credit reports, possibly due to reckless negligence in data reporting under the XXXX XXXX  compliance protocols contained in its 355+ page manual.  Accurate account number reporting of accounts is required under XXXX XXXX  to prevent purported accounts from being inaccurately reported twice (or more) instead of once otherwise additional willful FCRA violations and statutory damages shall accrue.  Since my XXXX  and XXXX  credit reports do not contain your referenced account number, I must consider that it involves identity theft for which your obligations must be followed exactly as required.  I have never received any Notice from anyone  stating that you are a bona fide authorized agent for Debt collection purposes. So consider this letter a formal Notice that I DISPUTE the purported debt due to IDENTITY THEFT.  The most troubling, malicious and intolerable willful FCRA violations possible occurred when my credit score was impossibly reduced to XXXX  on XXXX based on my XXXX XXXX  credit report due to IDIOTS, BOTS, SCAMMERS, debt/bill collectors and/or FRAUDSTERS illegally tampering with my credit files via XXXX XXXX and other data submissions to purposely damage my credit score to XXXX  for a sinister purpose. XXXX XXXX IS WATCHING YOU!!  That includes the CFPB, the FED, the OCC, the FDIC, the DOJ, the FTC and other regulators who are ALL watching every move you make and ready to put you out of business. Moreover, I need to know your opinion and representation as to whether the documents which I need and request will include an ARBITRATION clause which would require disputes to be resolved through ARBITRATION rather than a United States District Court individual or class action lawsuit.  While I believe credit card accounts with your purported client may contain MANDATORY ARBITRATION clauses, I cannot be sure without all the purported agreement documents and a binding representation. The CFPB has warned consumers to be on the lookout for Identity Theft and bill/debt collector SCAMMERS falsely claiming entitlement to amounts not owed.  I obviously need the documents requested and I will continue to consider this a matter of IDENTITY THEFT unless and until I receive an AFFIDAVIT from the purported original creditor providing me all the requested documents.  In XXXX XXXX, I was a victim of Identity Theft when scammers wiped out my checking account funds due to my bank breach and bank error when multiple debit card numbers were submitted and approved by possible random guessing without my card expiration date, 3 digit security code, Name, address, or other required data to process a transaction.  I never used the debit card and my debit card was safely locked away and under my exclusive control at all times.  After multiple calls and secure messages to my bank, I filed a complaint with the CFPB and the bank still has not discovered how the breach and fraud happened.  If a random guess at a debit card can wipe out my checking account, it would be easier to guess at bank credit card numbers in a debt collector scam warned by the CFPB.  Are you a SCAMMER victimizing me with IDENTITY THEFT?  Are you trying to SCAM an elderly senior citizen? I need AFFIDAVITS with the requested proof.  I need the requested proof! I will not get scammed again.  I trust NOONE, even ROBO attorneys.  Get your ducks in a row!!!  I would not be happy if I am forced to file a U.S. District Court action only to be faced with a Motion To Compel Arbitration due to concealment of agreement documents.  Any such frivolous conduct would be rightfully countered with my Motion for Summary Judgment and a temporary restraining order request to punish violators for willful FCRA violations and other statutes, further claiming a WAIVER was created by concealment.  If warranted, I will have no problem also naming the CFPB and its Director, XXXX XXXX in any federal court action to the extent necessary to obtain 100% compliance with the FCRA, FDCPA and related statutes. I also advise you that I am a XXXX XXXX XXXX elder male and American with Disabilities in poor health and judgment proof and all my income is from EXEMPT sources such as federal Social Security benefits with my average balance in my social security account is below my monthly SS deposit and never more than 2 times my monthly deposit.  I simply have no assets or income which anyone can attach from pointless, abusive or frivolous litigation intended merely to harass and abuse me. Moreover, last year I have been affected by medical malpractice, COVID-19, a declared natural disaster by a direct hit by Hurricane Ian, illnesses and other medical matters all at the same time.  Plus, as stated ago, my checking account was wiped out by fraudsters.  Moreover, I discovered that my credit file reported false delinquencies even though I actually had a perfect credit payment record and such concealments reduced my credit score by XXXX  points totally destroying my credit. Everything bad happened to me all at once starting with medical malpractice, health issues and SCAMMERS and then by Hurricane IAN and then by creditors promising publicized payment deferrals yet then falsely reporting delinquencies.  My credit reports are inaccurate and incomplete as the required coding for my situation is not on my credit report for any listed account. How hard is it to insert the XXXX XXXX code AW into every account?  Do you even know what AW means?  However, I am ready, willing and able to litigate and defend any frivolous litigation or arbitration including seeking relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for any appealable order including the delay or denial of injunctive relief requests.  I shall also insist on compliance with federal Rule 11 and motions for Rule 11 violations shall be filed promptly after the expiration of applicable safe harbor periods for incurred violations.  Moreover, if I live long enough, I am prepared to seek personal XXXX  7 bankruptcy relief if and when necessary, filing objections to all claims and submitting my claims for damages through bankruptcy adversary proceedings. Do you want to pay an Arbitrator $XXXX to gain nothing?  