{"took":336,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":98,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5262908","_score":26.317307,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/2021 we were notified by Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC of an alleged debt. We responded on XX/XX/2021 disputing the debt and requesting that documentation be provided to validate the debt. Rather than validating the debt, we instead continued to be contacted for purposes of collecting the debt, despite failing to validate it per our dispute request. On XX/XX/2021 after receiving another attempt to collect via mail I sent a second notice to Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC reiterating our dispute of the debt and notifying them that they were now in clear violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by ignoring our request not to be contacted for purposes of collecting the debt until such a time they could validate it. After this second letter was sent, Portfolio Recovery Associates responded to the dispute by providing some of the documentation we requested to validate the debt and their legal ability to collect on it, but failed to provide satisfactory documentation to validate all of our concerns. Because of this I responded to them via mail on XX/XX/2021 requesting that they provide the additional documents that they had failed to provide and reiterated that we are still in dispute of the debt. Portfolio Recovery Associates responded to this request by re-sending the exact same documentation they had previously provided us while still failing to provide the other requested documents such as proof of their being licensed to collect debts in California and proceeded to threaten us with a lawsuit as a means of intimidation and to prevent having to provide the documentation we requested. Despite being in good faith negotiations regarding a disputed debt, we were concerned over this legal threat and decided to make a payment to Portfolio Recovery Associates as a delay tactic while we decided what to do about our legal dispute requests going ignored while simultaneously being threatened with legal action, despite remaining in ongoing good faith communication with Portfolio Recovery Associates. \n\nTo our surprise, shortly after making this payment we received a lawsuit stipulation for settlement letter from Portfolio Recovery Associates indicating they had sued us despite not informing us that a lawsuit was being filed and despite the fact we were still in ongoing communication with them regarding a dispute that had not been settled. We have already suffered violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC from other debts that they ultimately were unable to verify and were written off. Due to this past history with Portfolio Recovery Associates we had every reason to be wary and demand documentation validating the debt as well as their legal ability to collect on any debt they could validate. The threatening and filing of lawsuit without notifying us while failing to provide all the requested documentation is exactly why they should be worried about a lawsuit. If they want a settlement, then we will offer on on our terms if they wish to avoid going to court to resolve the issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-02-25T23:07:03.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"92026","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5262908","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","date_received":"2022-02-25T22:37:15.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The threatening and filing of <em>lawsuit</em> <em>without</em> <em>notifying</em> us <em>while</em> <em>failing</em> to <em>provide</em> all the <em>requested</em> documentation is exactly why they should be worried about a <em>lawsuit</em>. If they want a settlement, then we will offer on on our terms if they wish to avoid going to court to resolve the issue."],"sub_issue":["Sued you <em>without</em> properly <em>notifying</em> you of <em>lawsuit</em>"]},"sort":[26.317307,"5262908"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12939719","_score":18.331446,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"While checking the results from my previous dispute, I discovered In my previous dispute, Experian, TransUnion and Equifax was asked to provide : In accordance with The Fair Credit Reporting Act, Public law 91-506, Title VI, Section 66, Subsection A-D, please provide the names and business addresses of each individual with whom you spoke to and verified the above accounts with so that I may follow up with them. Please forward an updated credit report after you have completed your re-investigation and made the corrections/deletions.\n\nThey have not provided the requested information and they continue to report inaccurate information on my credit report. The accounts continue to be updated repeatedly as charged off with a balance every month. This is an update to the payment history. A charged off account should NOT include an active payment history.\n\nRecently, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Protection Bureau filed a lawsuit against Experian and Equifax for its failure to properly investigate consumer disputes, citing sham investigations and other unlawful practices. These practices, as outlined by the CFPB, include : Conducting inadequate investigations that fail to address consumer disputes properly.\n\nReinserting previously disputed and inaccurate information without explanation.\n\nFailing to notify consumers about investigation results effectively.\n\nThese allegations highlights the systemic issues that directly undermine consumer protections and perpetuate the inclusion of inaccurate information on credit reports. I am seriously concerned that my dispute may have been mishandled in the same manner. Therefore, I demand the immediate deletion of these inaccurate accounts being reported on my credit report.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-11T19:31:39.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33169","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12939719","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-11T19:31:09.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>While</em> checking the results from my previous dispute, I discovered In my previous dispute, Experian, TransUnion and Equifax was asked to <em>provide</em> : In accordance with The Fair Credit Reporting Act, Public law 91-506, Title VI, Section 66, Subsection A-D, please <em>provide</em> the names and business addresses of each individual with whom you spoke to and verified the above accounts with so that I may follow up with them."]},"sort":[18.331446,"12939719"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12940068","_score":18.306358,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"While checking the results from my previous dispute, I discovered In my previous dispute, Experian, TransUnion and Equifax was asked to provide : In accordance with The Fair Credit Reporting Act, Public law 91-506, Title VI, Section 66, Subsection A-D, please provide the names and business addresses of each individual with whom you spoke to and verified the above accounts with so that I may follow up with them. Please forward an updated credit report after you have completed your re-investigation and made the corrections/deletions.\n\nThey have not provided the requested information and they continue to report inaccurate information on my credit report. The accounts continue to be updated repeatedly as charged off with a balance every month. This is an update to the payment history. A charged off account should NOT include an active payment history.\n\nRecently, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Protection Bureau filed a lawsuit against Experian and Equifax for its failure to properly investigate consumer disputes, citing sham investigations and other unlawful practices. These practices, as outlined by the CFPB, include : Conducting inadequate investigations that fail to address consumer disputes properly.\n\nReinserting previously disputed and inaccurate information without explanation.\n\nFailing to notify consumers about investigation results effectively.\n\nThese allegations highlights the systemic issues that directly undermine consumer protections and perpetuate the inclusion of inaccurate information on credit reports. I am seriously concerned that my dispute may have been mishandled in the same manner. Therefore, I demand the immediate deletion of these inaccurate accounts being reported on my credit report.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-11T19:31:38.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33169","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12940068","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-04-11T19:20:54.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>While</em> checking the results from my previous dispute, I discovered In my previous dispute, Experian, TransUnion and Equifax was asked to <em>provide</em> : In accordance with The Fair Credit Reporting Act, Public law 91-506, Title VI, Section 66, Subsection A-D, please <em>provide</em> the names and business addresses of each individual with whom you spoke to and verified the above accounts with so that I may follow up with them."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[18.306358,"12940068"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12933838","_score":18.306358,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"While checking the results from my previous dispute, I discovered In my previous dispute, Experian, TransUnion and Equifax was asked to provide : In accordance with The Fair Credit Reporting Act, Public law 91-506, Title VI, Section 66, Subsection A-D, please provide the names and business addresses of each individual with whom you spoke to and verified the above accounts with so that I may follow up with them. Please forward an updated credit report after you have completed your re-investigation and made the corrections/deletions.\n\nThey have not provided the requested information and they continue to report inaccurate information on my credit report. The accounts continue to be updated repeatedly as charged off with a balance every month. This is an update to the payment history. A charged off account should NOT include an active payment history.\n\nRecently, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Protection Bureau filed a lawsuit against Experian and Equifax for its failure to properly investigate consumer disputes, citing sham investigations and other unlawful practices. These practices, as outlined by the CFPB, include : Conducting inadequate investigations that fail to address consumer disputes properly.\n\nReinserting previously disputed and inaccurate information without explanation.\n\nFailing to notify consumers about investigation results effectively.\n\nThese allegations highlights the systemic issues that directly undermine consumer protections and perpetuate the inclusion of inaccurate information on credit reports. I am seriously concerned that my dispute may have been mishandled in the same manner. Therefore, I demand the immediate deletion of these inaccurate accounts being reported on my credit report.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-11T19:31:38.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33169","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12933838","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-04-11T19:31:09.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>While</em> checking the results from my previous dispute, I discovered In my previous dispute, Experian, TransUnion and Equifax was asked to <em>provide</em> : In accordance with The Fair Credit Reporting Act, Public law 91-506, Title VI, Section 66, Subsection A-D, please <em>provide</em> the names and business addresses of each individual with whom you spoke to and verified the above accounts with so that I may follow up with them."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[18.306358,"12933838"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11058659","_score":17.855217,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, I am writing to formally lodge a complaint against Midland Credit Management , Inc. ( \" Midland Credit '' ) and XXXX XXXX for their actions in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and breach of contract related to an arbitration clause in the original creditor agreement. Specifically, Midland Credit has initiated legal proceedings against me without ever providing any initial communication regarding the alleged debt, as required by law. Additionally, XXXX XXXX has failed to ensure adherence to its own arbitration clause before assigning the debt, contributing to the breach of contract. Both entities actions have caused significant harm to me as outlined below. \n\nFailure to Provide Initial Communication and Notice of Debt ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) ) : Midland Credit never sent me an initial communication regarding the alleged debt nor provided the required notice of my rights to dispute the debt and request validation within 30 days. This is a direct violation of their obligation under the FDCPA to notify consumers of their rights.\n\nFailure to Validate Debt ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ) : Without providing any validation of the debt, Midland Credit proceeded to file a lawsuit against me. This failure to verify the debt before taking legal action further violates the FDCPA, as consumers have the right to dispute and receive validation prior to collection efforts.\n\nUnfair Practices ( 15 U.S.C. 1692f ) : By suing me without providing the required initial communication or validation, Midland Credit has engaged in unfair practices. This tactic puts undue stress on consumers, forcing them into legal disputes without sufficient information to verify the legitimacy of the alleged debt. \n\nHarassment and Abuse ( 15 U.S.C. 1692d ) : The initiation of legal action without validating the debt constitutes a form of harassment and abuse. It is an attempt to intimidate me into payment without substantiating their claim.\n\nFalse Representation ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ) : Midland Credit has misrepresented their right to pursue legal action by failing to fulfill their legal obligations beforehand. This constitutes false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of the alleged debt.\n\nImproper Credit Reporting : Midland Credit has continued to report the alleged debt to credit reporting agencies despite failing to validate the debt or provide initial communication. This action is damaging to my credit profile and constitutes another form of harm caused by their non-compliance with the FDCPA. \n\nBreach of Contract by Midland Credit and XXXX XXXX : The original creditor, XXXX XXXX, included a mandatory pre-arbitration procedure in their arbitration agreement, requiring a notice of dispute before initiating legal proceedings. XXXX XXXX failure to enforce this procedure before assigning the debt to Midland Credit, and Midland Credits subsequent failure to adhere to this clause, constitutes a breach of contract.\n\nEmotional distress caused by the undue stress of defending against a baseless lawsuit.\n\nDamage to my credit report and financial reputation due to Midland Credits improper reporting of an unverified debt.\n\nLegal expenses incurred while responding to Midland Credits lawsuit. \n\nFind attached copy of the agreement with binding arbitration.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-06T20:56:24.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"07111","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11058659","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","date_received":"2024-12-06T20:23:06.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Failure to <em>Provide</em> Initial Communication and Notice of Debt ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) ) : Midland Credit never sent me an initial communication regarding the alleged debt nor provided the required notice of my rights to dispute the debt and <em>request</em> validation within 30 days. This is a direct violation of their obligation under the FDCPA to <em>notify</em> consumers of their rights."],"sub_issue":["Sued you <em>without</em> properly <em>notifying</em> you of <em>lawsuit</em>"]},"sort":[17.855217,"11058659"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3879872","_score":16.0559,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, American Express replied to my correspondence with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) confirming they would no longer attempt to communicate with me except as legally allowed. American Express also states they are unwilling to remove the judgment obtained. American Express claims my account was never assigned to XXXX XXXX XXXX, but with XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \nAmerican Express also acknowledge receipt of my request for debt validation to on XX/XX/XXXX, and noted my account. American Express also admits to failing to provide debt validation and continued attempts to collect this alleged debt only amounted to the other countless violations by American Express XXXX XXXX. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. 17.41 through 17.63, 15 USC Ch. 41, and the FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT ( FDCPA ). Additional violations include, but arent limited to the following : Harassment or abuse False or misleading representations Failure to correct billing errors Validation of debts Legal actions by debt collectors Furnishing certain deceptive forms American Express filed cause # XXXX in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX claiming the following false, misleading and deceptive statements : 1. Defendants accepted each advance for goods and/or services, and according to the Cardmember Agreement, and became bound to pay Plaintiff the amounts of those advances plus applicable interest and finance charges 2. Defendants have made no objections to any charges under the Agreement, despite receiving notice of such charges more than sixty ( 60 ) days before the filing of this lawsuit.\n\n3. Defendants have failed to repay all of the advances made under the Agreement. The current balance due, owing, and unpaid under the Agreement, after allowing all just and lawful payments, credits, and offsets totals {$4900.00}. Defendants have failed and refused to pay the balance. \n4. Plaintiff duly issued and sent to Defendants the Account Statements which outlined in detail all items charged to the Defendants ' Account and the total amount due and owing by Defendants to Plaintiff on the Defendants ' Account. \n5. Defendants received the Account Statements without protest and neither objected to them nor indicated that they were erroneous in any aspect. Defendants thereby acknowledged that the debt owed to Plaintiff, as outlined in the Account Statements, is true and correct. Defendants thereby acknowledged that the debt owed to Plaintiff, as outlined in the Account Statements, is true and correct.\n\nThese statements are false, misleading, and deceptive for the following respective reasons : 1. Notifications of disputed and erroneous bills were provided to American Express notifying I either did not receive goods/or services. Claims I accepted each advance for goods/services becoming bound to pay such amounts is erroneous.\n\n2. A large number of objections to charges under the Agreement were provided to American Express were provided via phone calls, faxes, online submissions, USPS mail, and complaints filed with the CFPB, FTC, SEC, FDIC, and Texas Attorney General between the years of XXXX and XXXX before the filing of the lawsuit. American Express has further admitted to receiving notification of my dispute and notating my account. Therefore, any claim I made no objections, despite receiving notice of the charges anytime in the 60 days before the suit was filed it extremely willfully negligent and false. \n3. Its already been established American Express failed to validate the debt. As such, I was under no obligation to pay this alleged debt. Stating I refused to pay such alleged debt when I was disputing and requesting validation of the alleged debt is deceptive. \n4. American Express acknowledged failing to provide statements validating the debt. Any claim to the contrary is a willful and intentionally false, deceptive, and manipulative act.