{"took":251,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":8,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18303833","_score":22.89642,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT NARRATIVE Date : XX/XX/XXXX Company : Equifax Product : Credit reporting Issue : Problem with a companys investigation into an existing problem Consumer : XXXX XXXX Address : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, LA XXXX XXXX : XXXX Date of Birth : XX/XX/XXXX Complaint Summary I am filing this complaint to document improper dispute invalidation and unreasonable identity-verification demands made by Equifax after my disputes were already XXXX, assigned confirmation numbers, and placed under investigation. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called Equifax at ( XXXX ) XXXX to obtain clarification regarding the status of multiple open disputes. The outgoing call lasted approximately XXXX minutes and began at XXXXXXXX XXXX \nDuring this call, an Equifax agent informed me that my drivers license and Social Security documentation were considered invalid, that my existing disputes were being marked invalid, and that I was required to resubmit identification including my full Social Security number. The agent explicitly stated that providing only the last XXXX digits of my SSN was insufficient. \nI explained to the agent that I have never provided my full Social Security number to Equifax for disputesonly the last XXXX digitsand that this method has been consistently accepted by Equifax in the past. \n\nDisputes Improperly Targeted The agent specifically referenced the following Equifax dispute confirmation numbers, all of which had already been accepted and issued by Equifax : Confirmation # XXXX Confirmation # XXXX Confirmation # XXXX Confirmation # XXXX Confirmation # XXXX Confirmation # XXXX Confirmation # XXXX Equifax must ensure that the closed confirmation numbers listed above were properly handled, and that the open complaints listed below are properly handled as well. \nEquifax can not retroactively invalidate disputes after identity verification has already occurred and confirmation numbers have been issued. \n\nProof of Disparate and Inconsistent Treatment Equifaxs claim that my identification is invalid is contradicted by its own historical conduct. \nI have filed numerous prior CFPB complaints against Equifax, all using the same identity-verification method ( government-issued ID and partial SSN ). Many of these complaints were accepted, investigated, and closed, with no indication whatsoever that my identification was invalid or insufficient. \nExamples include ( not exhaustive ) : CFPB complaint IDs from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, all marked Closed Company Responded Additional closed complaints from XXXX XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, all processed using the same identification method None of the closed CFPB files reference invalid documentation, identity failure, or refusal to investigate due to missing full SSN This establishes that Equifax has previously verified my identity using the same documentation, and that the sudden demand for a full Social Security number is new, inconsistent, and selectively applied. \n\nImproper Demand for Full Social Security Number Equifaxs demand that I provide my full Social Security number as a condition to reinstate or process disputes is unreasonable and unsupported. \nThe Fair Credit Reporting Act does not require consumers to disclose their full SSN to dispute inaccuracies Equifax has repeatedly accepted disputes from me using a partial SSN Identity verification had already occurred, as evidenced by issued confirmation numbers Additionally, I was not provided any written notice identifying a specific deficiency in my identification or explaining how to cure it, despite Equifax claiming my disputes were being invalidated. \nAn oral statement during a phone call does not satisfy notice or documentation requirements. \n\nRelated Open CFPB Complaints This conduct directly impacts and appears designed to obstruct the resolution of the following currently open CFPB complaints, all of which have already been sent to Equifax : Your complaintt Open COMPLAINT ID PRIMARY CONSUMER PRODUCT AND ISSUE CONSUMER IDENTIFIED COMPANY SUBMITTED STATUS XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXeporting Problem with a company 's investigation into an existing problem EQUIFAX , INC . \nXX/XX/XXXX Open Sent to Company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX company 's investigation into an existing problem EQUIFAX , INC . \nXX/XX/XXXX Open Sent to Company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX company 's investigation into an existing problem EQUIFAX , INC . \nXX/XX/XXXX Open Sent to Company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX company 's investigation into an existing problem EQUIFAX , INC . \nXX/XX/XXXX Open Sent to Company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX company 's investigation into an existing problem EQUIFAX , INC . \nXX/XX/XXXX Open Sent to Company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX company 's investigation into an existing problem EQUIFAX , INC . \nXX/XX/XXXX Open Sent to Company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX company 's investigation into an existing problem EQUIFAX , INC . \nXX/XX/XXXX Open Sent to Company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX company 's investigation into an existing problem EQUIFAX , INC . \nXX/XX/XXXX Open Sent to Company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX report EQUIFAX , INC . \nXX/XX/XXXX Open Sent to Company Closed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX company 's investigation into an existing problem Equifax Information Services LLC XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX investigation into an existing problem Equifax Information Services LLC XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting Problem with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX an existing problem Equifax Information Services LLC XX/XX/XXXX Closed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Problem with a company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX problem Equifax Information Services LLC XX/XX/XXXX Closed Company responded XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a company 's investigation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Equifax Information Services LLC XX/XX/XXXX Closed Company responded XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's investigation into an XXXX XXXX Equifax Credit Bureau XX/XX/XXXX Closed Company responded XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX into an existing problem Equifax Credit Bureau XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Company responded XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unable to XXXX XXXX credit report XXXX credit score Equifax Information Services LLC XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Company responded XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting Problem with a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX an XXXX XXXX Equifax Credit Bureau XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting Problem with a company 's investigation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Equifax Information Services LLC XX/XX/XXXX Closed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting Problem with a company 's investigation into XXXX XXXX XXXX EQUIFAX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX responded XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX company 's investigation into an existing problem EQUIFAX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Company responded XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX investigation into an existing problem Equifax Credit Bureau XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Company responded XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX investigation into an existing problem Equifax Information Services LLC XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unable XXXX XXXX XXXX credit report or credit score Equifax Information Services LLC XX/XX/XXXX Closed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Problem with a company XXXX XXXX XXXX an existing problem Equifax Credit Bureau XX/XX/XXXX Closed Company responded XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting XXXX XXXX a company 's investigation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Equifax Credit Bureau XX/XX/XXXX Closed Company responded XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX report Equifax Credit Bureau XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reporting Problem with a company 's XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Equifax Credit Bureau XX/XX/XXXX Closed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX substance of these XXXX XXXX Equifax appears to be attempting to invalidate disputes procedurally by imposing new and unreasonable identity requirements.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-26T21:08:22.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"70785","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18303833","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-26T21:01:45.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>COMPLAINT</em> <em>NARRATIVE</em> Date : XX/XX/XXXX Company : Equifax Product : Credit reporting Issue : <em>Problem</em> with a companys <em>investigation</em> into an <em>existing</em> <em>problem</em> <em>Consumer</em> : XXXX XXXX Address : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, LA XXXX XXXX : XXXX Date of Birth : XX/XX/XXXX <em>Complaint</em> Summary I am filing this <em>complaint</em> to document improper dispute invalidation and unreasonable identity-verification demands made by Equifax after my disputes were already XXXX, assigned confirmation numbers, and placed under"],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a company's <em>investigation</em> <em>into</em> an <em>existing</em> <em>problem</em>"],"sub_issue":["Was not notified of <em>investigation</em> status or results"]},"sort":[22.89642,"18303833"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14073446","_score":18.012129,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Company : Experian Product : Credit reporting Issue : Improper use of my report / Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation into an existing problem Consumer Complaint Narrative : On or around XX/XX/year>, Experian unlawfully debited {$29.00} from my XXXX  debit-linked account after I had already canceled their services. My debit card was locked at the time of the transaction. This debit was not authorized and no confirmation or service access was provided in return. The charge was processed after several failed attempts, despite my cancellation and revocation of authorization. \n\nI have made multiple attempts to resolve this with Experian over the last month, yet the {$29.00} has not been refunded, and I have received no investigation results, no billing breakdown, and no formal acknowledgement of the error. \n\nTo make matters worse, I am now experiencing what appears to be SSN-based suppression from Experians support system. I am unable to access a live agent through any methodphone, web chat, or portal. Each attempt is blocked, redirected, or terminated. In contrast, when my wife called the same number and entered her personal information, she was connected to a live agent within minutes. \n\nThis appears to be a form of automated retaliation or redlining against me as a consumer who has submitted numerous disputes and regulatory complaints. This denial of service access violates my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including : My right to access my file ( 15 U.S.C. 1681g ) My right to dispute and reinvestigate errors ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) Additionally, the unauthorized debit is governed under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), and Experian failed to comply with : 15 U.S.C. 1693e ( a ) Prohibition against unauthorized electronic fund transfers 12 CFR 1005.10 and 1005.11 Proper authorization and dispute resolution procedures I am now in a financial position where this {$29.00} loss has directly impacted my ability to secure credit or cover essential bills. Despite having a favorable credit score, I have been locked out of services, and Experians failure to actor even provide supporthas materially harmed me.\n\nRequested resolution : Immediate refund of the {$29.00} unauthorized debit Written investigation findings and refund breakdown Restoration of full account and agent access Federal enforcement action for violations of the FCRA and EFTA This complaint is submitted in good faith and under lawful standing. I request immediate regulatory review and resolution.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-13T10:59:03.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"30312","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14073446","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-13T10:45:55.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Company : Experian Product : Credit reporting Issue : Improper use of my report / <em>Problem</em> with a credit reporting companys <em>investigation</em> into an <em>existing</em> <em>problem</em> <em>Consumer</em> <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> : On or around XX/XX/year>, Experian unlawfully debited {$29.00} from my XXXX  debit-linked account after I had already canceled their services. My debit card was locked at the time of the transaction. This debit was not authorized and no confirmation or service access was provided in return."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a lender or other company charging your account"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[18.012129,"14073446"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15766185","_score":15.787139,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Draft Company Complained About : TransUnion LLC Issue Category : Incorrect information on your report Sub-Issue : Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation into an existing problem Complaint Narrative ( What Happened ) On XX/XX/XXXX, TransUnion suffered a major data breach affecting more than XXXX XXXX consumers, exposing names, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, and consumer records. My personal information was included in this breach, placing me at high risk of identity theft and fraud. \nAs a result, I am disputing the following inaccurate accounts and unauthorized hard inquiries on my TransUnion credit report : - XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX - This account is reporting inflated balances, false late payments after repossession, and inaccurate deficiency amounts. \nXXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX - This account was charged off but is reporting postcharge-off collection activity in violation of Metro 2 and FCRA reporting standards. \nUnauthorized Hard Inquiries : - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Finance ) XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX XXXX ( Finance ) XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Finance ) XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX ( Bank ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Finance XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX ( Finance ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX - XXXX  XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX, XXXX - XXXX Bank XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX  Card ( XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX  ( Finance ) XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX  ( Finance ) XX/XX/XXXX I sent TransUnion a certified dispute letter demanding removal of these accounts and inquiries within 7 days due to the severity of the breach and the ongoing risk of harm. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ), TransUnion is required to reinvestigate and correct inaccurate information. Failure to act promptly will be considered willful noncompliance. \nDesired Resolution I am requesting that TransUnion : 1. Immediately delete XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX and XXXX  XXXX XXXX # XXXX from my credit report. \n2. Immediately remove all unauthorized hard inquiries listed above.\n\n3. Provide me with written confirmation of whether my personal data was included in the XX/XX/XXXX TransUnion data breach. \n4. Provide proof that any information they continue to report has been fully verified as accurate and authorized. \n\nTransUnion XX/XX/XXXX data breach","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-06T18:27:28.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"480XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15766185","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-09-06T18:20:19.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB <em>Complaint</em> Draft Company Complained About : TransUnion LLC Issue Category : Incorrect information on your report Sub-Issue : <em>Problem</em> with a credit reporting companys <em>investigation</em> into an <em>existing</em> <em>problem</em> <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> ( What Happened ) On XX/XX/XXXX, TransUnion suffered a major data breach affecting more than XXXX XXXX <em>consumers</em>, exposing names, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, and <em>consumer</em> records."],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[15.787139,"15766185"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4549490","_score":14.656082,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Please Note : Per a discussion with a representative at the CFPB call center, I have attached a PDF file with a detailed narrative and description of the problem. This PDF includes relevant details and supporting documentation. I wanted to be careful about including personal information in this description box. Please review the attached PDF for the full text of my complaint.\n\nI wish to file a complaint against U.S. Bank National Association for deceptive/abusive loan practices.\n\nI applied for a construction to permanent 30 year mortgage loan with US Bank in XXXX. \nI disclosed all my debt/property expenses and financial information. \n\nI asked about my existing debt, most notably a private mortgage on my current primary residence. The loan officer responded in writing that I could carry the new mortgage for which I was applying on top of what I was already carrying. \n\nI asked about down payments. I stated I wanted to avoid taxable events for this transaction, such as selling stocks or touching my retirement accounts. I was also told in writing that the bank would not need additional assets for qualification or closing beyond what I had shown in three non-retirement taxable accounts I provided on my application. \n\nI received a written set of disclosures from the bank which included a written loan estimate on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nI signed the disclosures and fee agreement with the bank on XX/XX/XXXX. Later the same day, after I had signed the fee agreement, they began raising issues about debt-to-income ratios specifically related to the existing property expenses I had already disclosed and discussed with the bank prior to signing the application. \n\nI agreed to retire the private mortgage, which has since been completed. \n\nAt no time did the bank issue a revised loan estimate. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I received a loan approval from the bank. It indicated a down payment that was {$100000.00} higher than what was on the loan estimate, an increase of 210 %. It referenced the prior loan estimate for more details, however the numbers were entirely different. Furthermore a condition of approval was that I needed to liquidate funds from other sources, specifically citing my workplace retirement account, and that the bank would not allow me to take funds out of one of the three taxable accounts mentioned above. \n\nI received notice from my employer of a pending salary increase. Between retiring the private mortgage and the pending salary increase it was a more than {$1000.00} positive difference per month over what was in my application. \n\nIt has become evident that the banks written loan estimate and false and deceptive representations didnt comply with their own underwriting guidelines. \n\nThe bank did not issue a revised loan estimate. To date the only loan estimate I have received from the bank is the one issued on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe bank 's actions have harmed me as a consumer. If the bank had not made false and deceptive representations I would have taken the opportunity to talk to other banks, research other products, and performed due diligence with respect to funding any down payment before proceeding with any application. Furthermore, if the bank had not made false and deceptive representations it would not have been able to collect fees from me, as I wouldnt have signed the disclosures which included the deceptive loan estimate. \n\nI hope the CFPB will fully investigate the banks actions and if found in violation of statute I hope the CFPB will pursue regulatory action and appropriate penalties against the bank and/or its officers","date_sent_to_company":"2021-07-16T17:23:02.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"Other type of mortgage","zip_code":"085XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4549490","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2021-07-16T16:23:50.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Please Note : Per a discussion with a representative at the CFPB call center, I have attached a PDF file with a detailed <em>narrative</em> and description of the <em>problem</em>. This PDF includes relevant details and supporting documentation. I wanted to be careful about including personal information in this description box. Please review the attached PDF for the full text of my <em>complaint</em>.