Do you think you can avoid my XXXX XXXX requests and information subpoenas?  Do you want the CFPB to come after you when you violate your obligations? \n\nAgain, I am responding to your contact about a purported debt you are attempting to collect which, as stated multiple times, I DISPUTE in its entirety.\n\nAgain, please STOP all direct and indirect communication of any kind with me and with this address about this purported debt except to respond to me in writing regarding my requested documents by delivering me requested documents.  Furthermore, due to hearing problems and issues, I am unable to receive phone calls so I am unable to discuss any matter over the phone or otherwise under any scenario.  Just STOP all communications!  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) restricts calls to residential and wireless telephone numbers absent the prior express consent of the called party.   I do not want any calls or direct or indirect communications of any kind whatsoever to be made to me in the future. I do not consent to receiving any calls made to me in the future and any calls received by me after you receive this letter shall be considered willful violations of the TCPA for which maximum possible penalties shall become automatically and immediately due and owing to me by violators without notice.\n\nAgain, record and prominently XXXX  in your records that I forever DISPUTE having any obligation for this purported debt.  Again, if you forward or return this purported debt to another company, please indicate to them that it is DISPUTED. If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), also immediately report that the purported debt is DISPUTED.  Once I notify a CRA and/or Furnisher and/or Debt Collector that I DISPUTE data (such as this dispute) my credit report MUST INDEFINITELY include the required PERMANENT Notice that the account is DISPUTED BY CONSUMER even if the CRA/Furnisher/Debt Collector disagrees.  If my credit report from any CRA has at any time in the past (or in the future) included an account related to your purported disputed debt without the required DISPUTED status, then such FCRA violation shall be considered a Willful, wanton, malicious, deliberate, abusive and intentional violation for which the maximum statutory damages of $1,000 shall be sought against every violator, plus punitive damages.  Metro 2 is quite complex and impossible to comply with so the best procedure of reporting is to never report at all and to never change, delete, update or alter dispute status as such will almost certainly result in manual negligent incompetent user errors for which damages will accumulate quickly to entirely offset purported debts.  While some untrained incompetent employees may willfully violate the FCRA to purposely destroy a consumers credit score in hope to collect purported disputed debts under duress, I demand compliance with the FCRA, FDCPA and every other statute.  In my opinion, Furnishers/Debt Collectors are best served by permanently DELETING from credit files Disputed/Uncollectible accounts to mitigate damages from Furnisher/user errors and willful unlawful conduct.  Every interaction with a creditor, a CRA and/or debt collector constitutes an opportunity for me to obtain statutory, punitive and other damages, including attorney fees, when laws are broken for willful and negligent non-compliance with known statutory requirements and protocols.  The best possible settlement obtainable would be to walk away and abandon any and all disputed purported uncollectible claims otherwise I will be one your creditors with exponentially increasing claims after you continue to violate my rights.  I never agreed to permit anyone to report inaccurate or incomplete information of any kind on my credit report.  I have never been offered my statutory right to OPT-IN or OPT-OUT of credit reporting to protect my right to privacy to prevent FCRA violations.  I hereby unconditionally and unilaterally REVOKE and terminate for CAUSE any imaginable right to report data of any kind on any of my credit files with any CRA.  Obligations under the FCRA, FDCPA and other debt collection and reporting statutes TRUMP any purported creditor claims so compliance of every statutes is a precondition to collect and report any purported claims.  If you want to do business with consumers, you must first learn how to comply with extensive ever changing obligations, including XXXX XXXX, which is impossible to accurately report even by a specialist due to arbitrary and confusing possibilities. Stated another way, an original credit card purported creditor is not entitled to collect claims unless and until all its obligations have been satisfactorily completed without violations of any law.  You should be careful to comply with mandatory statutory imposed record retention requirements to enable the CFPB to administer and carry out the purposes of the FCRA, FDCPA, the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as to prevent evasions thereof. The record retention requirements also will facilitate supervision of debt collectors and the assessment and detection of risks to consumers.  The CFPB has published a comprehensive checklist to audit and insure compliance with regulatory obligations.  I suggest you review the checklist to insure compliance before responding to me.  You should know that as soon as Hurricane IAN hit me directly and my health was affected by XXXX  and other health issues with other issues plus a wipe out of my checking account, I diligently contacted every creditor seeking publicized payment deferrals and other relief only to be effectively denied relief by incompetence.  The general creditor response was to retaliate against me for merely asking for relief by inaccurately reporting every account inaccurately.  No one knows how to code XXXX XXXX except for simple payment reporting but when things get changed errors are everywhere, either negligently or willfully.  