\n\n5. American Express acknowledged failing to provide statements validating the debt. Any claim to the contrary is a willful and intentionally false, deceptive, and manipulative act. While the numerous disputes filed and formally acknowledged by American Express directly oppose any claim that the Account Statements were received without protest, objection, or without indication, they were erroneous in any aspect. The claim made in this suit filed is also false and deceptive. \nUpon receiving my many dispute notices and requests for validation of the alleged debt American Express was under legal and contractual obligations to cease debt collection attempts, provide debt validation and cease furnishing negative information to credit reporting agencies. Attempts made to notify American Express of my disputes have been consistent, well documented, acknowledged, and extremely high in number. By their own admission, American Express failed to provide debt validation and has been willfully violated very many consumer protection laws and the terms of the American Express member agreement. These violations were only made worse upon American Express filing a frivolous and legally prohibited lawsuit in which they made many false, misleading, and negligent statements knowingly. American Express continues to continue this negligent noncompliance by refusing to vacate this judgment gained through deceptive and illegal means. \nAmerican Expresss willful, negligent and illegal negative furnishing of data, prohibited legal actions, and account closures has caused extreme financial and XXXX  XXXX  which I may never be able to fully recover from. These actions have prevented me from obtaining new credit and negatively affected accounts held at other institutions. I have been unable to obtain any favorable financing, which is needed for housing and to purchase a vehicle. Being without a vehicle is negatively impacting my health as I am XXXX and unable to have all my medical needs met due to the transportation issues experienced as a result. \n\nRegards, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2020-10-04T05:29:50.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"78723","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3879872","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2020-10-04T01:14:40.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Stating I refused to pay such alleged debt when I was disputing and <em>requesting</em> validation of the alleged debt is deceptive. \n4. American Express acknowledged <em>failing</em> to <em>provide</em> statements validating the debt. Any claim to the contrary is a willful and intentionally false, deceptive, and manipulative act.\n\n5. American Express acknowledged <em>failing</em> to <em>provide</em> statements validating the debt. Any claim to the contrary is a willful and intentionally false, deceptive, and manipulative act."],"sub_issue":["Sued you <em>without</em> properly <em>notifying</em> you of <em>lawsuit</em>"]},"sort":[16.0559,"3879872"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14202338","_score":15.513572,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a formal complaint against TransUnion LLC for ongoing violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), XXXX XXXX reporting standards, and federal regulations including Regulation F and Regulation V. This complaint specifically concerns the XXXX XXXX XXXX account being inaccurately reported on my TransUnion credit report. \nDespite multiple certified disputes sent between XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, TransUnion has continued to report this account as open, which is a direct violation of XXXX XXXX standards and federal reporting requirements for collection accounts. Their reports also state that the account was closed on XX/XX/XXXX, while still being listed as open, and that it was opened on XX/XX/XXXX, with no payment history or activity shown for that or subsequent months. These contradictions demonstrate a failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ).\n\nOther nationwide credit reporting agencies have already removed this XXXX account from my credit file after failing to verify its accuracy. TransUnion, however, continues to mark the account as verified without providing any evidence or explanation. I have repeatedly requested their method of verification, but no such information has been provided, violating their obligations under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and 1681s-2 ( b ).\n\nI am requesting that the CFPB initiate a formal investigation into this matter and compel TransUnion to : Remove the XXXX  account from my credit file ; Provide written verification methodology and supporting documentation ; Correct my credit score and send me an updated, accurate credit report ; Notify all prior recipients of my file of the correction ; Preserve all related records and metadata for legal review; Compensate me for statutory and actual damages ; Acknowledge that no accord and satisfaction may be presumed without my explicit written consent.\n\nThis is one of several disputes I have filed with TransUnion, and I will be submitting additional complaints to reflect each account and violation. I also request that my name and documentation be included in any future lawsuit or class action brought by the CFPB or FTC related to TransUnions pattern of sham investigations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-20T06:02:47.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"80138","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14202338","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-20T05:54:02.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I also <em>request</em> that my name and documentation be included in any future <em>lawsuit</em> or class action brought by the CFPB or FTC related to TransUnions pattern of sham investigations."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[15.513572,"14202338"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18018102","_score":13.72777,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Illegal Repossession During Active Legal Dispute Capital One Auto Finance To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Regarding : Capital One Auto Finance Ongoing Violations and Retaliatory Repossession Account : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Ending XXXX Summary of New Violations On XX/XX/year> at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX my vehicle was unlawfully repossessed from my residence : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX This occurred despite : Capital One being in active legal dispute over the loan A pending federal lawsuit filed in the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX seeking to prevent repossession Capital Ones failure to show present right to possession Capital One has not provided any notice of repossession within the XXXX period required by New York law ( VTL 425 ). \nI only learned of the repossession after contacting the XXXX, who confirmed : XXXX XXXX. : XXXX XXXX XXXX. : XXXX Capital One still claims they were not notified by the repossession company meaning : The vehicle was taken without proper authorization The repossession agent failed to notify police as required The vehicle is nowhere properly accounted for Violations to be Investigated Law Violation NY VTL 425 No written notice within XXXX hours UDAP unfair and deceptive practices Repo during an ongoing legal dispute UCC 9-609 No proven present right of possession Retaliation Occurred days after federal legal action Breach of Contract Ignoring arbitration obligations FCRA & ECOA harm Continued enforcement while denying verification Capital One stated that they withheld required notice because of a cease and desist I never submitted a cease and desist to them Notice obligations do not disappear during disputes The repossession was punitive and abusive, especially after : Arbitrating the matter with AAA Filing a federal complaint : Case No. 1:25-cv-09103-LTS Filing multiple evidence-based disputes Requesting proof of assignment and ownership Requested Action by CFPB I am requesting that CFPB : Open an immediate investigation into the wrongful repossession Require Capital One to return my vehicle immediately Impose penalties for : Failing to provide notice Wrongful deprivation of property Retaliation for asserting legal rights XXXX Require Capital One to confirm : Proof of legal ownership Chain of title Licensing/authorization of the repo agent Consumer Harm Loss of transportation for work and family needs Anxiety, fear, and financial disruption Loss of property without legal justification Continuing incorrect credit reporting and lien enforcement This is the latest and most severe example of Capital Ones abusive pattern toward me. \n\nAttached / Previously Submitted Evidence XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX letters Arbitration demand and correspondence Federal XXXX filing Consumer disputes and CFPB complaint Police confirmation of repossession Closing Statement I have tried every legal channel to resolve this dispute fairly. \nCapital One responded by taking my vehicle overnight with no notice. \n\nThis is exactly why self-help repossession laws forbid abusive conduct. \n\nI urgently request the CFPB intervene to prevent further damage. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX Email : XXXX Phone : XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-03T19:07:07.000Z","issue":"Repossession","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"10462","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18018102","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-12-03T18:40:10.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Notice to repossess"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["AAA Filing a federal complaint : Case No. 1:25-cv-09103-LTS Filing multiple evidence-based disputes <em>Requesting</em> proof of assignment and ownership <em>Requested</em> Action by CFPB I am <em>requesting</em> that CFPB : Open an immediate investigation into the wrongful repossession Require Capital One to return my vehicle immediately Impose penalties for : <em>Failing</em> to <em>provide</em> notice Wrongful deprivation of property Retaliation for asserting legal rights XXXX Require Capital One to confirm : Proof of legal ownership Chain"]},"sort":[13.72777,"18018102"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11969370","_score":12.68551,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX, LA XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, D.C. XXXX Experian Information Solutions , Inc . \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Subject : Experians Sham Investigations & FCRA Violations FTC Complaint Against Experian and Furnishers for Deceptive Practices To Whom It May Concern, I am filing a formal complaint against Experian for deliberate violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and systemic failures in handling consumer disputes, which mirror the same illegal practices for which Experian is currently being sued by the CFPB. Additionally, I am filing an FTC complaint against Experian and multiple furnishers for deceptive reporting practices, as they continue to report information that has already been removed from XXXX and XXXX. \n\nExperians FCRA Violations & Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigations Experian is still reporting the following accounts, despite their deletion from XXXX and/or XXXX : 1. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Removed from XXXX & XXXX but remains on Experian. \n2. XXXXXX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ) ** Removed from XXXX & XXXX but still reported by Experian. \n3. XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX Removed from XXXX but remains on Experian. \n4. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Multiple Accounts ) Removed from XXXX, yet Experian refuses to update its records. \n5. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Removed from XXXX but still reported by Experian. \n6. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Removed from both XXXX & XXXX but continues to appear on Experian. \n7. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX & XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX) Deleted from XXXX but remains on Experian. \n\nThis pattern of reckless reporting is a direct violation of FCRA Section 623 ( b ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ), which mandates that furnishers : Report corrections to all CRAs where the information was originally furnished.\n\nEnsure that inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information is deleted across all CRAs, not just selectively. \n\nXXXX refusal to delete these accounts while other CRAs have done so proves that its dispute process is fraudulent, noncompliant, and a clear violation of federal law.\n\n1. Experians Sham Investigations The Same Conduct Cited in the CFPB Lawsuit Experians refusal to remove these accounts after disputes were filed and processed matches the exact misconduct cited in the CFPBs lawsuit against Experian.\n\nThe CFPB lawsuit highlights how Experian systematically refuses to conduct legitimate investigations, instead relying on automated systems that dismiss disputes without verifying accuracy.\n\nExperians continued reporting of deleted accounts demonstrates that it is engaged in the same illegal conduct described in the CFPB lawsuit.\n\n2. Violations by Creditors Under FCRA Section 623 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ) In addition to Experians violations, the furnishers providing inaccurate data are also liable for : Failure to Provide 30-Day Notice of Negative Reporting ( FCRA Section 623 ( a ) ( 7 ) ) These creditors have failed to prove they notified me in writing within 30 days of reporting negative information, violating their legal obligations under the FCRA.\n\nFailure to Report Corrections to All CRAs ( FCRA Section 623 ( b ) (\n1 ) ( D ) ) The furnishers had a duty to update Experian after removing the accounts from XXXX and XXXX, yet they failed to do so. \nThis selective reporting is an unfair and deceptive practice in direct violation of federal law. \n\n3. Filing an FTC Complaint for Deceptive Practices Against Experian & Creditors Since Experian and these furnishers have knowingly engaged in deceptive and misleading credit reporting, I have filed a formal complaint with the FTC requesting an investigation into their fraudulent practices.\n\nExperian is deliberately misleading consumers by maintaining inaccurate data, even after other CRAs have removed it.\n\nCreditors are failing to update all CRAs uniformly, creating an unfair and deceptive impact on my credit standing.\n\nThis constitutes a violation of the FTC Acts prohibition against unfair and deceptive acts or practices ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ).\n\n4. Legal Ramifications & Potential Lawsuit Against Experian & Creditors If Experian and these furnishers do not immediately correct these violations, I will : Pursue legal action against Experian and the furnishers for willful FCRA violations under 15 U.S.C. 1681n, seeking : Statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation Actual damages, including financial harm suffered due to Experians negligence Punitive damages for reckless noncompliance with federal law Request the CFPB to impose financial penalties on Experian for its continued failure to conduct lawful investigations.\n\n5. Demands for Immediate Action To resolve this matter without further escalation, I demand that Experian : 1. Immediately remove all the disputed accounts from my credit report as they were removed from other CRAs.\n\n2. Provide documented proof that Experian has conducted a real investigation into these disputes rather than relying on automated responses.\n\n3. Obtain written verification from the furnishers confirming the removal of these accounts.\n\n4. Provide me with copies of all communications between Experian and the furnishers regarding my disputes.\n\nFailure to comply within 10 business days will result in further legal action and regulatory complaints.\n\nFinal Notice to Experian & Creditors This is Experians last opportunity to correct its fraudulent reporting before : An official FTC investigation is opened against Experian and the furnishers.\n\nA new CFPB complaint is filed citing Experians identical conduct to its ongoing lawsuit.\n\nLegal action is taken against Experian and the furnishers for statutory and punitive damages.\n\nExperians bad-faith investigations and refusal to comply with the FCRA are no longer acceptable. I expect immediate resolution, or this matter will escalate further. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX, LA XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-06T20:09:13.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"70791","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11969370","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-02-06T19:44:19.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The CFPB <em>lawsuit</em> highlights how Experian systematically refuses to conduct legitimate investigations, instead relying on automated systems that dismiss disputes <em>without</em> verifying accuracy.\n\nExperians continued reporting of deleted accounts demonstrates that it is engaged in the same illegal conduct described in the CFPB <em>lawsuit</em>.\n\n2."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[12.68551,"11969370"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14233966","_score":12.631576,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"SUBJECT : Immediate Dispute : Systemic Failure to Resolve Disputes within FCRA Timelines & Pattern of Unacceptable Procedural Violations This complaint is being filed against Experian for multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically related to the dispute process and transparency obligations outlined in 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ). Below is a summary of the relevant facts : 1 ) XXXX XXXX  Dispute Violation of 30-Day Resolution Requirement and Notice Obligation On XX/XX/XXXX, I mailed a written dispute regarding a XXXX XXXX  XXXXradeline to XXXX  via USPS Certified Mail . The letter was delivered on XX/XX/XXXX, per USPS tracking confirmation ( supporting documents attached ). As of the evening of XX/XX/XXXX, 30 days after receipt, I have received no resolution notification by email or postal mail, in direct violation of FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). I logged into the Experian dispute portal and confirmed that this dispute is not listed under completed disputes, and Experian provides no visibility into pending disputes on their portal. The only potential match is a placeholder dispute marked Currently unavailable online with no accessible details. This placeholder lacks any written communication, formal outcome, or valid timestamp, and does not meet XXXX obligation under 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( ii ) to provide written notice of results.\n\n2 ) Uninitiated Dispute of Self-Reported Insurance Tradeline On XX/XX/XXXX, Experian appears to have initiated and resolved a dispute related to a self-reported insurance account that was auto-added through Experian XXXX. I did not request this dispute, nor was I notified that it was initiated or resolved. If Experian initiated it unilaterally, this suggests manufactured dispute activity without consumer authorization, reminiscent of the allegations in CFPB v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc., Case No. XXXX, in which the Bureau alleged Experian engaged in deceptive practices relating to consumer understanding of credit reporting actions. \n3 ) Sham Disputes XXXX XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX This complaint also incorporates systemic concerns regarding Experians mishandling of prior disputes, including : - CFPB Complaint XXXX ( XXXX ) - CFPB Complaint XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  ) In both cases, the tradelines were returned from dispute with new and worse errors than were originally present. This strongly resembles patterns described in the CFPBs lawsuit, where Experian was accused of furnishing inaccurate dispute results and failing to conduct reasonable investigations. \n4 ) Score Suppression and Model Disparity While not the subject of this complaint, I also reference CFPB Complaint XXXX, in which I documented Experians suppression or improper scoring behaviorwhere an identical event ( conversion of a collection or charge-off to paid/settled ) yielded wildly different score outcomes. Specifically, a lower-dollar item resulted in a major score jump, while a more substantial amount changed to current yielded no score movement, despite occurring within the same modeling window. \n5 ) In contrast with Experian 's failure to meet the 30-day deadline and conducting sham investigations, observations and supporting data indicate that at least one other bureau ( XXXX  ) has begun suppressing or deleting these same tradelines ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX  ) that were disputed there. Though no official confirmation has yet been issued, supporting information showing ongoing suppression and deletion has been received from credit monitoring services like XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX monitoring themselves. Other signals include seeming balance drops that align exactly with the amount of these tradelines, odd system artifacts like an XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX  ) reporting date - a known signal of data deletion and reconciliation failure in credit bureau systems- and CRA-initiated suppression with upstream data aggregators like XXXX. In this context, Experian 's failure to complete reasonable investigations, communicate investigation outcomes and provide written notice of completion is out of alignment with other CRAs and further compounds consumer harm and opacity. This reinforces a concerning patter of Experian operating outside transparent regulatory boundaries while its peers move toward genuine resolution ( if belatedly ).","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-24T00:20:04.