\n\nI wish to file a <em>complaint</em> against U.S. Bank National Association for deceptive/abusive loan practices."],"issue":["Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an <em>existing</em> mortgage"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the <em>consumer</em> and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response"]},"sort":[14.656082,"4549490"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16228424","_score":13.314535,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"A ) CFPB Online Complaint Credit Reporting What is your complaint about? \n\nCredit reporting or credit repair services Credit reporting Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation into an existing problem Incorrect information on your report Public record information Companies youre complaining about ( add multiple ) : TransUnion LLC ( credit reporting company ) Equifax Information Services LLC ( credit reporting company ) XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( credit reporting company )  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( credit reporting company ) ( XXXX but recommended as a second complaintsee Part B ) : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( public records furnishing ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Describe what happened ( consumer narrative ) : I am disputing a XXXX XXXX bankruptcy public record that appears on my TransUnion and Equifax credit files. XXXX does not report any bankruptcy, which shows a cross-bureau inconsistency. \n\nDisputed items : TransUnion : XXXX XXXX Bankruptcy Dismissed ; Date Filed/Reported XX/XX/XXXX ; Closing XX/XX/XXXX ; Court : XXXX Bankruptcy XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nEquifax : Chapter XXXX Bankruptcy Dismissed ; Date Filed/Reported XX/XX/XXXX ; Closing ; Court : Federal ; Ref XXXX ; Remarks : XXXX disputes reinvestigation in progress. \nXX/XX/XXXX : No bankruptcy reporting ( cross-bureau inconsistency ). \n\nWhy this is inaccurate/unverifiable : Courts do not report to credit bureaus. I contacted the court and the clerk confirmed the court does not furnish data to credit bureaus. Yet TransUnion/Equifax notes imply verified through the courts, which is misleading.\n\nCross-bureau conflict : one bureau reports no bankruptcy while others do, violating the maximum possible accuracy requirement. \n\nNo underlying negative debt : My current credit summary shows 0 derogatories, 0 collections, 0 delinquencies with XXXX total accounts ( TU/XX/XX/XXXX/EQ ) and XXXX open accounts ; balances are consistent ( {$17000.00} across all three ). A bankruptcy absent corroborating delinquent trade lines is illogical and misleading. \n\nIdentity-theft/mixed-file indicators : I submitted FTC Identity Theft Report ID XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ). Under FCRA 605B, identity-theft items must be blocked. \n\nPrior disputes & requests ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : I mailed formal disputes to each CRA demanding deletion, Method of Verification ( MOV ), and correction of my personal information ( Metro 2 Code 112 ). I requested disclosure of any public-records vendor used ( e.g.XX/XX/XXXX ) and the exact identifiers/documents used to link the court record to me.\n\nFCRA provisions at issue : 607 ( b ) ( maximum possible accuracy ), 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( source disclosure ), 611 & 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) ( reasonable reinvestigation & MOV ), 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) ( reinsertions ), and 605B ( identity-theft blocking ). \n\nHarm : False public record depresses my creditworthiness and exposes me to denials/higher rates.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-28T15:51:49.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30024","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16228424","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-09-28T15:31:37.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A ) CFPB Online <em>Complaint</em> Credit Reporting What is your <em>complaint</em> about?"],"product":["Credit reporting or other personal <em>consumer</em> reports"]},"sort":[13.314535,"16228424"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20554390","_score":11.310255,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint Narrative I am submitting this complaint regarding Freedom Mortgages handling of my mortgage loan servicing, specifically its treatment of property tax payments for XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, the creation of an escrow account, the application of my payments, and its failure to properly respond to my written notices. \n\nThe underlying problem began when Freedom Mortgage disbursed property taxes to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX even though an active payment plan already existed with the taxing authority. Freedom Mortgage did not provide advance notice before making that tax disbursement. After doing so, Freedom Mortgage treated the account as though it could impose or maintain an escrow arrangement tied to that disbursement, even though that action was not authorized under the terms I understood to govern this loan relationship. Regulation X treats servicing errors involving the failure to properly handle taxes and other escrow-related charges as covered errors, and Regulation X also recognizes that whether an escrow account may be established depends in part on the loan documents and other applicable law. [ 1 ] [ 5 ] [ 7 ] After the tax disbursement, Freedom Mortgage began treating my loan as delinquent and/or handled my payments through suspense or other unapplied-payment methods instead of correctly applying payments to principal, interest, escrow, or other charges under the loan terms and applicable law. Mortgage servicers must credit payments as of the date of receipt and may not handle payment posting in a way that causes late charges, additional interest, or negative credit reporting when the payment was timely received. [ 1 ] [ 3 ] [ 5 ] I then sent written communications disputing these servicing errors and requesting information. My written notices identified me, identified the mortgage loan account, and described the errors and information requested. Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35, a servicer must investigate and either correct the error or provide a written determination after a reasonable investigation. Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.36, a servicer must acknowledge a written information request within 5 business days and generally respond within 30 business days unless a valid extension applies. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] Freedom Mortgage did not provide a timely and adequate resolution. It failed to properly address my Notices of Error, failed to provide the requested information, and failed to explain its basis for disbursing the taxes, imposing escrow-related charges or treatment, placing funds into suspense, and reporting the loan as delinquent. Regulation X requires a servicer to conduct a reasonable investigation and provide a written response explaining either the correction made or the reasons it concluded no error occurred. For information requests, the servicer must either provide the requested information or state after a reasonable search why the information is not available. [ 2 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] The servicing errors caused financial and credit-related harm. Freedom Mortgages conduct created confusion about the amount actually due, interfered with my efforts to maintain the loan, and resulted in inaccurate delinquency treatment and/or reporting. Texas law also prohibits misrepresenting the character, extent, amount, or status of a consumer debt in collection activity. [ 9 ] I request that Freedom Mortgage : 1. Provide a complete written accounting of all payments received, all suspense-account activity, all escrow transactions, and the date and reason for each posting ; 2. Explain in writing why it disbursed XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX taxes despite the existing tax payment plan ; 3. Identify the contractual and legal basis it relied on to create, impose, or maintain any escrow requirement related to this issue ; 4. Correct any misapplied payments and remove any improper suspense balances ; 5. Correct any inaccurate delinquency status or negative credit reporting arising from these servicing errors ; 6. Reverse any fees, charges, or shortages that were caused by the improper tax disbursement or payment application ; 7. Provide all documents and servicing notes relied upon in responding to my prior written Notices of Error and Requests for Information ; and 8. Confirm in writing that the account has been corrected.