If I made 100% of my payments and if I was never late how could credit reporting agencies say I was 60 days delinquent?   More importantly, I discovered that each CRA provided me with conflicting data on my paper reports and my paper reports did not contain all the data reported to CRAs under XXXX XXXX.  Why is data reported on XXXX XXXX but concealed from my paper credit reports?  Why do my paper credit reports only contain a small portion of data reported by XXXX XXXX and contained in my credit file?  How can I properly dispute my credit file if 50% of the data in my CRA file is concealed from consumers?  How can I discover inaccurate data on my credit file if 50% of data is concealed from me and excluded from my paper credit reports?  The entire credit reporting system is a disgrace in complete disregard for consumers rights and rights to privacy.  Every communication with a creditor seemed to result in negligent data entry errors by users.  Furnishers are incapable of complying with statutory obligations and the XXXX XXXX system.  Again, I need every document, including every XXXX XXXX submission, submitted to every CRA to compare my numerous paper reports with data in my credit files reported via XXXX XXXX. Moreover, many of the XXXX XXXX data fields are reported blank forcing fraudulent submission overrides rather than blocking incomplete or conflicting data.  Even when errors are discovered and acknowledge by top senior bank officials in charge of USA credit cards, nobody knows how to correct inaccurate reporting even after reporting ETHICAL misconduct to the bank Chairman of the Board.  One bank even hires incompetent High School Graduates to handle CFPB disputes without any knowledge of the FCRA or XXXX XXXX protocols and obligations.  I subscribe to a variety of services so I see daily changes to my credit files so I see the daily mistakes of credit reporting by erroneous coding under XXXX XXXX.  Many Many Many times I see a DISPUTE ADDED one day and then fraudulently and inaccurately REMOVED the next day.  Everyone knows that Debt Collectors try not to report Disputes, even though required, as a dispute may not negatively affect a credit score which may hinder chances to force consumers to pay even fraudulent disputed claims as consumers generally want good scores.  Well, the system tanked my scores needlessly!   Is your Debt Collector commission of peanuts worth $100,000+ in attorney fees and punitive damages?  Do you want to risk the CFPB coming after you demanding $10,000,000+?  Do you want to lose clients and be put out of business by the CFPB?  I object to having accounts reported on my credit reports as reporting is unconscionable!\n\nWhile your letter fails to disclose what I consider a complete mandatory inclusion of the statutes set forth at the beginning for consumers rights regarding Debt Validation, I am responding even though the failure to respond would not have consequences in litigation.  The CFPB and others suggest some of below type of questions for Debt collectors to respond to.  I like to purposely repeat points so that there can be no misunderstanding about what I am writing about and requesting. \n\nPlease supply the information below so that I can be fully informed:\nWhy you think I owe the purported debt and to whom I owe it, including:\n\n The name and address of the creditor to whom the purported debt is currently allegedly owed, the complete account number used by that creditor and the previously issued account numbers, if any, the complete account number reported to every CRA for current and past account numbers and the detailed amount allegedly owed since inception including amounts and all data reported to every CRA.  Please note that there is no reason to NOT report a complete account number in letters and credit files especially when an account has been closed to future transactions especially if consumers have XXXX  liability for unauthorized activity, especially after closure.  If an account has been closed or an account number has changed in the last 7 years, please send documentary proof of the dates of closure and/or account number change and the dates reported of the mandatory mid-cycle update to every CRA to ascertain whether the mandatory  XXXX XXXX  protocols have been compliant or violated.  \n\n If this purported debt started with a different creditor, provide the name and address of the original creditor, the entire account number used by that creditor, and the detailed amount owed to that creditor at the time it was transferred. When you identify the original creditor, please provide any other name by which I might know them, if that is different from the official name. In addition, tell me the exact date and complete terms of the relationship when the current creditor and/or debt collector obtained the purported debt and who the current creditor obtained it from.\n\n Provide verification and documentation that there is a valid basis for claiming that I am required to pay the purported debt to the current creditor. For example, can you provide a copy of the written agreement that created my original requirement to pay?  Again, I need to know about any ARBITRATION provision buried into any original or amended agreements as I cannot rely on the search results of the CFPB or other websites. I also need any purported contract provision that authorized the reporting to a CRA (if it exists) which I hereby revoke as invalid ab initio if any data was inaccurately reported to any CRA, either willfully or otherwise.  Reporting to a CRA must be 100% accurate otherwise DELETION is mandatory. Inaccurate credit reporting, standing alone, is unconditional grounds to bar future credit reporting at the request of a consumer to guarantee the consumers right to privacy.  I object to credit reporting of all my closed and disputed accounts due to willful violations of the FCRA and other statutes.  \n\n If you are asking that I pay a purported debt that somebody else is or was required to pay, (such as an insurance company through a credit card benefit) identify that person or entity. Provide verification and documentation about why this is a purported debt that I am required to pay.\n\nThe amount and age of the purported debt, including:\n A copy of the every billing statement sent to me by the purported original creditor since inception.\n\n State the required Date of First Delinquency (month/day/year) with the detailed amount of the purported debt when you obtained it, and when that was.  \n\n If there have been any additional interest, fees or charges added since the last billing statement from the purported original creditor, provide an itemization showing the dates and amount of each added amount. In addition, explain how the added interest, fees or other charges are expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or are permitted by law.  If my purported account has been closed, state the date closed, and every change of interest rate thereafter including rate justification after closing.  If my purported account involves any CFPB claims and disputes for statutory or other damages for willful FCRA or other disputes, please identify precisely offsets of claims in statements and balances reported to every CRA.  \n\n If there have been any payments or other reductions since the last billing statement from the original creditor, provide an itemization showing the dates and amount of each of them.\n\n If there have been any other changes or adjustments since the last billing statement from the original creditor, please provide full verification and documentation of the amount you are trying to collect. Explain how that amount was calculated. In addition, explain how the other changes or adjustments are expressly authorized by the agreem","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-19T16:35:31.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"32836","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8189093","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"InvestiNet LLC","date_received":"2024-01-19T16:24:05.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Accurate <em>account</em> number reporting of <em>accounts</em> is required under XXXX XXXX  to prevent purported <em>accounts</em> from being inaccurately reported twice (or more) instead of once otherwise additional willful FCRA violations and statutory damages shall <em>accrue</em>.  Since my XXXX  and XXXX  credit reports do not contain your referenced <em>account</em> number, I must consider that it involves identity theft for which your obligations must be followed exactly as required."]},"sort":[4.191729,"8189093"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":28,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":28}]}},"product":{"doc_count":28,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":6},{"key":"Medical debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"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":"Student loan","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"Home equity loan or line of credit (HELOC)","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":3,"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":"Store credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":3}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":28,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":7}]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Received bad information about your loan","doc_count":4},{"key":"Trouble with how payments are being handled","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":3},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with fees charged","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"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":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Notice to repossess","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":28,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":28}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":28,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":23},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":5}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":28,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":28}]}},"company":{"doc_count":28,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"Central Research Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"AES/PHEAA","doc_count":1},{"key":"BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE","doc_count":1},{"key":"BSI Financial Holdings, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"COLORADO HOUSING AND FINANCE AUTHORITY","doc_count":1},{"key":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Crown Asset Management, LLC, Duluth, GA Branch","doc_count":1},{"key":"Exeter Finance, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"First Technology Federal Credit Union","doc_count":1},{"key":"FourLeaf Federal Credit Union","doc_count":1},{"key":"Hayt Hayt & Landau, P.L. (FL)","doc_count":1},{"key":"InvestiNet LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Pollack & Rosen, P.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"RAS LaVrar, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Receivables Management Partners, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"VW Credit","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":28,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":11},{"key":"CA","doc_count":5},{"key":"MI","doc_count":2},{"key":"NY","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA","doc_count":2},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"LA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"MN","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":28,"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":10},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":28,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":9},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":3}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[4.192665,"8181882"]}}}