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"32258","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14233966","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-06-23T23:54:20.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I did not <em>request</em> this dispute, nor was I <em>notified</em> that it was initiated or resolved. If Experian initiated it unilaterally, this suggests manufactured dispute activity <em>without</em> consumer authorization, reminiscent of the allegations in CFPB v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc., Case No."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[12.631576,"14233966"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13825314","_score":12.457409,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"# Response to Zwicker & Associates XX/XX/XXXX Letter ( CFPB Complaint No. XXXX ) Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Consumer Response Information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington , DC XXXX Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX / Complaint No. XXXX Dear Consumer Response Team : * * Debt Verification Timeliness of Request. * * XXXX claim that XXXX XXXX failed to request verification under the FDCPA timely is legally and factually incorrect. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) ( b ), XXXX XXXX had thirty days * after receiving * XXXX initial debt notice to notify XXXX in writing that he disputed the debt or to request verification. Crucially, that 30-day period only begins upon * actual * ( or assumed ) receipt of the notice. XXXX XXXX has stated he never received a valid FDCPA notice from XXXX ( see infra ), so the statutory clock never fairly started to run. In any event, once any written dispute or verification request was put on XXXX desk, XXXX was required to cease collection of the debt until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt. XXXX insistence on a rigid 30-day cutoff ignores the possibility that its own mailing was defective or delayed. In equity, XXXX XXXX should not be penalized for a late dispute if he had no notice of the debt. Courts recognize that the FDCPAs dispute period may be tolled when the initial notice is ineffective. For example, CFPB Regulation F provides that a consumer is * assumed * to receive a written notice five days after mailing, and that if the first notice is returned undeliverable, the collector must resend it before the period begins. Here, without proof of any valid delivery, XXXX can not fault XXXX XXXX for failing to mail a written dispute within some meaningless numerical deadline. In short, XXXX can not have it both ways it sent ( or claims to have sent ) a notice that never reached him, and then blames him for not disputing in time. By statute, once XXXX XXXX did notify XXXX of his dispute ( either within or beyond 30 days ), XXXX was obligated to halt collection until verification was provided. \n\n* * Validation Notice Delivery and Sufficiency. * * XXXX assertion that it properly delivered the FDCPA validation notice ignores the strict requirements of 1692g ( a ). The law demands that a debt collector send the required disclosures * to the consumer *. While federal courts apply a common-law mailbox rule presuming receipt if a notice is properly mailed to the consumers last known address, that presumption is rebuttable by clear evidence that the mailing did not reach the consumer. Here, XXXX XXXX has never received mail at the address XXXX used. As one court explained, a 1692g notice sent to an address where the consumer did not ever live is not an effective communication to the consumer at all. XXXX has not shown any returned mail or any attempt to verify the address. The CFPBs own rules explicitly contemplate that if a validation notice is returned undelivered, the collector must obtain updated location information and send the notice again. XXXX has neither claimed nor proved that it did so. Absent an affidavit or certified-mail receipt verifying XXXX XXXX address , the bare assertion of mailing is insufficient. In these circumstances, XXXX XXXX did not receive the statutorily required notice and thus could not have waived his rights. XXXX reliance on Mahon v. Credit Bureau, 171 F.3d 1197 ( 9th Cir. 1999 ) that sending notice to the last known address suffices is misplaced because XXXX XXXX was not residing at that address. In sum, XXXX has failed to meet 1692g ( a ) s standard of notice delivery.\n\n* * Lawsuit Timing Cease Collection Requirement. * * Even if one credits XXXX claim that XXXX XXXX debt was disputed, XXXX choice to file suit during the pendency of verification contravenes the FDCPAs protection. Under 1692g ( b ) ( and CFPB Reg F 1006.34 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( i ) ), once a consumer disputes a debt in writing within the validation period, the collector must cease collection of the debt until verification or a judgment is mailed. Litigation to collect a disputed debt is the very essence of collection activity. Courts have held that after a timely dispute, a debt collector must halt any collection process it has set in motion. For example, in * Scott v. Trott Law , P.C . *, the Sixth Circuit held that the debt collector can not allow the essential statutory elements of \\ [ a foreclosure to proceed after receiving a timely Dispute Letter until it obtains sufficient verification of the debt. By extension, XXXX should have suspended any lawsuit. Filing suit under these circumstances is at best premature and at worst a deceptive practice in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e it falsely implies the debt is undisputed and enforceable. The CFPB emphasizes that collection efforts * must * pause when a dispute is asserted. XXXX disregard of this mandate has prejudiced XXXX XXXX and vitiated the very dispute protections the FDCPA guarantees. \n\n* * Demand for Dismissal or Stay. * * In light of the above violations, we hereby demand that Zwicker & Associates dismiss its debt collection lawsuit against XXXX XXXX or, at a minimum, obtain a formal stay pending proper validation. Continuing the case now would reward XXXX procedural missteps and further harm XXXX XXXX. The FDCPA provides that a collector who fails to comply is liable for damages, and a lawsuit filed in breach of 1692g undermines the statutes remedial purpose. The Court of Appeals has recognized that a consumer may sue to enforce these provisions ; similarly, it is inequitable for a collector to seek a judgment by violating them. To effectuate the FDCPA and protect consumers, XXXX claims should be dismissed or held in abeyance until it fulfills its statutory duties. We ask the CFPB to enforce this outcome : if XXXX insists on pursuing collection, it must first provide the verified proof of debt and correct notice required by law. XXXX XXXX reserves all rights under 15 U.S.C. 1692k, including statutory damages, attorneys fees, and the remedy of dismissal should this lawsuit continue in contravention of the FDCPA. \n\nThank you for your attention to these issues. Please get in touch with me if you require any further information. \n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-31T16:42:30.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"35173","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13825314","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES","date_received":"2025-05-31T16:28:44.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["For example, CFPB Regulation F <em>provides</em> that a consumer is * assumed * to receive a written notice five days after mailing, and that if the first notice is returned undeliverable, the collector must resend it before the period begins. Here, <em>without</em> proof of any valid delivery, XXXX can not fault XXXX XXXX for <em>failing</em> to mail a written dispute within some meaningless numerical deadline."]},"sort":[12.457409,"13825314"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10474430","_score":12.454324,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Portal Date : XX/XX/year> To : Transworld Systems Inc. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  PA XXXX Re : CFPB Complaint # XXXX Account No. : XXXX Alleged Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Alleged Amount : {$180.00} Dear TSI Consumer Affairs : Your repeated failure to properly validate this debt, coupled with your continued credit reporting despite this failure, constitutes willful violations of federal law. This letter serves as your FINAL NOTICE before the commencement of immediate legal action. \n\nFAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT VIOLATIONS Your responses dated XX/XX/year>, and XX/XX/year>, brazenly violate 15 U.S.C. 1692g. A photocopied bill does NOT constitute valid debt verification. You have failed to provide : 1. Documentation proving your legal right to collect this debt 2. The complete chain of title showing proper assignment from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. A detailed accounting of the alleged debt 4. The original signed contract 5. Proof this debt is within Texas 's statute of limitations Your failure to provide these materials within the statutory 30-day validation period renders any further collection activity, INCLUDING CREDIT REPORTING, illegal under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ).\n\nFAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT VIOLATIONS Your continued credit reporting while failing to properly validate this debt violates 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). Simply marking an account as \" disputed '' is grossly insufficient when you can not provide basic validation. This constitutes willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n, exposing TSI to statutory damages of {$1000.00} per violation, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney 's fees. \n\nTEXAS DEBT COLLECTION ACT VIOLATIONS Your actions also violate multiple provisions of the Texas Finance Code 392.001 et seq., including : - Attempting to collect a debt without proper validation - Misrepresenting the character and legal status of the debt - Failing to properly verify disputed information IMMEDIATE DEMANDS You have 48 HOURS to : 1. Request DELETION ( not dispute status ) of ALL credit reporting related to this account XXXX. Provide WRITTEN CONFIRMATION through the CFPB portal that such deletion requests have been submitted 3. Cease ALL collection activity permanently If these demands are not met within 48 hours, I will immediately : 1. File a federal lawsuit seeking maximum statutory damages under the FDCPA ( {$1000.00} ), FCRA ( {$1000.00} per violation ), and TDCA ( {$100.00} per violation ) 2. Seek actual damages, including damage to credit reputation 3. Pursue punitive damages for willful noncompliance 4. Seek attorney 's fees and costs 5. File complaints with : - Texas Attorney General 's Office - Federal Trade Commission - Texas Public Utility Commission ( regarding your Permit # XXXX ) - Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for pattern of non-compliance Your \" restrictive status '' means nothing when you continue to harm my credit through improper reporting. Each day of continued reporting constitutes a new violation, increasing your liability. \n\nNOTICE OF EVIDENCE PRESERVATION You are hereby notified to preserve ALL records relating to this account, including : - All internal communications- All communications with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX - All documentation relating to the purchase/assignment of this debt - All credit reporting records and communications- All account notes and records- All call recordings and transcripts Destruction of any such evidence will result in additional claims for spoliation of evidence. \n\nThis matter will be resolved either through your immediate compliance or through federal court intervention. The choice is yours, but the deadline is firm. \n\nAll further communication must be through the CFPB portal. Your previous responses demonstrate bad faith and will be used as evidence in legal proceedings. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Texas Attorney General 's Office Federal Trade Commission Texas Public Utility Commission","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-16T21:40:18.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"762XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10474430","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC","date_received":"2024-10-16T21:37:48.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Proof this debt is within Texas 's statute of limitations Your failure to <em>provide</em> these materials within the statutory 30-day validation period renders any further collection activity, INCLUDING CREDIT REPORTING, illegal under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ).\n\nFAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT VIOLATIONS Your continued credit reporting <em>while</em> <em>failing</em> to properly validate this debt violates 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b )."]},"sort":[12.454324,"10474430"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11337642","_score":12.218716,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"on XX/XX/XXXX early am an unknown company damage my driveway while repo a vehicle without notices also refuse to provide driver insurance or contact information, I was told to sue them by the receptionist as result I have done following steps. \n\nXXXX XXXX RESURGENT CAPITAL LP /LLC COLLECTION DEBT COMPANY ORIGINAL XXXX XXXX, CHARGED OFF DEBT FAIL TO RESPOND TO BONAFIDE DISPUTE / XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX debt is sold to a collection agency. \nUnder UCC 3-301, the collection agency must be able to prove that they are entitled to collect the debt by providing proof that they are the holder of the debt or have the right to enforce it. \nIf they can not produce evidence of the assignment or demonstrate they are the rightful holder, you have a valid defense under UCC 3-301 that they do not have the legal right to enforce the debt. \nConclusion : UCC 3-301 ( 1 ) definitely applies when a third-party debt collector attempts to enforce a charged-off debt. The debt collector must be able to prove they are the holder of the debt or have the right to enforce the debt, typically through documentation of the debts transfer or assignment. If they can not provide such evidence, they may lack the legal standing to collect the debt, and you could successfully challenge their efforts. \nIf you are dealing with a third-party debt collector, you have the right to request proof of their entitlement to collect on the debt. If they fail to prove their right to collect, they may be violating the UCC and other consumer protection laws, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \nUCCC 3-301 ( 1 ) In the case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Oklahoma Supreme Court dealt with the issue of self-help repossession and the legal rights of parties involved in a repossession, particularly regarding the proper notice and procedures required before and after repossession. Although the case primarily concerns the legal standing of the creditor ( the bank ) and the debtor in a repossession scenario, it is highly relevant to your question about the repo of a car without notice. \nLets break it down to see how it applies : The Case : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, the bank has repossessed a vehicle from the debtor, XXXX XXXXXXXX, without providing prior notice. The key issue in the case was whether the bank had acted unlawfully in repossessing the car without giving the required notice or affording the debtor an opportunity to redeem the vehicle. \nThe Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that self-help repossession is only lawful if it does not breach the peace and if the repossession complies with the terms of the contract ( in this case, the security agreement ). However, in this case, the court found that the bank 's actions in repossessing the car without notice violated the debtor 's rights under the law. \nKey Points of the Case : Right to Notice Before Repossession : The case reinforced that the debtor is entitled to notice before a repossession occurs. This includes notice that the creditor intends to repossess the vehicle and provide an opportunity to cure the default ( if applicable ), especially when required by the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) or the security agreement. \nSelf-Help Repossession Must Not Breach the Peace : The ruling emphasizes that self-help repossession ( when the lender or creditor takes back the vehicle without involving law enforcement ) must not breach the peace. This means the creditor must avoid actions like taking the car in the middle of the night or forcibly entering the debtor 's property. A breach of peace could render the repossession illegal and subject the creditor to damages. \nDue Process and Fair Treatment : The case aligns with the notion that repossessions must be carried out in a manner that respects the debtors due process rights. This includes reasonable notice and an opportunity to address the default before drastic actions like repossession are taken. \nApplication to Your Example : Repossessed Car without Notice If your situation mirrors the example you gave where a company repossessed your car in the middle of the night without any prior notice XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX can be relevant in several ways : Breach of Peace : If the repo company took the car without providing notice and did so in a manner that disrupted your peace ( such as repossessing it while you were unaware, in the middle of the night, or in a threatening manner ), this could be considered a breach of peace under UCC 9-609 ( which governs repossessions ). The Supreme Court in XXXX XXXXXXXX highlighted that the repossession must not disturb the peace, and if it did, the repossession could be considered illegal. \nLack of Notice : If you did not receive notice of the repossession or any opportunity to redeem the car, this could also be a violation of your rights under UCC 9-611, which requires the secured party ( the lender or creditor ) to notify the debtor of the repossession and sale. In your case, if you didnt receive a pre-repossession notice, or notice of the intent to sell the vehicle, this could be a violation of UCC requirements and a breach of your rights. \nOpportunity to Cure : If there was no attempt to provide you with a chance to cure the default ( such as catching up on missed payments before the car was taken ), then the creditor may have violated the terms of the security agreement or failed to follow the proper process outlined in UCC 9-609 and 9-611. \nRemedies Available : If the repossession was deemed to have violated UCC provisions or was conducted in an unlawful manner, you could potentially seek remedies such as damages for the illegal repossession, return of the car, or even monetary compensation for any harm caused by the wrongful repossession. In XXXX XXXXXXXX, the court upheld the idea that a creditor must follow legal procedures to protect the debtors rights, and a failure to do so could result in liability for the creditor. \nWhat You Can Do in a Similar Situation : If you find yourself in a situation where a car has been repossessed without notice, and especially if it was done in the middle of the night or under questionable circumstances, the principles of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX may apply to your case. Heres what you can do : Demand Proof of Notice : You can ask the creditor or the repossession company to provide proof that they properly notified you before the repossession took place. Under UCC 9-611, the creditor is required to give you notice of the intended sale of the vehicle before taking any action, and under UCC 9-609 , they can not repossess in a way that breaches the peace. \nCheck for Breach of Peace : If the repossession took place under circumstances that caused a disturbance or were carried out without your knowledge ( such as at night when you were not expecting it ), you might have grounds to claim a breach of peace. If the repossession was conducted in an aggressive, disruptive, or clandestine manner, this could be deemed unlawful. \nExamine the Security Agreement : Review the security agreement you signed when you took out the loan. Many agreements outline how and when a creditor can repossess the vehicle, what notices are required, and any potential penalties for non-payment. If the creditor violated any terms of that agreement ( e.g., failing to provide notice or not giving you an opportunity to cure the default ), you may have a case for wrongful repossession. \nSeek Legal Remedies : If the repossession was wrongful, you may be entitled to remedies such as : Return of the vehicle if it was wrongfully repossessed. \nDamages for any emotional distress, financial loss, or other harm caused by the wrongful repossession. \nA lawsuit for breach of contract or violation of your rights under the UCC. \nConsult an Attorney : If you believe your car was wrongfully repossessed in violation of your rights, it may be helpful to consult with an attorney who specializes in consumer protection, debt collection, or repossession laws. They can advise you on your legal rights, assist you in taking action against