\n\nThis complaint concerns mortgage servicing errors, not loan origination issues. The matters raised here involve payment application, tax disbursement, escrow handling, account status, and failures to respond to written servicing-error notices and information requests.\n\nReferences 1.\n\nCFPB Regulation X 1024.35 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Regulation X Current 2.\n\nCFPB Regulation X 1024.36 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Regulation X Current 3.\n\nCommentary to 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Official Interpretation Current 4. \nXXXX  Mortgage Servicing Rule Federal Register Final Rule XXXX 5.\n\nText of 12 CFR 1024.35 Federal Regulation e-CFR/Regulation text Current 6.\n\nText of 12 CFR 1024.36 Federal Regulation e-CFR/Regulation text Current 7.\n\nText of 12 CFR 1024.17 Federal Regulation e-CFR/Regulation text Current 8.\n\nText of 12 CFR 1026.36 Federal Regulation e-CFR/Regulation text Current 9.\n\nTexas Finance Code Chapter 392 Texas Legislature Statute Current","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-24T19:57:55.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"77493","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20554390","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Freedom Mortgage Company","date_received":"2026-03-24T18:59:58.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Consumer</em> Financial Protection Bureau <em>Complaint</em> <em>Narrative</em> I am submitting this <em>complaint</em> regarding Freedom Mortgages handling of my mortgage loan servicing, specifically its treatment of property tax payments for XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, the creation of an escrow account, the application of my payments, and its failure to properly respond to my written notices."]},"sort":[11.310255,"20554390"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20604758","_score":4.456915,"_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":["SUMMARY OF <em>COMPLAINT</em> This <em>complaint</em> 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."]},"sort":[4.456915,"20604758"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8925538","_score":2.6331503,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX of students were scammed by Sallie Mae - Navient into taking out predatory private loans to attend for profit online schools such as the one I attended, XXXX XXXX between XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nAs a matter of fact, XXXX  XXXX XXXX and their Parent company, XXXX were investigated by the attorneys general of several states and have been found to have acted in a fraudulent manner. \nBecause of the numerous claims of fraud and misconduct perpetrated by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, the Biden administration has just announced a blanket discharge for anyone enrolled at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. \nMy Federal loans in the amount of ( Your amount here ) were discharged and my credit repaired. \nI am aware that Navient was sued by 39 state AGs regarding their predatory loans to attend these online for-profit schools and that Sallie Mae/Navient were a \" preferred '' lending company in a \" deal '' with these schools during the early XXXX XXXX \nThese private loans with a high risk of default were part of a package deal offered to \" for profit online schools '', but loans made to students in states outside of the agreement, or those who were not in default for 7 months or more during a \" specific '' time frame, were excluded. \nI am sure this was a big win for Navient, but what a sham of a settlement deal for the rest of borrowers scammed into taking loans to at least XXXX for profit online schools. \nAfter the AG settlement, didn't Navient also get out of the Federal student loan business due to scrutiny from lawmakers and borrower advocates? \nDidn't Navient have to pay restitution to the Federal student loan borrowers for not informing students of IDR/IBR payments students could have enrolled in, but instead steered toward forbearance? \nFurthermore, hasn't Navient been sued at least a half dozen times for other predatory loan practices and illegal collection practices? \nI am also aware of a \" pilot '' program by which Navient is sending out \" applications '' to select students who may have filed Borrower Defense claims against their schools and were approved. \nThis application is a sham. \nWhy do we need to prove anything? \nNavient knows who we are. \nUnder the FTC \" Holder Rule '' Navient is liable for giving predatory loans in connection with online for-profit schools. \nTime is running out for Navient to do right by students who were scammed into taking out private loans to attend online for profit colleges who have committed misconduct and misrepresented themselves to the public to entice students to enroll. \nSenator XXXX XXXX has sent a letter to Navient 's CEO asking to discharge these loans NOW! It's time Navient do the right thing and discharge all these predatory private loans made to attend online for profit schools NOW! \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX The Navient Corporation XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, DE XXXX XXXX XXXX : We write to urge the Navient Corporation to cancel the decades-old, predatory student loans in its portfolio that are governed by the FTCs Holder Rule and subject to claims and defenses based on well-established school misconduct and predatory lending. From XXXX to XXXX, Navient, then known as Sallie Mae, in coordination with fraudulent for-profit schools, pushed predatory, subprime loans onto borrowers likely to default.1 These schools lied about their credit transferability, career prospects, and otherwise misled students while Navient profited off the government backing of the loans students took out to attend them.2 Because of Navients coordination in this process, your company should provide relief to borrowers immediately, before the impending servicing transfer of these and other student loans to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Navient Will Soon Transfer Millions of Student Loans to XXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, Navient announced it will outsource the servicing of XXXX XXXX student loans to XXXX in the coming months.3 But a large portion of these loans are eligible for cancellation. Navient is aware that borrowers have meritorious defenses to the enforcement and collection of these loans, and has set aside at least {$35.00} XXXX in anticipation of claims or defenses being brought against Navient for misconduct.4 But Navient makes it nearly impossible XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The {$1.00} XXXX Student Loan Deal That Was Too Good to Be True, XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, Loans Designed to Fail : States Say Navient Preyed on