the repossession company, and help you seek compensation if applicable. \nConclusion : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX applies to your example by underscoring the requirements for repossession, particularly the need for notice and the prohibition against breach of peace. If the car was taken without notice, especially in the middle of the night, it could very well be considered a violation of both UCC requirements and your legal rights. You might have grounds to challenge the repossession and pursue legal action for damages or wrongful repossession, as the creditor is generally required to follow proper procedures. \nPER THE THIRD PARTY COLLECTING THE CAR WITHOUT NOTICE OF REPO OR ANY CONTRACT TO SHOW OWNERSHIP OR RIGHT OF REPO A LAWSUIT INEVITABLE Yes, if a third-party company repossesses your car without providing notice, without a valid contract, and without showing the right to repossess ( i.e., without demonstrating legal ownership or the right to act on behalf of the creditor ), there are strong grounds for a lawsuit. This is especially true if the repossession violates UCC provisions or consumer protection laws. \nLet 's break down why a lawsuit is inevitable under these circumstances and what the potential causes of action would be. \nKey Legal Issues in Your Scenario : Lack of Notice ( UCC and Consumer Protection ) : Under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), specifically UCC 9-609, a secured creditor ( or their authorized agent ) may repossess the vehicle, but notice is usually required before and after the repossession. \nNotice before repossession : While the UCC doesn't always require pre-repossession notice in every case ( if the contract allows for immediate repossession after default ), notice after repossession is almost always required especially if the car is going to be sold. \nIf the car was taken without any prior notice to you, and you didnt have an opportunity to cure the default, this could be a violation of UCC requirements. \nLack of Ownership or Right to Repossess : Third-Party Debt Collectors and Repo Agents : A third-party collector must prove they have the right to repossess the vehicle. If the repossession agent or debt collector can not produce evidence of ownership or a contract that clearly shows they have legal standing to repossess the vehicle, they may be violating your rights. \nIf they can not demonstrate they have the right to enforce the contract ( via a valid assignment or proof of ownership of the debt ), the repossession can be contested as unlawful. Under UCC 3-301, they must prove they have the right to enforce the debt. Without proper evidence, they may lack legal standing. \nBreach of Peace : Even if the third-party collector has the right to repossess, UCC 9-609 requires that repossession must be carried out without a breach of peace. If the repo occurred at an unreasonable time ( e.g., in the middle of the night ) or in a manner that caused disruption or fear, that could be considered a breach of peace. \nIn this case, repossession without notice, in the middle of the night, could be argued to constitute a breach of peace, which would make the repossession itself unlawful. \nPotential Causes of Action for a Lawsuit : Given the facts you've outlined, here are the potential legal claims or causes of action that could lead to a lawsuit against the third-party repo agent, the creditor, or both : 1. Wrongful Repossession ( Breach of Contract & UCC Violations ) Lack of Notice : If the repossession was carried out without proper notice as required under UCC 9-611 ( post-repossession notice of intent to sell the car ), or if there was no opportunity for you to cure the default, you may have grounds for wrongful repossession. \nLack of Standing : If the third-party repo agent can not prove that they have the legal right to repossess ( i.e., a valid assignment or proof that they own the debt ), they may not have had the legal right to take your car. In this case, you can sue for wrongful repossession. \n2. Breach of Peace ( UCC Violation ) Breach of Peace occurs when the repossession is conducted in a manner that disturbs the peace. This can include repossession at night, without warning, or in a manner that causes confrontation or distress. \nIf the repo was conducted improperly ( e.g., forcibly entering your property, taking the car without your knowledge or consent ), the creditor or repo company could be liable for damages due to breach of peace. \n3. Conversion ( Theft or Unauthorized Taking ) Conversion is the wrongful taking or control over another person 's property. If the third party took the car without legal authorization, and they are unable to prove that they had the right to take it, you could have a claim for conversion. This is especially relevant if the car was taken without notice, without a contract, and without the proper authority to do so. \n4. Violation of Consumer Protection Laws ( Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, UCC, etc. ) FDCPA Violations : If the repossession was carried out by a debt collector ( i.e., a third-party collection agency ), and they did so improperly, you might have grounds to bring a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The FDCPA protects consumers from harassment and abusive practices by debt collectors, including improper or illegal repossession tactics. \nThe UCC also protects consumers from creditors who act outside the bounds of the contract and the law. \n5. Emotional Distress ( Potential Tort Claim ) If the manner of repossession caused you significant emotional distress ( e.g., the stress of having your car taken unexpectedly at night or being wrongfully deprived of your vehicle ), you might have grounds for a claim of emotional distress. This is a more difficult claim to win, but if the repossession was done in an extremely inappropriate manner, it could potentially form the basis for damages. \nWhat You Can Do : Demand Proof : Send a formal demand letter to the creditor or repo company requesting proof of ownership and the right to repossess the car. They should provide you with a contract, proof of assignment, and any relevant documents that show they had the legal right to take the car. \n\nFile a Complaint : You can file a formal complaint with consumer protection agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), or your states attorney general office, if you believe the repossession violated consumer protection laws. \nConsider a Lawsuit : If the third-party repo company or creditor failed to follow the proper legal procedures ( notice, standing, etc. ), you may have a valid claim for wrongful repossession, conversion, breach of peace, or even emotional distress. Your attorney can assist in filing a lawsuit for damages. \nConclusion : Yes, based on the facts you've outlined, a lawsuit is highly likely and advisable. The third-party collector repossessing your car without notice, without showing proper ownership, and potentially in violation of the UCC and consumer protection laws creates significant legal exposure for them. You may have several potential claims, including wrongful repossession, breach of peace, conversion, and violations of consumer protection laws. \nIts important to act quickly and consult with an experienced consumer rights attorney who can help guide you through the process of seeking damages, return of the car, or other legal remedies. : REPO DRIVER DAMAGE PROPERTY TO REPO THE CAR THE REPO COMPANY STATES THEY ARE NOT LIABLE TO GIVE DRIVERS NAME OR INFORMATION IS THIS TRUE IF NOT STEPS TO ENFORCE RELEASE OF INFORMATION POLICE REPORT HAS BEEN FILED In your situation, where the repo driver damaged your property during the repossession of your car and the repo company is refusing to provide the driver 's name or any information, you do have legal avenues to pursue in order to enforce the release of that information and hold the responsible parties accountable. \nKey Legal Issues to Address : Property Damage During Repossession : If the repo driver caused damage to your property while attempting to repossess your car, this may constitute tortious conduct, such as negligence or even intentional damage. Depending on the circumstances, you may have grounds for a claim for property damage. \nRight to Know Who Caused the Damage : You are entitled to know the identity of the person who damaged your property during the repossession. The repossession company ( or the principal party responsible ) should not be withholding this information if a police report has been filed and if the damage is part of the repossession process. \nLiability of the Repossession Company : Even though the repossession driver may be the one who caused the damage, the repossession company is generally liable for the actions of its agents ( in this case, the driver ) while they are acting within the scope of their employment or job duties ( such as repossessing a vehicle ). \nIf the repossession was carried out by an independent contractor, there may be additional steps to take to identify and hold the contractor accountable, but the repossession company could still bear responsibility for ensuring that their contractors act within the law and do not damage property. \nSteps to Enforce Release of Information and Hold the Repo Company Accountable : 1. Reaffirm Your Right to the Information ( Legal Basis ) The repossession company is likely bound by state laws that require it to provide information about the incident, especially if a police report has been filed. If they are refusing to provide the driver 's name or contact information, you can take the following steps : State Law on Property Damage : Many states have consumer protection laws and tort laws that hold repossession companies liable for damages caused by their agents. The repossession company is obligated to assist you in pursuing any claims you have for damage caused during repossession. \nRequest in Writing : Formally request, in writing, that the repo company provide the driver 's information as part of the property damage claim. This letter should state the nature of the damage, the fact that a police report has been filed, and your demand for the driver 's identity. \n\nDONE Police Report : Since you've filed a police report, obtain a copy of the report if you haven't already. The police report should contain : Details about the incident ( the property damage ). \nThe repo companys information. \nAny witness statements or documentation related to the repossession. \nIdentifying details about the driver, if provided by the repo company or the driver himself. \nThe police report will help validate your claim of property damage and is often necessary to pursue legal action or to file a claim with your insurance. \n3. SENT Formal Demand Letter If the repossession company is unresponsive to your initial requests, send a formal demand letter requesting the driver 's information and any relevant documentation. You can include : Details about the damage ( photographs, estimates, etc. ). \nA reference to the police report. \nYour demand that they provide the driver 's name so you can proceed with your claim. \nThis letter should also specify a deadline for a response ( e.g., 10-15 business days ) and clearly state that if they do not respond, you will pursue further legal action, including the involvement of consumer protection agencies or litigation. \n4. Contact Consumer Protection Agencies ( If Repo Company Refuses ) If the repo company still refuses to provide information, consider escalating the matter by contacting relevant consumer protection agencies : State Attorney Generals Office : They may have specific guidelines or complaints related to repossession companies that are not complying with the law or are withholding information unlawfully. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Filing a complaint with the XXXX  can put public pressure on the company to resolve your issue. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : If the repossession was carried out by a debt collector, you can also file a complaint with the CFPB, which enforces the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n5. Small Claims Court or Lawsuit ( Legal Action ) If you are unable to resolve the matter through the repossession company or consumer protection agencies, filing a lawsuit or taking the matter to small claims court may be your next option : Sue for Property Damage : If the repossession company refuses to provide the driver 's name or cooperate, you can consider filing a lawsuit for property damage. The repossession company may be held liable for the actions of its agent ( the repo driver ). \nIn many states, you can file a small claims lawsuit for property damage ( often under a certain dollar amount, such as {$5000.00} or {$10000.00}, depending on the state ). \nSue for Breach of Contract : If the repo company violated terms of your agreement ( e.g., repossession was conducted improperly ), you may also have a breach of contract claim. \n\nDemand the Driver 's Information in writing, citing the police report and property damage. \nObtain the Police Report and use it as evidence to support your claim. \nFile a Complaint with the Attorney General or consumer protection agencies if the company continues to refuse to cooperate. \nConsider Small Claims Court or Legal Action if the company is uncooperative or refuses to provide the necessary information. \nYou have the legal right to know who caused the damage to your property and to seek compensation for the damages. If the repo company is refusing to provide that information, legal recourse is your next step. Consulting with an attorney who specializes in consumer protection or tort law could provide additional support to ensure your rights are protected. \n\nXXXX XXXX IS THE COMPANY THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH THERE WAS BONAFIDE DISPUTE SUBMITTED TO THEM VIA REGISTERED MAIL THEY NEVER REPLIED ENFORCEMENT ACCORDING TO SATISFACTION UCC 3-311 WAS XXXXXXXX XXXX ABLE TO SELL THE DEBT AFTER CHARGING IT OFF AND NOT REPLYING TO BONAFIDE DISPUTE? \n\nUnder the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), particularly UCC 3-311, the situation you've described involves some important legal principles regarding disputes and charge-offs, as well as the sale of a debt after a Bonafide dispute has been raised. Lets break this down step-by-step : 1. Bonafide Dispute Under UCC 3-311 : UCC 3-311 specifically addresses disputes and the right of the debtor to dispute the validity of a debt. When a debtor raises a Bonafide dispute ( a legitimate, good faith dispute about the debt or its amount ), the creditor is required to acknowledge and respond to the dispute in a reasonable manner. If a dispute is raised and the creditor fails to respond or resolve it, they may be in violation of certain provisions of the UCC and other applicable consumer protection laws. \nUCC 3-311 states that if a debtor sends a dispute ( such as a registered mail notice, which you did ), the creditor is required to respond or provide a resolution. A failure to respond to a bona fide dispute could affect the creditor 's ability to enforce the debt or take certain actions, including selling the debt or charging it off. \n2. Charging Off the Debt : Charge-off is an accounting action that the lender ( in this case, XXXX XXXX ) takes to declare the debt as unlikely to be collected. A charge-off does not extinguish the debt ; it is simply an accounting procedure that moves the debt off the creditors balance sheet. It is still a valid debt that the creditor ( or a third party ) can attempt to collect, unless there is some legal reason why the debt can not be enforced ( such as a Bonafide dispute or a failure to respond to the dispute ). \nIn your case, if XXXX XXXX charged off the debt after receiving your dispute and without responding to it, they may have violated UCC 3-311. Charging off the debt without addressing the dispute could mean that the creditor has waived their right to enforce the debt or sell the debt, depending on the nature of the dispute. \n3. Selling the Debt After Charge-Off : After a charge-off, the creditor ( in this case, XXXX XXXX ) has the right to sell the debt to a third-party collection agency or debt buyer. However, there are specific conditions under the UCC and related laws that govern this process : Failure to Respond to a Bona Fide Dispute : If XXXX XXXX did not respond to your Bonafide dispute, they could have violated UCC 3-311, which requires them to address the dispute and offer a resolution before continuing with collection efforts. If they ignored the dispute, they might not have been legally able to sell the debt or attempt to enforce it while the dispute remains unresolved. \nConsumer Protection Laws : In addition to the UCC, there are consumer protection laws, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), that require creditors and debt collectors to act fairly and respond to disputes. If the debt was sold to a third party after the dispute, the third-party collector must still adhere to these same laws, including validating the debt before attempting to collect it. \n4. Legal Impact of Not Responding to a Bonafide Dispute : Under UCC 3-311, creditors are not allowed to enforce or transfer a debt for collection if there is an unresolved Bonafide dispute. This means that if XXXX XXXX failed to address your bona fide dispute, they may not have been legally allowed to sell the debt or continue to attempt collection. Their failure to respond to your dispute could have prevented them from enforcing the debt, and any subsequent actions, such as selling the debt to a third-party collection agency, could be legally questionable. \n5. What Can You Do? \nHere are your options to enforce your rights under UCC 3-311 and other applicable laws : a. I HAVE DocumentED Everything : Keep copies of the dispute letter you sent to XXXX XXXX ( via registered mail ). \nEnsure you have proof of the failure to respond from XXXX XXXX. If they didn't reply to your dispute, this could be an important piece of evidence that they violated UCC provisions. \nRequest copies of any communication or documentation related to the sale of the debt. If they sold the debt, they should have informed you of the sale and the new holder of the debt.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-31T19:11:05.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"374XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11337642","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","date_received":"2024-12-31T17:18:14.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Seized or attempted to seize your property"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["PER THE THIRD PARTY COLLECTING THE CAR <em>WITHOUT</em> NOTICE OF REPO OR ANY CONTRACT TO SHOW OWNERSHIP OR RIGHT OF REPO A <em>LAWSUIT</em> INEVITABLE Yes, if a third-party company repossesses your car <em>without</em> providing notice, <em>without</em> a valid contract, and <em>without</em> showing the right to repossess ( i.e., <em>without</em> demonstrating legal ownership or the right to act on behalf of the creditor ), there are strong grounds for a <em>lawsuit</em>."]