Students, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXX, Navient Outsources Servicing Of XXXX XXXX Student Loans To Its Rival XXXX Your Loan Affected? XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ; Navient Corporation , Navient announces strategic actions following in-depth business review, press release, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX Seeking Alpha, Navient Corporation ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Earnings Call Transcript, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXX stated, in our private credit provision this quarter, we reserved {$35.00} XXXX due to internal policy changes we've made to meet new regulatory expectations related to school misconduct discharges on certain legacy private loans. This increase reflects our assessment of the impact to the legacy portfolios, life of loan discharges from potential borrower claims.for borrowers to exercise their rights, while holding these predatory loans over the heads of borrowers and, often, their family members.5 Although Navient recently created a purported pathway to relief, it is burdensome and confusing.6 Furthermore, the transfer, which is expected to take place over the next two years,7 will further confuse borrowers, and once in effect, XXXX  abysmal reputation for hours-long call wait times, paperwork backlogs, and innumerable abuses,8 will only make things more difficult for defrauded borrowers awaiting justice. Navient Conspired with Fraudulent For-Profit Colleges to Offer Risky and Expensive Loans to Hundreds of Thousands of Borrowers Decades-old predatory loans that were pushed onto students when Navient, as Sallie Mae, engaged in predatory loan practices with for-profit, fraudulent colleges make up a significant portion of the Navient student loan profile being transferred.9 Since the XXXX  revisions to the Higher Education Act, for-profit schools that receive federal funding must get at least 10 % of their funding from non-federal sources.10 To meet this requirement, Navient, as Sallie Mae, collaborated with for-profit schools beginning in the year XXXX to cover that gap by issuing private loans to students, in exchange for an assured, steady supply of borrowers for its government-backed loans.11 Navient itself described these loans as a baited hook for the risk-free, profitable federally-backed student loans.12 Since Navient required credit enhancements or recourse agreements from schools in order to make these private loans,13 borrowers ability to repay the loans was immaterial : lawsuits later revealed that one set of these predatory Sallie Mae private student loans had default rates ranging between 50 and 92 percent every year from XXXX to XXXX These predatory loans were designed to profit off of 5 Office of the Attorney General of New Jersey, Acting AG XXXX : XXXX XXXX  Student Loan Borrowers to Receive More than {$60.00} XXXX in Relief from Settlement with Navient Corp. in States Lawsuit Alleging Deceptive, Misleading Tactics by the Student Loan Servicer, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. Navient deceptively encouraged borrowers to have family members or others guarantee their loans as cosigners, which increased Navients chances of being repaid if the student defaulted. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, Navient Outsources Servicing Of XXXX XXXX Student Loans To Its Rival XXXX Your Loan Affected? XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The XXXX Papers, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX, Navient distanced itself from a controversial student-loan portfolio. Meanwhile, borrowers cant escape, XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX? =. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, The {$1.00} XXXX Student Loan Deal That Was Too Good to Be True, XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, https : XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ), complaint. XXXX Id. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, The {$1.00} XXXX Student Loan Deal That Was Too Good to Be True, XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Loans Designed to Fail : States Say Navient Preyed on Students, XX/XX/XXXX, students, rather than provide them with a quality educationthe schools where they were used had low graduation rates, poor job-placement records, and otherwise misled students, all of which was known to Sallie Mae.15 The Biden Administration has made a sweeping effort to cancel decades-old predatory federal loans for defrauded borrowers. Much of this progress was made under the Education Departments Borrower Defense Loan Discharge ( borrower defense ), which provides debt relief to borrowers who were misled or defrauded by their school through misrepresentations about key aspects of their program, such as admissions selectivity or career prospects.16 This is a powerful tool : the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX calculates that, since XX/XX/XXXX, the Department of Education ( ED ) has announced loan cancellation for more than 1.1 million borrowers, promising to wipe out more than {$18.00} XXXX of fraudulent and predatory debt from for-profit schools.17 But many students with outstanding private loans from some of these very same colleges including those held by Navient have still not received relief.18 Navient Should Cancel Fraudulent Loans Eligible for Relief Under the FTCs Holder Rule and Due to Navients Misconduct Like millions of federal student loans eligible for cancellation under borrower defense, decadesold predatory private student loans may be eligible for cancellation due to Navients misconduct and under the Federal Trade Commissions ( FTC ) Holder-In-Due-Course Rule ( Holder Rule ), a broad rule dating to XXXX, and subsequently reaffirmed and updated numerous times by the Commission, allowing borrowers, in some cases, to raise the same claims and defenses against a loan provider that they could raise against the original seller of the good or service.19 The Holder Rule is a powerful consumer protection tool, providing relief for customers when a defective or fraudulent product or service is purchased with credit arranged by the seller, including situations where the seller referred the customer to the creditor, or is affiliated with the original creditor.20 With regard to student loans, the borrower may be able to cancel existing debt if a school fraudulently induced the student to enroll and had some relationship XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX Id. XXXX XXXX XXXX Biden Administration Announces {$72.00} XXXX In Student Loan Forgiveness, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX? XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , Delivering Distress : How Student Loan Companies Cheat Borrowers Out of Their Rights, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ; Federal Student Aid, Apply for Borrower Defense Loan Discharge, https : //studentaid.gov/borrower-defense/. 