},"sort":[12.218716,"11337642"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11337048","_score":12.209084,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"on XX/XX/XXXX early am an unknown company damage my driveway while repo a vehicle without notices also refuse to provide driver insurance or contact information, I was told to sue them by the receptionist as result I have done following steps. \n\nThird Party XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEBT COMPANY ORIGINAL NAVY FEDERAL, CHARGED OFF DEBT FAIL TO RESPOND TO BONAFIDE DISPUTE / XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX debt is sold to a collection agency. \nUnder UCC 3-301, the collection agency must be able to prove that they are entitled to collect the debt by providing proof that they are the holder of the debt or have the right to enforce it. \nIf they can not produce evidence of the assignment or demonstrate they are the rightful holder, you have a valid defense under UCC 3-301 that they do not have the legal right to enforce the debt. \nConclusion : UCC 3-301 ( 1 ) definitely applies when a third-party debt collector attempts to enforce a charged-off debt. The debt collector must be able to prove they are the holder of the debt or have the right to enforce the debt, typically through documentation of the debts transfer or assignment. If they can not provide such evidence, they may lack the legal standing to collect the debt, and you could successfully challenge their efforts. \nIf you are dealing with a third-party debt collector, you have the right to request proof of their entitlement to collect on the debt. If they fail to prove their right to collect, they may be violating the UCC and other consumer protection laws, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \nUCCC 3-301 ( 1 ) In the case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the Oklahoma Supreme Court dealt with the issue of self-help repossession and the legal rights of parties involved in a repossession, particularly regarding the proper notice and procedures required before and after repossession. Although the case primarily concerns the legal standing of the creditor ( the bank ) and the debtor in a repossession scenario, it is highly relevant to your question about the repo of a car without notice. \nLets break it down to see how it applies : The Case : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX In XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, the bank has repossessed a vehicle from the debtor, XXXX XXXX, without providing prior notice. The key issue in the case was whether the bank had acted unlawfully in repossessing the car without giving the required notice or affording the debtor an opportunity to redeem the vehicle. \nThe Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that self-help repossession is only lawful if it does not breach the peace and if the repossession complies with the terms of the contract ( in this case, the security agreement ). However, in this case, the court found that the bank 's actions in repossessing the car without notice violated the debtor 's rights under the law. \nKey Points of the Case : Right to Notice Before Repossession : The case reinforced that the debtor is entitled to notice before a repossession occurs. This includes notice that the creditor intends to repossess the vehicle and provide an opportunity to cure the default ( if applicable ), especially when required by the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) or the security agreement. \nSelf-Help Repossession Must Not Breach the Peace : The ruling emphasizes that self-help repossession ( when the lender or creditor takes back the vehicle without involving law enforcement ) must not breach the peace. This means the creditor must avoid actions like taking the car in the middle of the night or forcibly entering the debtor 's property. A breach of peace could render the repossession illegal and subject the creditor to damages. \nDue Process and Fair Treatment : The case aligns with the notion that repossessions must be carried out in a manner that respects the debtors due process rights. This includes reasonable notice and an opportunity to address the default before drastic actions like repossession are taken. \nApplication to Your Example : Repossessed Car without Notice If your situation mirrors the example you gave where a company repossessed your car in the middle of the night without any prior notice XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  can be relevant in several ways : Breach of Peace : If the repo company took the car without providing notice and did so in a manner that disrupted your peace ( such as repossessing it while you were unaware, in the middle of the night, or in a threatening manner ), this could be considered a breach of peace under UCC 9-609 ( which governs repossessions ). The Supreme Court in XXXX XXXXXXXX highlighted that the repossession must not disturb the peace, and if it did, the repossession could be considered illegal. \nLack of Notice : If you did not receive notice of the repossession or any opportunity to redeem the car, this could also be a violation of your rights under UCC 9-611, which requires the secured party ( the lender or creditor ) to notify the debtor of the repossession and sale. In your case, if you didnt receive a pre-repossession notice, or notice of the intent to sell the vehicle, this could be a violation of UCC requirements and a breach of your rights. \nOpportunity to Cure : If there was no attempt to provide you with a chance to cure the default ( such as catching up on missed payments before the car was taken ), then the creditor may have violated the terms of the security agreement or failed to follow the proper process outlined in UCC 9-609 and 9-611. \nRemedies Available : If the repossession was deemed to have violated UCC provisions or was conducted in an unlawful manner, you could potentially seek remedies such as damages for the illegal repossession, return of the car, or even monetary compensation for any harm caused by the wrongful repossession. In XXXX XXXXXXXX, the court upheld the idea that a creditor must follow legal procedures to protect the debtors rights, and a failure to do so could result in liability for the creditor. \nWhat You Can Do in a Similar Situation : If you find yourself in a situation where a car has been repossessed without notice, and especially if it was done in the middle of the night or under questionable circumstances, the principles of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX may apply to your case. Heres what you can do : Demand Proof of Notice : You can ask the creditor or the repossession company to provide proof that they properly notified you before the repossession took place. Under UCC 9-611, the creditor is required to give you notice of the intended sale of the vehicle before taking any action, and under UCC 9-609 , they can not repossess in a way that breaches the peace. \nCheck for Breach of Peace : If the repossession took place under circumstances that caused a disturbance or were carried out without your knowledge ( such as at night when you were not expecting it ), you might have grounds to claim a breach of peace. If the repossession was conducted in an aggressive, disruptive, or clandestine manner, this could be deemed unlawful. \nExamine the Security Agreement : Review the security agreement you signed when you took out the loan. Many agreements outline how and when a creditor can repossess the vehicle, what notices are required, and any potential penalties for non-payment. If the creditor violated any terms of that agreement ( e.g., failing to provide notice or not giving you an opportunity to cure the default ), you may have a case for wrongful repossession. \nSeek Legal Remedies : If the repossession was wrongful, you may be entitled to remedies such as : Return of the vehicle if it was wrongfully repossessed. \nDamages for any emotional distress, financial loss, or other harm caused by the wrongful repossession. \nA lawsuit for breach of contract or violation of your rights under the UCC. \nConsult an Attorney : If you believe your car was wrongfully repossessed in violation of your rights, it may be helpful to consult with an attorney who specializes in consumer protection, debt collection, or repossession laws. They can advise you on your legal rights, assist you in taking action against the repossession company, and help you seek compensation if applicable. \nConclusion : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  applies to your example by underscoring the requirements for repossession, particularly the need for notice and the prohibition against breach of peace. If the car was taken without notice, especially in the middle of the night, it could very well be considered a violation of both UCC requirements and your legal rights. You might have grounds to challenge the repossession and pursue legal action for damages or wrongful repossession, as the creditor is generally required to follow proper procedures. \nPER THE THIRD PARTY COLLECTING THE CAR WITHOUT NOTICE OF REPO OR ANY CONTRACT TO SHOW OWNERSHIP OR RIGHT OF REPO A LAWSUIT INEVITABLE Yes, if a third-party company repossesses your car without providing notice, without a valid contract, and without showing the right to repossess ( i.e., without demonstrating legal ownership or the right to act on behalf of the creditor ), there are strong grounds for a lawsuit. This is especially true if the repossession violates UCC provisions or consumer protection laws. \nLet 's break down why a lawsuit is inevitable under these circumstances and what the potential causes of action would be. \nKey Legal Issues in Your Scenario : Lack of Notice ( UCC and Consumer Protection ) : Under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), specifically UCC 9-609, a secured creditor ( or their authorized agent ) may repossess the vehicle, but notice is usually required before and after the repossession. \nNotice before repossession : While the UCC doesn't always require pre-repossession notice in every case ( if the contract allows for immediate repossession after default ), notice after repossession is almost always required especially if the car is going to be sold. \nIf the car was taken without any prior notice to you, and you didnt have an opportunity to cure the default, this could be a violation of UCC requirements. \nLack of Ownership or Right to Repossess : Third-Party Debt Collectors and Repo Agents : A third-party collector must prove they have the right to repossess the vehicle. If the repossession agent or debt collector can not produce evidence of ownership or a contract that clearly shows they have legal standing to repossess the vehicle, they may be violating your rights. \nIf they can not demonstrate they have the right to enforce the contract ( via a valid assignment or proof of ownership of the debt ), the repossession can be contested as unlawful. Under UCC 3-301, they must prove they have the right to enforce the debt. Without proper evidence, they may lack legal standing. \nBreach of Peace : Even if the third-party collector has the right to repossess, UCC 9-609 requires that repossession must be carried out without a breach of peace. If the repo occurred at an unreasonable time ( e.g., in the middle of the night ) or in a manner that caused disruption or fear, that could be considered a breach of peace. \nIn this case, repossession without notice, in the middle of the night, could be argued to constitute a breach of peace, which would make the repossession itself unlawful. \nPotential Causes of Action for a Lawsuit : Given the facts you've outlined, here are the potential legal claims or causes of action that could lead to a lawsuit against the third-party repo agent, the creditor, or both : 1. Wrongful Repossession ( Breach of Contract & UCC Violations ) Lack of Notice : If the repossession was carried out without proper notice as required under UCC 9-611 ( post-repossession notice of intent to sell the car ), or if there was no opportunity for you to cure the default, you may have grounds for wrongful repossession. \nLack of Standing : If the third-party repo agent can not prove that they have the legal right to repossess ( i.e., a valid assignment or proof that they own the debt ), they may not have had the legal right to take your car. In this case, you can sue for wrongful repossession. \n2. Breach of Peace ( UCC Violation ) Breach of Peace occurs when the repossession is conducted in a manner that disturbs the peace. This can include repossession at night, without warning, or in a manner that causes confrontation or distress. \nIf the repo was conducted improperly ( e.g., forcibly entering your property, taking the car without your knowledge or consent ), the creditor or repo company could be liable for damages due to breach of peace. \n3. Conversion ( Theft or Unauthorized Taking ) Conversion is the wrongful taking or control over another person 's property. If the third party took the car without legal authorization, and they are unable to prove that they had the right to take it, you could have a claim for conversion. This is especially relevant if the car was taken without notice, without a contract, and without the proper authority to do so. \n4. Violation of Consumer Protection Laws ( Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, UCC, etc. ) FDCPA Violations : If the repossession was carried out by a debt collector ( i.e., a third-party collection agency ), and they did so improperly, you might have grounds to bring a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The FDCPA protects consumers from harassment and abusive practices by debt collectors, including improper or illegal repossession tactics. \nThe UCC also protects consumers from creditors who act outside the bounds of the contract and the law. \n5. Emotional Distress ( Potential Tort Claim ) If the manner of repossession caused you significant emotional distress ( e.g., the stress of having your car taken unexpectedly at night or being wrongfully deprived of your vehicle ), you might have grounds for a claim of emotional distress. This is a more difficult claim to win, but if the repossession was done in an extremely inappropriate manner, it could potentially form the basis for damages. \nWhat You Can Do : Demand Proof : Send a formal demand letter to the creditor or repo company requesting proof of ownership and the right to repossess the car. They should provide you with a contract, proof of assignment, and any relevant documents that show they had the legal right to take the car. \n\nFile a Complaint : You can file a formal complaint with consumer protection agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), or your states attorney general office, if you believe the repossession violated consumer protection laws. \nConsider a Lawsuit : If the third-party repo company or creditor failed to follow the proper legal procedures ( notice, standing, etc. ), you may have a valid claim for wrongful repossession, conversion, breach of peace, or even emotional distress. Your attorney can assist in filing a lawsuit for damages. \nConclusion : Yes, based on the facts you've outlined, a lawsuit is highly likely and advisable. The third-party collector repossessing your car without notice, without showing proper ownership, and potentially in violation of the UCC and consumer protection laws creates significant legal exposure for them. You may have several potential claims, including wrongful repossession, breach of peace, conversion, and violations of consumer protection laws. \nIts important to act quickly and consult with an experienced consumer rights attorney who can help guide you through the process of seeking damages, return of the car, or other legal remedies. : REPO DRIVER DAMAGE PROPERTY TO REPO THE CAR THE REPO COMPANY STATES THEY ARE NOT LIABLE TO GIVE DRIVERS NAME OR INFORMATION IS THIS TRUE IF NOT STEPS TO ENFORCE RELEASE OF INFORMATION POLICE REPORT HAS BEEN FILED In your situation, where the repo driver damaged your property during the repossession of your car and the repo company is refusing to provide the driver 's name or any information, you do have legal avenues to pursue in order to enforce the release of that information and hold the responsible parties accountable. \nKey Legal Issues to Address : Property Damage During Repossession : If the repo driver caused damage to your property while attempting to repossess your car, this may constitute tortious conduct, such as negligence or even intentional damage. Depending on the circumstances, you may have grounds for a claim for property damage. \nRight to Know Who Caused the Damage : You are entitled to know the identity of the person who damaged your property during the repossession. The repossession company ( or the principal party responsible ) should not be withholding this information if a police report has been filed and if the damage is part of the repossession process. \nLiability of the Repossession Company : Even though the repossession driver may be the one who caused the damage, the repossession company is generally liable for the actions of its agents ( in this case, the driver ) while they are acting within the scope of their employment or job duties ( such as repossessing a vehicle ). \nIf the repossession was carried out by an independent contractor, there may be additional steps to take to identify and hold the contractor accountable, but the repossession company could still bear responsibility for ensuring that their contractors act within the law and do not damage property. \nSteps to Enforce Release of Information and Hold the Repo Company Accountable : 1. Reaffirm Your Right to the Information ( Legal Basis ) The repossession company is likely bound by state laws that require it to provide information about the incident, especially if a police report has been filed. If they are refusing to provide the driver 's name or contact information, you can take the following steps : State Law on Property Damage : Many states have consumer protection laws and tort laws that hold repossession companies liable for damages caused by their agents. The repossession company is obligated to assist you in pursuing any claims you have for damage caused during repossession. \nRequest in Writing : Formally request, in writing, that the repo company provide the driver 's information as part of the property damage claim. This letter should state the nature of the damage, the fact that a police report has been filed, and your demand for the driver 's identity. \n\nDONE Police Report : Since you've filed a police report, obtain a copy of the report if you haven't already. The police report should contain : Details about the incident ( the property damage ). \nThe repo companys information. \nAny witness statements or documentation related to the repossession. \nIdentifying details about the driver, if provided by the repo company or the driver himself. \nThe police report will help validate your claim of property damage and is often necessary to pursue legal action or to file a claim with your insurance. \n3. SENT Formal Demand Letter If the repossession company is unresponsive to your initial requests, send a formal demand letter requesting the driver 's information and any relevant documentation. You can include : Details about the damage ( photographs, estimates, etc. ). \nA reference to the police report. \nYour demand that they provide the driver 's name so you can proceed with your claim. \nThis letter should also specify a deadline for a response ( e.g., 10-15 business days ) and clearly state that if they do not respond, you will pursue further legal action, including the involvement of consumer protection agencies or litigation. \n4. Contact Consumer Protection Agencies ( If Repo Company Refuses ) If the repo company still refuses to provide information, consider escalating the matter by contacting relevant consumer protection agencies : State Attorney Generals Office : They may have specific guidelines or complaints related to repossession companies that are not complying with the law or are withholding information unlawfully. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : Filing a complaint with the XXXX  can put public pressure on the company to resolve your issue. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : If the repossession was carried out by a debt collector, you can also file a complaint with the CFPB, which enforces the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n5. Small Claims Court or Lawsuit ( Legal Action ) If you are unable to resolve the matter through the repossession company or consumer protection agencies, filing a lawsuit or taking the matter to small claims court may be your next option : Sue for Property Damage : If the repossession company refuses to provide the driver 's name or cooperate, you can consider filing a lawsuit for property damage. The repossession company may be held liable for the actions of its agent ( the repo driver ). \nIn many states, you can file a small claims lawsuit for property damage ( often under a certain dollar amount, such as {$5000.00} or {$10000.00}, depending on the state ). \nSue for Breach of Contract : If the repo company violated terms of your agreement ( e.g., repossession was conducted improperly ), you may also have a breach of contract claim. \n\nDemand the Driver 's Information in writing, citing the police report and property damage. \nObtain the Police Report and use it as evidence to support your claim. \nFile a Complaint with the Attorney General or consumer protection agencies if the company continues to refuse to cooperate. \nConsider Small Claims Court or Legal Action if the company is uncooperative or refuses to provide the necessary information. \nYou have the legal right to know who caused the damage to your property and to seek compensation for the damages. If the repo company is refusing to provide that information, legal recourse is your next step. Consulting with an attorney who specializes in consumer protection or tort law could provide additional support to ensure your rights are protected. \n\nNAVY FEDERAL IS THE COMPANY THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH THERE WAS BONAFIDE DISPUTE SUBMITTED TO THEM VIA REGISTERED MAIL THEY NEVER REPLIED ENFORCEMENT ACCORDING TO SATISFACTION UCC 3-311 WAS NAVY FEDERAL ABLE TO SELL THE DEBT AFTER CHARGING IT OFF AND NOT REPLYING TO BONAFIDE DISPUTE? \n\nUnder the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), particularly UCC 3-311, the situation you've described involves some important legal principles regarding disputes and charge-offs, as well as the sale of a debt after a Bonafide dispute has been raised. Lets break this down step-by-step : 1. Bonafide Dispute Under UCC 3-311 : UCC 3-311 specifically addresses disputes and the right of the debtor to dispute the validity of a debt. When a debtor raises a Bonafide dispute ( a legitimate, good faith dispute about the debt or its amount ), the creditor is required to acknowledge and respond to the dispute in a reasonable manner. If a dispute is raised and the creditor fails to respond or resolve it, they may be in violation of certain provisions of the UCC and other applicable consumer protection laws. \nUCC 3-311 states that if a debtor sends a dispute ( such as a registered mail notice, which you did ), the creditor is required to respond or provide a resolution. A failure to respond to a bona fide dispute could affect the creditor 's ability to enforce the debt or take certain actions, including selling the debt or charging it off. \n2. Charging Off the Debt : Charge-off is an accounting action that the lender ( in this case, XXXX XXXX XXXX takes to declare the debt as unlikely to be collected. A charge-off does not extinguish the debt ; it is simply an accounting procedure that moves the debt off the creditors balance sheet. It is still a valid debt that the creditor ( or a third party ) can attempt to collect, unless there is some legal reason why the debt can not be enforced ( such as a Bonafide dispute or a failure to respond to the dispute ). \nIn your case, if Navy Federal charged off the debt after receiving your dispute and without responding to it, they may have violated UCC 3-311. Charging off the debt without addressing the dispute could mean that the creditor has waived their right to enforce the debt or sell the debt, depending on the nature of the dispute. \n3. Selling the Debt After Charge-Off : After a charge-off, the creditor ( in this case, Navy Federal ) has the right to sell the debt to a third-party collection agency or debt buyer. However, there are specific conditions under the UCC and related laws that govern this process : Failure to Respond to a Bona Fide Dispute : If Navy Federal did not respond to your Bonafide dispute, they could have violated UCC 3-311, which requires them to address the dispute and offer a resolution before continuing with collection efforts. If they ignored the dispute, they might not have been legally able to sell the debt or attempt to enforce it while the dispute remains unresolved. \nConsumer Protection Laws : In addition to the UCC, there are consumer protection laws, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), that require creditors and debt collectors to act fairly and respond to disputes. If the debt was sold to a third party after the dispute, the third-party collector must still adhere to these same laws, including validating the debt before attempting to collect it. \n4. Legal Impact of Not Responding to a Bonafide Dispute : Under UCC 3-311, creditors are not allowed to enforce or transfer a debt for collection if there is an unresolved Bonafide dispute. This means that if Navy Federal failed to address your bona fide dispute, they may not have been legally allowed to sell the debt or continue to attempt collection. Their failure to respond to your dispute could have prevented them from enforcing the debt, and any subsequent actions, such as selling the debt to a third-party collection agency, could be legally questionable. \n5. What Can You Do? \nHere are your options to enforce your rights under UCC 3-311 and other applicable laws : a. I HAVE DocumentED Everything : Keep copies of the dispute letter you sent to Navy Federal ( via registered mail ). \nEnsure you have proof of the failure to respond from Navy Federal. If they didn't reply to your dispute, this could be an important piece of evidence that they violated UCC provisions. \nRequest copies of any communication or documentation related to the sale of the debt. If they sold the debt, they should have informed you of the sale and the new holder of the debt.