17 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Delivering Distress : How Student Loan Companies Cheat Borrowers Out of Their Rights, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXX, Navient distanced itself from a controversial student-loan portfolio. Meanwhile, borrowers cant escape, XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX? =. XXXX Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), Holder in Due Course Rule, 16 CFR 433, https : //www.ftc.gov/XXXX. XXXX Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, The Holder Rule, XXXX XXXX XXXX  with the lender.21 In simple terms, the Holder Rule provides an avenue to cancel student loans in many cases where Navient worked directly with fraudulent colleges to provide these loans. Navient has long known it could be liable for these predatory loans that it pushed onto students. Navient, as Sallie Mae, regularly listed the FTC Holder Rule as an operational risk for its private student loans made to students at for-profit schools. In its XXXX annual report, the company stated : If a school with which we have a business arrangement with respect to student loans closes or otherwise does not provide the borrower the promised education, the borrower could raise the same claims and defenses against us as the lender as it could against the school. As a result, our ability to collect loan amounts could be materially impaired.22 In a XX/XX/XXXX earnings call, XXXX XXXX XXXX Navients Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, announced that Navient has reserved {$35.00} XXXX in anticipation of a liability to discharge certain legacy private XXXX As an independent basis, borrowers may also assert the predatory practices of Sallie Mae against Navient as a reason to cancel their loans. Sallie Mae intentionally created subprime lending programs with for-profit colleges for the purpose of facilitating ongoing access of both companies to the federal student lending program.24 Sallie Mae knew that students were not credit worthy, were unlikely to finish the programs at these for-profit schools, and were highly unlikely to repay their student loans.25 In fact, Sallie Mae insured itself against this certainty by requiring the for-profit schools to essentially guarantee the subprime private loans.26 Incredibly, even though Sallie Mae was made whole, and reaped enormous profits from its business relationships, it continues to hold borrowers and their cosigners hostage.27 This course of conduct could bar Navient from suing on these loans, and their continued collection is unfair. Navient has already cancelled the debt for some of these loans. In XXXX, 39 attorneys general reached a settlement with Navient, in which it agreed to cancel {$1.00} XXXX in private student loan debt for students defrauded by colleges like the defunct XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX and other major for-profit colleges including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Id. XXXX XXXX XXXX Report, Sallie Mae ( SLM ), p. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Seeking Alpha, Navient Corporation ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Earnings Call Transcript, XX/XX/XXXX, https : XXXX. XXXX XXXX stated, in our private credit provision this quarter, we reserved {$35.00} XXXX due to internal policy changes we've made to meet new regulatory expectations related to school misconduct discharges on certain legacy private loans. This increase reflects our assessment of the impact to the legacy portfolios, life of loan discharges from potential borrower claims. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, The {$1.00} XXXX Student Loan Deal That Was Too Good to Be True, XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX Id. XXXX. v. Navient XXXX, XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ), complaint.. XXXX Office of the Attorney General of New Jersey, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX New Jersey Student Loan Borrowers to Receive More than {$60.00} XXXX in Relief from Settlement with Navient Corp. in States Lawsuit Alleging Deceptive, Misleading Tactics by the Student Loan Servicer, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Notably, Navients misconduct was a key basis for the lawsuit, with the attorneys general unfair and deceptive student loan servicing practices and abuses in originating predatory student loans.29 But the settlement only included borrowers who were in default for at least seven consecutive months before XX/XX/XXXX, meaning that Navient provided relief to only XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of borrowers who had obtained predatory loans.30 Navient Has Denied Relief to XXXX XXXX XXXX  of Borrowers Although there are XXXX XXXX XXXX of loans clearly eligible for cancellation under the FTC Holder Rule and because of the misconduct of Navients predecessor, Navient makes it intimidating and difficult for borrowers to solicit relief.31 While ED established a process for group discharge for borrowers to automatically get relief on predatory federal loans without having to individually apply, Navient opened a school misconduct discharge application that is inordinately lengthy and complex for borrowers.32 The 12-page application, asks questions seemingly designed to knock out applications, such as when the wrongdoing was discovered, and requires borrowers to include individualized documentation such as correspondence from the school, marketing materials, advertisements, course catalogs, manuals, school web messaging, and other products all from loans that may be more than two decades old.33 The application threatens borrowers with perjury for providing incomplete information.34 It asks borrowers if the court has awarded a favorable judgment against their school, and if so, to attach the court order and other relevant documents to the application.35 It requires a narrative explanation of how [ the borrowers ] life has been impacted by the fraudulent loans and an explanation of why the misleading information that the school concealed or omitted from the borrower was important to them at the time of their application.36 These conditions are unnecessary and impractical and will prevent XXXX  of borrowers from obtaining the relief they deserve. Navient should stop making borrowers apply for relief and instead automatically cancel student debt using information the company already has about whether borrowers attended schools that would entitle them to relief. Navient should start by cancelling debt for students making payments on predatory loans that were not provided relief by the XXXX settlement. XXXX Navient Multi-State Settlement, XXXX State Attorneys General Announce {$1.00} XXXX Settlement with Student Loan Servicer Navient, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Id. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, The {$1.00} XXXX Student Loan Deal That Was Too Good to Be True, XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, https : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX Federal Student Aid, Apply for Group Borrower Defense Loan Discharge, https : //studentaid.gov/manageloans/forgiveness-cancellation/borrower-defense/group-application ; Navient School Misconduct Discharge Application, ( Appendix A ). XXXX Navient School Misconduct Discharge Application, ( Appendix A ). XXXX Id. XXXX Id. XXXX Id.Navient Must Cancel the Loans Prior to Transfer to XXXX It is especially important that Navient cancel these loans before transferring them to XXXX. The change of servicers will complicate the chain of custody of the loans, making it even more difficult for borrowers to receive relief than Navients actions already havein XXXX, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) found that changes in loan ownership can result in lost payments, paperwork processing issues, missing records, and late fees.37 Furthermore, XXXX has repeatedly demonstrated that it is not capable of adequately servicing student loans. After the return to repayment started in XXXX, at least XXXX XXXX borrowers were affected by servicing failures, such as a backlog of unprocessed Public Service Loan Forgiveness forms, payment miscalculations, and late bills.38 And after XXXX XXXX XXXX of federal loan borrowers were granted borrower defense relief in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX representatives continued to insist that they would have to return to repayment.39 Given XXXX failure to follow guidance on canceling predatory federal loans, it is hard to believe that it will behave any better in canceling similar private loans Navient will transfer to them. Navient must discharge subprime legacy private loans now before they are transferred to XXXX. Conclusion and Questions Navient has, for decades, aggressively collected payments on loans that it knows are eligible for cancellation.40 These predatory loans were given to students at subprime rates, while Navient coordinated with colleges that lied to borrowers about course credits, career prospects, and programs. Under the Holder Rule and due to Navient and Sallie Maes misconduct, Navient is liable for these predatory loans and should discharge them immediately. We ask that you answer the following questions no later than XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX. Of the XXXX XXXX loans Navient is transferring to XXXX, how many were granted to attend for-profit colleges? Specifically, how many fit into one of the following three categories, established in the AG settlement:41 a. Any private education loan with an outstanding balance originated under an Opportunity or Recourse program, and disbursed after XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, New Student Loan Problems : Prepare for Lost Payments, Surprise Late Fees as Contracts Change Hands, XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  The XXXX Papers, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX Letter from attorneys representing class members in XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX to XXXX XXXX, Chief Executive Officer of XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX, Navient distanced itself from a controversial student-loan portfolio. Meanwhile, borrowers cant escape, XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Navient Corp., XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ), consent judgment., Appendix A, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. b. Any private education loan with an outstanding balance disbursed by XXXX XXXX lenders, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, and/or its affiliates after XXXX to a borrower attending a for-profit school, including XXXX owned or operated by, or under XXXX of the trade names : i. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Any non-traditional private education loan with an outstanding balance disbursed by SLM XXXX lenders, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, and/or affiliates after XXXX XXXX. What is the total value of the private loans granted to attend for-profit colleges as described in question ( XXXX ) in Navients portfolio XXXX XXXX. How many borrowers has Navient alerted to its School Misconduct Discharge Application? On what basis did it select these borrowers? XXXX. How many borrowers have applied for relief using Navients School Misconduct Discharge Application? How many borrowers have been successful and received full cancellation of their loans from Navient? How many borrower applications have been denied? XXXX. During a Navient Corporation XXXX XXXX Earnings Call on XX/XX/XXXX, Navients Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer stated, in our private credit provision this quarter, we reserved {$35.00} XXXX due to internal policy changes we've made to meet new regulatory expectations related to school misconduct discharges on certain legacy private loans. This increase reflects our assessment of the impact to the legacy portfolios, life of loan discharges from potential borrower claims.43 How did Navient arrive at this {$35.00} XXXX figure? XXXX. Has Navient discussed with XXXX the implications of transferring loans that are subject to cancellation under the FTC Holder Rule or other bases related to school XXXX Non-traditional means a private education loan disbursed ( XXXX ) to a borrower with a XXXX score below XXXX at origination to attend a private for-profit educational institution ; or ( XXXX ) to a borrower with a XXXX score below XXXX at origination to attend a public or not-for-profit educational institution. XXXX Seeking Alpha, Navient Corporation ( NAVI ) XXXX XXXX Earnings Call Transcript, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and/or Navients lending practices per question ( XXXX )? If so, what are XXXX plans to assist in the cancellation of these loans as their new servicer and what plans are underway ( if any ) to ensure adequate data sharing to ensure borrower records are not lost? XXXX. What, if any, policies or procedures has Navient taken or does it plan to take before collecting on a subprime loan to determine that loans eligibility for cancellation under the FTC Holder Rule or other bases related to school misconduct and/or Navients lending practices per question ( XXXX )? Sincerely, XXXX XXXX United States XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX United States XXXX XXXX XXXX United States XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX United States XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX United States XXXX XXXX XXXX United States XXXX XXXX XXXX United States XXXX XXXX XXXX United States XXXX XXXX United States XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-03T17:44:52.000Z","issue":"Struggling to repay your loan","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"03103","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8925538","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","date_received":"2024-05-03T17:37:11.000Z","state":"NH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with forgiveness, cancellation, or discharge"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ), <em>complaint</em>.."],"sub_issue":["<em>Problem</em> with forgiveness, cancellation, or discharge"]},"sort":[2.6331503,"8925538"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":8,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":8}]}},"product":{"doc_count":8,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":8,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Received bad information about your loan","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":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Was not notified of investigation status or results","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to repay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with forgiveness, cancellation, or discharge","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":8,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":8}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":8,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":4},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":3},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":8,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":8}]}},"company":{"doc_count":8,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Central Research Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Freedom Mortgage Company","doc_count":1},{"key":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":8,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"GA","doc_count":2},{"key":"LA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"NH","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":8,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":8,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}