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-31T19:11:17.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"374XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11337048","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2024-12-31T19:11:15.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Seized or attempted to seize your property"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["PER THE THIRD PARTY COLLECTING THE CAR <em>WITHOUT</em> NOTICE OF REPO OR ANY CONTRACT TO SHOW OWNERSHIP OR RIGHT OF REPO A <em>LAWSUIT</em> INEVITABLE Yes, if a third-party company repossesses your car <em>without</em> providing notice, <em>without</em> a valid contract, and <em>without</em> showing the right to repossess ( i.e., <em>without</em> demonstrating legal ownership or the right to act on behalf of the creditor ), there are strong grounds for a <em>lawsuit</em>."]},"sort":[12.209084,"11337048"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3886570","_score":12.129247,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Back in XXXX of XXXX, I became the victim of identity theft. Of the many fraudulent activities that occurred with the illegal and improper use of my identity, 2 of my 3 USAA credit cards were compromised and used without my permission or knowledge. Upon learning my cards had been compromised I immediately notified USAA and the USAA CreditCheck & ID Monitoring service for which I paid a monthly fee. A case was opened and at first, it seemed USAA was being only slightly negligent. The credit monitoring service for which I paid actually offered little to no real help. I had to contact the bank directly myself repeatedly as they failed to credit the fraudulent charges back to me repeatedly. Each time their agents opened up a new fraud case for the same incident. It took about 6 months for USAA to finally fix and credit my accounts back for the fraudulent charges. While frustrating at times, I believed the identity theft was behind me. \nAbout a year after all investigations and credits to my account connected with the identity theft were finalized and the case was closed, without notice, USAA rebilled me for all the fraudulent charges. The rebilled items were only indicated by a label of security adjustment. Upon contacting USAA regarding these unknown charges, the USAA agent said they must be a fraud and opened a new fraud case. Two days later, in violation of the military lending act, I was restricted from accessing my accounts, online or otherwise. My Debit and Credit cards stopped working and all ACH transactions were returned. As I was set up for USAA paperless billing and online contact, I immediately requested USAA to begin physically mailing all paperwork to me. In further violation of MLA and FCRA laws, USAA failed to provide or make accessible to me any of my account statements, disclosure, or required documents. The only notifications I would receive for the next few years were emails informing me I had a letter waiting for me on USAA.com. However, I was prevented from viewing or accessing said notices by the restriction USAA placed on my online access. In further violation of FCRA, regulation Z, and MLA statutes USAA began and continues to furnish negative information to the Credit Reporting Agencies. The negative information being furnished to several CRAs is a direct result of USAA reversing their final decision a year after previously making a  final decision in my favor and crediting my accounts for unauthorized charges reported. I have made repeated disputes with the CRAs regarding this negative data due to identity theft, which USAA has failed to provide any documentation of the results of their investigation or acknowledgment of my dispute. The only letter I received was in response to my complaint to the OCC, in which they state they are unable to hold me accountable a year after finalizing the fraud case. However, they failed to cease reporting the negative information or correct any of their illegal actions. I made hundreds of attempts to contact USAA via phone regarding this over the phone. Each time I was instructed I needed to speak to XXXX. I left over 200 voicemails for XXXX and her manager over the years. I have still yet to receive a single phone call in return. I have also filed numerous CFPB complaints such as but not limited to XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX to figure out what happened. The only response I have received from USAA regarding these issues in writing has been that USAA has decided to no longer pursue business with me but fails to explain as legally required. \nI worked a lifetime to establish my top tier credit rating and had always paid my bills on time. These massive violations by USAA have had extreme and long-lasting ramifications, barring me from access to any favorable or terms of credit at all. This includes preventing me from refinancing my sole remaining auto loan with another institution, purchasing a home, new vehicle, or opening any subsequent lines of credit with favorable terms. I have requested documentation on my accounts from USAA, especially for my auto loan which remained open. I especially needed the loan docs as USAA failed to provide any origination loan docs, account ledgers, or notice of any fees to negative actions they were, did, and have taken. This is especially crucial as upon freezing my accounts USAA refused to accept payments from external accounts. This prevented me from paying my auto loan and sending it into default and eventual repossession. I never got any notices of any of these actions or notices of fees added. I was simply told they would be credited over the phone for their errors. The only document USAA began to provide was my monthly consumer auto loan statement. This statement, however, fails to comply with the requirements set forth by the MLA and FCBPA. I have never been provided an account ledger for this or any of my accounts, representing a failure of USAA to validate the accounts in dispute they have been reporting negatively to the CRAs. \nIt has come to my attention this type of illegal and predatory lending practices are common at USAA, as have lost several large lawsuits. While the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency lowered USAA Banks overall Community Reinvestment Act performance evaluation rating from satisfactory to needs to improve after uncovering evidence of 600 violations involving customers. Furthermore, The Consumer Protections Bureau found that USAA violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by failing to properly honor consumers stop payment requests on preauthorized electronic fund transfers, and by failing to initiate and complete reasonable error resolution investigations. USAA also violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by reopening  deposit accounts consumers had previously closed without seeking prior authorization or providing adequate notice. I am just another example of their willful noncompliance with federal, state, and government statutes.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-10-07T21:18:52.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"78723","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3886570","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2020-10-07T20:53:17.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Furthermore, The Consumer Protections Bureau found that USAA violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E by <em>failing</em> to properly honor consumers stop payment <em>requests</em> on preauthorized electronic fund transfers, and by <em>failing</em> to initiate and complete reasonable error resolution investigations."]},"sort":[12.129247,"3886570"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12059136","_score":11.896578,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( XXXX  ) Complaint Filed by : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OR XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington, XXXX XXXX XXXX : Experian Information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Equifax Information Services LLC XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, GA XXXX TransUnion  XXXX XXXX XXXX 2000, XXXX, PA XXXX Furnishers Under Investigation for Noncompliance : XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX ) XXXX Bank ( Account # XXXX ) Subject : Formal Complaint Against XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank for FCRA Violations, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and FTC Complaint Filing Dear CFPB Representative, I am filing this formal complaint against XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank for their ongoing violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq., and for engaging in deceptive and unfair credit reporting practices. \nThese furnishers have failed to : XXXX. Provide legally required written notice before furnishing negative information to the credit reporting agencies ( FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ). \nXXXX. Report the correct First Date of Delinquency ( FOD ) ( FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ). \nXXXX. Notify all credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) when an account has been updated or removed ( FCRA XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( D ) ). \nXXXX. Ensure that any reinsertion of an account meets certification and notice requirements ( FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ). \nThis letter serves as notice that these entities must comply with their legal obligations, and any failure to do so will be escalated accordingly. \nXXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Failure to Provide Notice Before Reporting Negative Information Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), furnishers are required to notify consumers at least 30 days before furnishing negative information to a credit reporting agency. \nXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank failed to provide me with this legally required notice before reporting charge-offs to TransUnion and Experian. \nWithout this notice, the negative reporting is noncompliant and must be removed immediately. \nSince these furnishers failed to comply with FCRA notification requirements, their reporting is unlawful and should be deleted. \nXXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Failure to Report the Correct First Date of Delinquency ( FOD ) Furnishers must accurately report the First Date of Delinquency ( FOD ) to prevent accounts from remaining on a credit report longer than the seven-year statutory limit. \nXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank have failed to provide verifiable proof of the First Date of Delinquency. \nIf the actual date of delinquency can not be verified, the accounts must be permanently deleted. \nIf these furnishers have manipulated the reporting dates in any way, that would constitute illegal re-aging under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). They are now on notice that such actions violate federal law. \nXXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( D ) Failure to Notify All XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Under FCRA XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( D ), if a furnisher deletes or updates an account with XXXX credit bureau, they XXXX XXXX to notify all other CRAs of the change. \nThese furnishers selectively updated accounts with only some CRAs, while keeping inaccurate data on others. \nIf a furnisher removes an account from XXXX credit reporting agency, it must be removed from all of them. \nThis letter serves as a formal notice that they are required by law to ensure uniform updates across all CRAs. Any failure to do so constitutes noncompliance with the FCRA. \nXXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) Unlawful Reinsertion of Accounts Without Certification If any of these accounts were previously removed and then reinserted, the furnishers were required to : XXXX. Certify the accuracy of the information being reinserted. \nXXXX. Ensure that the credit reporting agency notifies the consumer within XXXX business days. \nI was not provided any notice that a reinsertion occurred, which means any such reporting is noncompliant with FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ). \nA deleted account can only be reinserted if it is certified to be 100 % accurate. If any of these accounts contain inaccuracies, they could not have been legally reinserted and must be permanently removed. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FTC Violation Under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX, it is unlawful for a company to engage in deceptive or unfair acts or practices in commerce. \nThese furnishers have knowingly misreported credit information in a way that harms consumers. \nIf they can not provide verifiable records proving their compliance, they are engaging in deceptive practices. \nThis matter will be referred to the Federal Trade Commission ( XXXX  ) for further enforcement action. \nXXXX. Required Corrective Actions To resolve this matter, I demand the following actions within XXXX business days : XXXX. XXXX removal of the charge-off accounts from my XXXX and XXXX credit XXXX unless the furnishers can prove : That they provided the required XXXX consumer notification before reporting negative information. \nThat they reported the First Date of XXXX correctly and can provide tracking records. \nXXXX. Full documentation and verification records from the furnishers regarding these accounts. \nXXXX. A CFPB investigation into these furnishers for systemic FCRA violations. \nXXXX. A referral to the FTC for enforcement action against these entities for deceptive practices. \nXXXX. Legal Consequences for XXXX XXXX FCRA XXXX ( willful violations ) and FCRA XXXX ( negligent violations ), these furnishers are subject to : Statutory damages of {$1000.00} per violation. \nActual damages for harm caused by false reporting. \nPunitive damages for reckless noncompliance. \nLegal fees and court costs. \nFailure to comply within XXXX business days will result in : A second CFPB complaint citing repeat violations and intentional noncompliance. \nA formal FTC complaint requesting enforcement action against these furnishers. \nA potential lawsuit against these furnishers for FCRA and FTC XXXX violations. \nThis serves as final notice that these entities must correct their reporting errors and comply with federal law. \nConclusion XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank have engaged in willful FCRA violations by failing to provide mandatory notices, misreporting credit information, and failing to update all CRAs uniformly. \nI expect a response within XXXX business days. Failure to act will result in further legal and regulatory escalation. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OR XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-20T22:39:16.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"970XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12059136","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-02-13T16:33:41.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A formal FTC complaint <em>requesting</em> enforcement action against these furnishers. \nA potential <em>lawsuit</em> against these furnishers for FCRA and FTC XXXX violations. \nThis serves as final notice that these entities must correct their reporting errors and comply with federal law. \nConclusion XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank have engaged in willful FCRA violations by <em>failing</em> to <em>provide</em> mandatory notices, misreporting credit information, and <em>failing</em> to update all CRAs uniformly."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[11.896578,"12059136"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12059421","_score":11.881213,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( XXXX  ) Complaint Filed by : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OR XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington, XXXX XXXX XXXX : Experian Information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Equifax Information Services LLC XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, GA XXXX TransUnion  XXXX XXXX XXXX 2000, XXXX, PA XXXX Furnishers Under Investigation for Noncompliance : XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX ) XXXX Bank ( Account # XXXX ) Subject : Formal Complaint Against XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank for FCRA Violations, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and FTC Complaint Filing Dear CFPB Representative, I am filing this formal complaint against XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank for their ongoing violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq., and for engaging in deceptive and unfair credit reporting practices. \nThese furnishers have failed to : XXXX. Provide legally required written notice before furnishing negative information to the credit reporting agencies ( FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ). \nXXXX. Report the correct First Date of Delinquency ( FOD ) ( FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ). \nXXXX. Notify all credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) when an account has been updated or removed ( FCRA XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( D ) ). \nXXXX. Ensure that any reinsertion of an account meets certification and notice requirements ( FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ). \nThis letter serves as notice that these entities must comply with their legal obligations, and any failure to do so will be escalated accordingly. \nXXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Failure to Provide Notice Before Reporting Negative Information Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), furnishers are required to notify consumers at least 30 days before furnishing negative information to a credit reporting agency. \nXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank failed to provide me with this legally required notice before reporting charge-offs to TransUnion and Experian. \nWithout this notice, the negative reporting is noncompliant and must be removed immediately. \nSince these furnishers failed to comply with FCRA notification requirements, their reporting is unlawful and should be deleted. \nXXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Failure to Report the Correct First Date of Delinquency ( FOD ) Furnishers must accurately report the First Date of Delinquency ( FOD ) to prevent accounts from remaining on a credit report longer than the seven-year statutory limit. \nXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank have failed to provide verifiable proof of the First Date of Delinquency. \nIf the actual date of delinquency can not be verified, the accounts must be permanently deleted. \nIf these furnishers have manipulated the reporting dates in any way, that would constitute illegal re-aging under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). They are now on notice that such actions violate federal law. \nXXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( D ) Failure to Notify All XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Under FCRA XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( D ), if a furnisher deletes or updates an account with XXXX credit bureau, they XXXX XXXX to notify all other CRAs of the change. \nThese furnishers selectively updated accounts with only some CRAs, while keeping inaccurate data on others. \nIf a furnisher removes an account from XXXX credit reporting agency, it must be removed from all of them. \nThis letter serves as a formal notice that they are required by law to ensure uniform updates across all CRAs. Any failure to do so constitutes noncompliance with the FCRA. \nXXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) Unlawful Reinsertion of Accounts Without Certification If any of these accounts were previously removed and then reinserted, the furnishers were required to : XXXX. Certify the accuracy of the information being reinserted. \nXXXX. Ensure that the credit reporting agency notifies the consumer within XXXX business days. \nI was not provided any notice that a reinsertion occurred, which means any such reporting is noncompliant with FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ). \nA deleted account can only be reinserted if it is certified to be 100 % accurate. If any of these accounts contain inaccuracies, they could not have been legally reinserted and must be permanently removed. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FTC Violation Under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX, it is unlawful for a company to engage in deceptive or unfair acts or practices in commerce. \nThese furnishers have knowingly misreported credit information in a way that harms consumers. \nIf they can not provide verifiable records proving their compliance, they are engaging in deceptive practices. \nThis matter will be referred to the Federal Trade Commission ( XXXX  ) for further enforcement action. \nXXXX. Required Corrective Actions To resolve this matter, I demand the following actions within XXXX business days : XXXX. XXXX removal of the charge-off accounts from my XXXX and XXXX credit XXXX unless the furnishers can prove : That they provided the required XXXX consumer notification before reporting negative information. \nThat they reported the First Date of XXXX correctly and can provide tracking records. \nXXXX. Full documentation and verification records from the furnishers regarding these accounts. \nXXXX. A CFPB investigation into these furnishers for systemic FCRA violations. \nXXXX. A referral to the FTC for enforcement action against these entities for deceptive practices. \nXXXX. Legal Consequences for XXXX XXXX FCRA XXXX ( willful violations ) and FCRA XXXX ( negligent violations ), these furnishers are subject to : Statutory damages of {$1000.00} per violation. \nActual damages for harm caused by false reporting. \nPunitive damages for reckless noncompliance. \nLegal fees and court costs. \nFailure to comply within XXXX business days will result in : A second CFPB complaint citing repeat violations and intentional noncompliance. \nA formal FTC complaint requesting enforcement action against these furnishers. \nA potential lawsuit against these furnishers for FCRA and FTC XXXX violations. \nThis serves as final notice that these entities must correct their reporting errors and comply with federal law. \nConclusion XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank have engaged in willful FCRA violations by failing to provide mandatory notices, misreporting credit information, and failing to update all CRAs uniformly. \nI expect a response within XXXX business days. Failure to act will result in further legal and regulatory escalation. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OR XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-20T22:39:17.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"970XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12059421","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-02-13T16:07:27.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A formal FTC complaint <em>requesting</em> enforcement action against these furnishers. \nA potential <em>lawsuit</em> against these furnishers for FCRA and FTC XXXX violations. \nThis serves as final notice that these entities must correct their reporting errors and comply with federal law. \nConclusion XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank have engaged in willful FCRA violations by <em>failing</em> to <em>provide</em> mandatory notices, misreporting credit information, and <em>failing</em> to update all CRAs uniformly."]},"sort":[11.881213,"12059421"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12059163","_score":11.881213,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( XXXX  ) Complaint Filed by : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OR XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX  ) XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington, XXXX XXXX XXXX : Experian Information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Equifax Information Services LLC XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, GA XXXX TransUnion  XXXX XXXX XXXX 2000, XXXX, PA XXXX Furnishers Under Investigation for Noncompliance : XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account # XXXX ) XXXX Bank ( Account # XXXX ) Subject : Formal Complaint Against XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank for FCRA Violations, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and FTC Complaint Filing Dear CFPB Representative, I am filing this formal complaint against XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank for their ongoing violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX et seq., and for engaging in deceptive and unfair credit reporting practices. \nThese furnishers have failed to : XXXX. Provide legally required written notice before furnishing negative information to the credit reporting agencies ( FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ). \nXXXX. Report the correct First Date of Delinquency ( FOD ) ( FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ). \nXXXX. Notify all credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) when an account has been updated or removed ( FCRA XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( D ) ). \nXXXX. Ensure that any reinsertion of an account meets certification and notice requirements ( FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ). \nThis letter serves as notice that these entities must comply with their legal obligations, and any failure to do so will be escalated accordingly. \nXXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Failure to Provide Notice Before Reporting Negative Information Under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), furnishers are required to notify consumers at least 30 days before furnishing negative information to a credit reporting agency. \nXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank failed to provide me with this legally required notice before reporting charge-offs to TransUnion and Experian. \nWithout this notice, the negative reporting is noncompliant and must be removed immediately. \nSince these furnishers failed to comply with FCRA notification requirements, their reporting is unlawful and should be deleted. \nXXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Failure to Report the Correct First Date of Delinquency ( FOD ) Furnishers must accurately report the First Date of Delinquency ( FOD ) to prevent accounts from remaining on a credit report longer than the seven-year statutory limit. \nXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank have failed to provide verifiable proof of the First Date of Delinquency. \nIf the actual date of delinquency can not be verified, the accounts must be permanently deleted. \nIf these furnishers have manipulated the reporting dates in any way, that would constitute illegal re-aging under FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). They are now on notice that such actions violate federal law. \nXXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( D ) Failure to Notify All XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Under FCRA XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( D ), if a furnisher deletes or updates an account with XXXX credit bureau, they XXXX XXXX to notify all other CRAs of the change. \nThese furnishers selectively updated accounts with only some CRAs, while keeping inaccurate data on others. \nIf a furnisher removes an account from XXXX credit reporting agency, it must be removed from all of them. \nThis letter serves as a formal notice that they are required by law to ensure uniform updates across all CRAs. Any failure to do so constitutes noncompliance with the FCRA. \nXXXX. Violation of FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) Unlawful Reinsertion of Accounts Without Certification If any of these accounts were previously removed and then reinserted, the furnishers were required to : XXXX. Certify the accuracy of the information being reinserted. \nXXXX. Ensure that the credit reporting agency notifies the consumer within XXXX business days. \nI was not provided any notice that a reinsertion occurred, which means any such reporting is noncompliant with FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ). \nA deleted account can only be reinserted if it is certified to be 100 % accurate. If any of these accounts contain inaccuracies, they could not have been legally reinserted and must be permanently removed. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FTC Violation Under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX, it is unlawful for a company to engage in deceptive or unfair acts or practices in commerce. \nThese furnishers have knowingly misreported credit information in a way that harms consumers. \nIf they can not provide verifiable records proving their compliance, they are engaging in deceptive practices. \nThis matter will be referred to the Federal Trade Commission ( XXXX  ) for further enforcement action. \nXXXX. Required Corrective Actions To resolve this matter, I demand the following actions within XXXX business days : XXXX. XXXX removal of the charge-off accounts from my XXXX and XXXX credit XXXX unless the furnishers can prove : That they provided the required XXXX consumer notification before reporting negative information. \nThat they reported the First Date of XXXX correctly and can provide tracking records. \nXXXX. Full documentation and verification records from the furnishers regarding these accounts. \nXXXX. A CFPB investigation into these furnishers for systemic FCRA violations. \nXXXX. A referral to the FTC for enforcement action against these entities for deceptive practices. \nXXXX. Legal Consequences for XXXX XXXX FCRA XXXX ( willful violations ) and FCRA XXXX ( negligent violations ), these furnishers are subject to : Statutory damages of {$1000.00} per violation. \nActual damages for harm caused by false reporting. \nPunitive damages for reckless noncompliance. \nLegal fees and court costs. \nFailure to comply within XXXX business days will result in : A second CFPB complaint citing repeat violations and intentional noncompliance. \nA formal FTC complaint requesting enforcement action against these furnishers. \nA potential lawsuit against these furnishers for FCRA and FTC XXXX violations. \nThis serves as final notice that these entities must correct their reporting errors and comply with federal law. \nConclusion XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank have engaged in willful FCRA violations by failing to provide mandatory notices, misreporting credit information, and failing to update all CRAs uniformly. \nI expect a response within XXXX business days. Failure to act will result in further legal and regulatory escalation. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OR XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-20T22:39:17.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"970XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12059163","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-02-13T16:33:41.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A formal FTC complaint <em>requesting</em> enforcement action against these furnishers. \nA potential <em>lawsuit</em> against these furnishers for FCRA and FTC XXXX violations. \nThis serves as final notice that these entities must correct their reporting errors and comply with federal law. \nConclusion XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Bank have engaged in willful FCRA violations by <em>failing</em> to <em>provide</em> mandatory notices, misreporting credit information, and <em>failing</em> to update all CRAs uniformly."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[11.881213,"12059163"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9182045","_score":11.738615,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I, XXXX, am writing to address a matter of great concern regarding a lawsuit filed against me by Discover BankXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX It has come to my attention that there have been egregious violations of Texas laws and consumer protection statutes in their pursuit of this case. \n\nFirstly, I would like to highlight special exceptions that I have never been served with any court papers or legal documents pertaining to this lawsuit. The address where I was allegedly served is a previous residence lease of mine, and I have not resided there for 3 months. The address for my previous residence lease was XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX, and that specific lease ended on XX/XX/XXXX. \nDespite this, I was made aware of the alleged lawsuit through attorney advertisement received via mail on XX/XX/XXXX, which prompt me to send an email to all XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXX, cc-inquiry XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Administrative Assistant responded to my email and instructed me to contact the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for assistance. On XX/XX/XXXX I re- sent the original email to the XXXX of the XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and called office number listed XXXX but was unable to reach anyone. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I called the office listed XXXX number once more and was kindly helped by a gentleman, representative of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, whom answered my questions in regard to alleged filed suit Case No. XXXX. The representative of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX also provided court email XXXX, and made me aware that it was noted that I was allegedly served on XX/XX/XXXX. I was flabbergasted and made the representative of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX aware of false reporting of being served. Furthermore, the description provided regarding the person served does not match my physical appearance in any way. As a tall XXXX 'XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( specifically I have been a XXXX  since XX/XX/XXXX which is recorded on XXXX XXXX  ), the description of a short XXXX '' XXXX XXXX  with XXXX hair is entirely inaccurate. \n\nUpon further investigation, on XX/XX/XXXX I contacted Discover Bank via XXXX XXXX directly to inquire about the status of the debt, their manager representative XXXX found XXXX account that was associated with my social number. I then contacted Discover  XXXX XXXX XXXX via XXXX XXXX and their representative XXXX XXXX my account was in charged off, and closed. I then contacted Discover Charge XXXX team supervisor XXXX and he notified me that my credit account was closed on XX/XX/XXXX and charged off on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX then stated it was then given to a third party collection agency in XX/XX/XXXX, and that third party 's contract stated that Discover could no longer disclose any due balance at time of charge off, couldnt send my original card member agreement, or provide any information on the matter of my account. Supervisor XXXX also confirmed my address on file to be my current lease residence ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, Tx XXXX ), and that it was noted in the system. \n\nThe actions of Discover XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX serious legal and ethical concerns. Upon researching the matter further, It appears that they have violated multiple laws and regulations, including but not limited to : 1. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure : Rule 106 : Service of Process. \nRule 501.3 : Citation by Publication. Rule 502.2 : Service on Individuals.\n\n2. Texas Finance Code, Title 5. Protection of Consumers of Financial Services : 392.304 : Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.\n\n392.301 : Prohibited Practices.\n\n3. Texas Debt Collection Act : 392.301 : Prohibited Practices by Debt Collector.\n\n4. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : 807 : False or Misleading Representations.\n\n808 : Unfair Practices.\n\n809 : Validation of Debts.\n\nFailure to Serve Proper Notice : Texas law requires that individuals be served with a summons and complaint in person or through certified mail. As I have not received any such documents, it suggests a failure on the part of the third party collection agency Discover XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to legal requirements. \n\nFailure to Provide Required Disclosures : Discover XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX certain disclosures to debtors, including the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, and the debtor 's rights under the law. Failure to provide these disclosures constitute a violation of Chapter 392.\n\nFalse Statements of Service : If the third party collection agency Discover XXXX XXXX XXXX has XXXX claimed to have served me, it would constitute a violation of Texas laws governing service of process. \n\nFalse Representations : Debt collectors can not make false or misleading statements to collect a debt, such as third party collection agency Discover XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was served in order to have a lawsuit active without my knowledge. \n\nContacting Third Parties : Debt collectors are prohibited from disclosing information about a debt to third parties without the debtor 's consent. Discover XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX this when my official court paperwork, potentially containing sensitive information, was served to a XXXX  described as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nDeceptive Practices : Discover XXXX XXXX XXXX process service falsely claiming to have served me in order to proceed with legal action constitutes deceptive and unfair practices under the Texas Debt Collection Act. Continuing collection activities before validating debt. Causing mental anguish through deceptive practices. \n\nBy Discover XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that I was served court papers, along with providing a grossly inaccurate description of the person allegedly served, I felt that Discover XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has demonstrated a pattern of deceptive and abusive behavior in violation of consumer protection laws.\n\nFurthermore, this has specifically made me suffer mental anguish through increase anxiety resulting in a relapse of XXXX and XXXX. Please note that I was diagnosed with a mental/emotional XXXX recognized in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). The diagnosis meets the definition of XXXX under the Americans with XXXX XXXX, and the XXXX XXXX of XXXX, XXXX. I have yet been able to sleep past XXXX to XXXX hrs since XX/XX/XXXX due to all of this ( which simply feels like a nightmare ). Though I have hired XXXX XXXX, XXXX to help guide me through this, my mind is restless with anxiety which causes me to stay on alert for XXXX hr before my mind physically shutting down to sleep ( which my body automatically jumps up into alert mode after XXXX of sleep ). through the restless nights I have been on researching and studying my rights through \" Texas State Law Library, Texas Law Help, Texas Court Help, etc.. ''. The thought of other potential individuals who faced the same scenario of failing to be properly served according to Texas XXXX procedure brought me into a XXXX. I felt so unheard by Discover Bank, and it further put me into a deep XXXX because this was my first and longest line of credit ''. \n\nI recently consulted with an experienced attorney who is knowledgeable about Texas civil procedure to help me understand if I was in the wrong on being mentally anguished by this improperly served lawsuit, or if my mental anguish was justified because the improperly served lawsuit was in violation of Texas XXXX procedure. \n\nThrough my XXXX consultation I learned that in Texas XXXX as in many other jurisdictions ) the responsibility for ensuring the validity of service in a lawsuit lies with the plaintiff ( party initiating the legal action ), rather than with the law firm representing the plaintiff. Failure to properly serve the defendant can result in delays, dismissal of the case, or other adverse consequences for the plaintiff. \n\nWhen the lawsuit was filed, the plaintiff ( Discover Bank ) automatically is responsible for properly serving the defendant ( XXXX XXXX ) with the necessary legal documents, such as the summons and complaint. \n\nThe plaintiff ( Discover Bank ) must ensure that service is carried out in accordance with the rules and procedures set forth by Texas law, which XXXX include requirements regarding who can serve the documents, the method of service, and the timing of service. \n\nWhile the law firm XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) representing the plaintiff ( Discover Bank ) in a debt collection lawsuit XXXX assist with the process of serving legal documents, ultimately it is the plaintiff ( Discover Bank ) responsibility to ensure that service is valid and compliant with the law. The plaintiff ( Discover Bank ) failed to properly serve the defendant ( XXXX XXXX ), ( which is probably why I received a \" Plaintiff 's Notice XXXX XXXX form, Certificate of Service dated XX/XX/XXXX form, Order of Nonsuit form '' today on XX/XX/XXXX through the mail. There was no explanation provided, and I am not yet knowledgable on what to do with these forms so I sent photos of mail to XXXX XXXX, XXXX so we could schedule a time for me to be educated on this specifically. It's important for me as the defendant to consult with my attorney experienced in debt collection and consumer protection laws to help me understand my rights and options in responding to this lawsuit with improper service ). \n\nFurthermore, I now know as of today XXXX, XXXX XXXX : Consequences of Plaintiff 's ( Discover Bank ) failing ensure that service is valid and compliant with the law : Dismissal of the Lawsuit : If the defendant raises the issue of improper service, the court XXXX dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice, improper service XXXX prevent the plaintiff from refiling the lawsuit. \n\nCosts and Fees : The defendant XXXX be entitled to recover costs and attorney 's fees incurred in responding to the lawsuit due to the plaintiff 's failure to properly serve. \n\nLaws Broken by Plaintiff ( Discover Bank ) by failing to properly serve the defendant ( XXXX XXXX ) : Texas Rules of Civil Procedure : The plaintiff XXXX have violated specific rules regarding service of process outlined in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, such as Rule XXXX, which governs the methods of service. \n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : Depending on the circumstances, the plaintiff 's failure to properly serve the defendant XXXX violate certain provisions of the FDCPA, such as engaging in unfair or deceptive practices. \n\n\nDefendant 's ( XXXX XXXX ) Rights : Right to Proper Service : The defendant has the right to be properly served with legal documents in accordance with Texas XXXX and due process requirements. \n\nRight to Defend : The defendant has the right to defend against the lawsuit and raise any defenses or objections, including improper service. \n\nRight to XXXX XXXX Damages : If the defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff 's failure to properly serve caused them mental anguish, they XXXX have the right to pursue damages for emotional distress under certain circumstances. \n\nNow that I know all of the above, I will seek legal advice from an attorney experienced in debt collection and consumer protection laws to ensure I fully understand and comprehend my rights, potential damages, and options for recourse in this situation. \n\nADDITIONAL COMMENTS Dear XXXX, Thank you for your response regarding my concerns raised with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). I appreciate your attention to this matter. Regarding the response from XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, the law firm representing Discover Bank, I am unable to share it with you directly as per CFPB regulations. However, I would be happy to email it to you if approved by the CFPB. I have doubts about the accuracy of the alleged balance of due on my account, and I request a breakdown of this amount to clarify any discrepancies. Until this matter is resolved, I prefer to keep all communication regarding this issue through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, based on my previous experience with Discover Bank over the phone. To address the service issue, I request detailed information on the specific rules and procedures set forth by Texas law regarding service of documents for my type of account or situation. I seek clarification on how Discover Bank ensures compliance with Texas law regarding service procedures and what steps are taken to rectify any failures or discrepancies. Furthermore, I would like an update on the current status of my account in light of the service issue and any potential impacts on my account. Additionally, I seek information on the steps Discover Bank will take to address the failure to comply with Texas law and what recourse or options are available to me as a customer. Could you kindly provide contact information for a specific department or individual within Discover Bank who can assist me further with addressing this issue and ensuring compliance with Texas law? Lastly, I would like to inquire about how the failure to comply with Texas law may impact the status of my charged-off account and any related consequences. Additionally, I request information on available options for resolving the charged-off account and any potential impacts on my credit report or financial obligations. Thank you for your attention to these matters, and I look forward to your prompt response. Sincerely, A.G","date_sent_to_company":"2024-06-06T09:14:08.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"75034","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9182045","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2024-06-06T09:02:43.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Furthermore, I now know as of today XXXX, XXXX XXXX : Consequences of Plaintiff 's ( Discover Bank ) <em>failing</em> ensure that service is valid and compliant with the law : Dismissal of the <em>Lawsuit</em> : If the defendant raises the issue of improper service, the court XXXX dismiss the <em>lawsuit</em> <em>without</em> prejudice, improper service XXXX prevent the plaintiff from refiling the <em>lawsuit</em>."]},"sort":[11.738615,"9182045"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11585498","_score":11.571453,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to address severe inaccuracies and violations related to the reporting and handling of an account under my name, [ Account Number:XXXX ]. Both XXXX XXXX XXXX and the credit reporting agencies are in violation of federal and state laws, as outlined below. This letter serves as a formal demand for immediate action to resolve these inaccuracies and to cease any unlawful activities. XXXX, Equifax, and XXXX have failed to fulfill its legal obligation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) to conduct a reasonable investigation of disputed information on my credit report, leaving inaccurate or unverifiable accounts. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has recently filed a lawsuit against XXXX, alleging systemic issues such as failing to forward consumer-provided evidence to furnishers, accepting unreliable responses, and failing to adequately notify consumers of dispute outcomes. These failures align with my experience, where XXXX, Equifax, and XXXX have neither corrected nor removed disputed items the evidence I provided, causing ongoing harm to my credit standing. I am requesting immediate corrective action to remove or amend the disputed accounts, as XXXX, Equifax, XXXX inaction violates federal law and my rights as a consumer. \nUnlawful Reporting Without Consent ( FCRA Section 604 ) : CRAs are allowed to report your information only for permissible purposes and with your implied consent ( e.g., for applying for credit or employment ). Continuing to report inaccurate or unverifiable information violates 15 U.S.C. 1681b. \nNegligent or Willful Noncompliance ( FCRA Sections 616 and 617 ) : Their refusal to investigate properly, provide records, or remove inaccurate information demonstrates negligence or willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o. This opens them up to statutory damages, actual damages, and legal penalties. \nFCRA Section 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) - Duty of Furnishers to Provide Accurate Information : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( the furnisher ) is obligated to report only accurate information. If they transferred the account to XXXX XXXX but failed to ensure the credit report reflects this transfer, they are in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ). \n\nFCRA Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) - Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation : By law, credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed accounts. If they resolve disputes in less than 24 hours or fail to contact the furnisher ( XXXX in this case ) for proper validation, they violate 15 U.S.C. 1681i. A three-month delay without resolution further constitutes a breach of the FCRA. \n\n\n\nBackground Information : XXXX XXXX XXXX claims the debt has been transferred to XXXX XXXX. However, XXXX XXXX denies ownership of this account and has informed me that I must pay the balance before any further action can be taken. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX has not issued a Form 1099-C for this \" written-off '' debt of {$10000.00}, which violates 26 U.S.C. 6050P under IRS requirements for cancellation of debt exceeding {$600.00}. \n\nThe credit reporting agencies claim the account has been \" verified and accurate '' without providing the supporting documentation I have requested multiple times under 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( FCRA Section 609 ). \n\nMy disputes with the credit reporting agencies are resolved within 24 hours or 48 hours, which indicates that no reasonable reinvestigation, as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( FCRA Section 611 ), has occurred. \n\nThe conflicting information between XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX demonstrates that neither party has ensured accurate or consistent reporting, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which mandates maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. \n\nViolations by XXXX XXXX XXXX : Failure to Issue Form 1099-C ( 26 U.S.C. 6050P ) : XXXX is obligated to issue a 1099-C for canceled debt exceeding {$600.00}. Its refusal to do so violates federal tax law. \n\nDeceptive Practices ( CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) : Misleadingly transferring the debt to XXXX XXXX while claiming it is written off constitutes a deceptive act. \n\nFailure to Validate Debt ( FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g ) : XXXX has failed to provide proof of the debt 's validity despite repeated requests. \n\nViolations by the Credit Reporting Agencies : Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation ( FCRA Section 611, 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : The credit reporting agencies are resolving disputes within 24 hours or 48 hours without verifying information with the furnisher or providing supporting documentation. \n\nReporting Inaccurate Information ( FCRA Section 607 ( b ), 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : By continuing to report inaccurate or unverifiable information, the agencies fail to ensure maximum accuracy in consumer reports. \n\nFailure to Provide Documentation ( FCRA Section 609, 15 U.S.C. 1681g ) : Despite my multiple requests, the agencies have not provided the documentation allegedly used to verify this account.\n\nFailure to Notify the Furnisher ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) ) : It is your responsibility to notify the furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) within five business days of receiving my dispute. Based on my communications with XXXX, they have confirmed that the account was transferred to XXXX XXXX, and no valid documentation was provided to you. This suggests you did not properly contact the furnisher. \n\n\nHow Was the Information Verified? \n\nProvide a detailed explanation of how you verified this account, including all documentation provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \nWho Was Contacted During the Verification Process? \n\nIdentify the name, address, and contact information of the furnisher ( e.g., XXXX or XXXX XXXX ) you contacted and the date of that communication. \nWhy Have Documents Not Been Provided? \n\nIf the account was verified, why have the original signed agreement, payment history, and other requested documents not been sent to me? \n\nMy Demands : Immediate Removal of the Account : If XXXX XXXX XXXX and the credit reporting agencies can not validate the debt and provide proper documentation, the account must be removed from my credit reports under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ). \n\nProvision of Supporting Documentation : Provide all documents XXXX XXXX XXXX claims to have provided to verify the accuracy of the account, including : The original signed agreement. \nPayment history and balance calculations. \nEvidence of correspondence between the credit reporting agencies and XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \nIssuance of Form 1099-C : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with 26 U.S.C. 6050P and issue a 1099-C form if the debt has been charged off and deemed uncollectible. \n\nContinued Misreporting Without Proper Validation : If XXXX, Equifax, or XXXX are claiming they verified the account but have not provided documentation, it implies they are violating FCRA Section 611 ( a ) ( 5 ), which requires deletion of unverifiable or inaccurate accounts.\n\nNo Right to Report Without Consent : Reporting inaccurate or unverifiable information is not only a violation of the FCRA but also compromises your rights under 15 U.S.C. 1681b, as reporting such information can not serve a legitimate business need or permissible purpose. \nStalling Tactics : The three-month delay in resolving your disputes, combined with inconsistent responses and refusal to provide documentation, suggests bad faith and intentional violations of federal consumer protection laws. \n\nExplanation of Investigation Procedures : The credit reporting agencies must explain the procedures used to \" verify '' this account and identify the furnisher of the information. \n\nLegal Notice : Failure to comply with these demands will result in the following actions : Formal Complaints : I will file complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and the IRS for violations of my consumer rights and tax law. \n\nLegal Action : I will pursue legal remedies under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o for willful and negligent noncompliance with the FCRA, as well as claims under the FDCPA and CFPA. \n\nIRS Reporting : If XXXX XXXX XXXX fails to issue a 1099-C, I will report this to the IRS using Form 3949-A for suspected tax violations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-16T16:02:24.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"398XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11585498","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-01-16T16:01:46.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has recently filed a <em>lawsuit</em> against XXXX, alleging systemic issues such as <em>failing</em> to forward consumer-provided evidence to furnishers, accepting unreliable responses, and <em>failing</em> to adequately <em>notify</em> consumers of dispute outcomes. These failures align with my experience, where XXXX, Equifax, and XXXX have neither corrected nor removed disputed items the evidence I provided, causing ongoing harm to my credit standing."]},"sort":[11.571453,"11585498"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11566866","_score":11.571453,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to address severe inaccuracies and violations related to the reporting and handling of an account under my name, [ Account XXXX ]. Both XXXX XXXX XXXX and the credit reporting agencies are in violation of federal and state laws, as outlined below. This letter serves as a formal demand for immediate action to resolve these inaccuracies and to cease any unlawful activities. XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion have failed to fulfill its legal obligation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) to conduct a reasonable investigation of disputed information on my credit report, leaving inaccurate or unverifiable accounts. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has recently filed a lawsuit against XXXX, alleging systemic issues such as failing to forward consumer-provided evidence to furnishers, accepting unreliable responses, and failing to adequately notify consumers of dispute outcomes. These failures align with my experience, where XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion have neither corrected nor removed disputed items the evidence I provided, causing ongoing harm to my credit standing. I am requesting immediate corrective action to remove or amend the disputed accounts, as XXXX, XXXX, TransUnion inaction violates federal law and my rights as a consumer. \nUnlawful Reporting Without Consent ( FCRA Section 604 ) : CRAs are allowed to report your information only for permissible purposes and with your implied consent ( e.g., for applying for credit or employment ). Continuing to report inaccurate or unverifiable information violates 15 U.S.C. 1681b. \nNegligent or Willful Noncompliance ( FCRA Sections 616 and 617 ) : Their refusal to investigate properly, provide records, or remove inaccurate information demonstrates negligence or willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o. This opens them up to statutory damages, actual damages, and legal penalties. \nFCRA Section 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) - Duty of Furnishers to Provide Accurate Information : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( the furnisher ) is obligated to report only accurate information. If they transferred the account to XXXX XXXX but failed to ensure the credit report reflects this transfer, they are in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ). \n\nFCRA XXXX XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) - Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation : By law, credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed accounts. If they resolve disputes in less than 24 hours or fail to contact the furnisher ( XXXX in this case ) for proper validation, they violate 15 U.S.C. 1681i. A three-month delay without resolution further constitutes a breach of the FCRA. \n\n\n\nBackground Information : XXXX XXXX XXXX claims the debt has been transferred to XXXX XXXX. However, XXXX XXXX denies ownership of this account and has informed me that I must pay the balance before any further action can be taken. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX has not issued a Form 1099-C for this \" written-off '' debt of {$10000.00}, which violates 26 U.S.C. 6050P under IRS requirements for cancellation of debt exceeding {$600.00}. \n\nThe credit reporting agencies claim the account has been \" verified and accurate '' without providing the supporting documentation I have requested multiple times under 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( FCRA Section 609 ). \n\nMy disputes with the credit reporting agencies are resolved within 24 hours or 48 hours, which indicates that no reasonable reinvestigation, as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( FCRA Section 611 ), has occurred. \n\nThe conflicting information between XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX demonstrates that neither party has ensured accurate or consistent reporting, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which mandates maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. \n\nViolations by XXXX XXXX XXXX : Failure to Issue Form 1099-C ( 26 U.S.C. 6050P ) : XXXX is obligated to issue a 1099-C for canceled debt exceeding {$600.00}. Its refusal to do so violates federal tax law. \n\nDeceptive Practices ( CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) : Misleadingly transferring the debt to XXXX XXXX while claiming it is written off constitutes a deceptive act. \n\nFailure to Validate Debt ( FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g ) : XXXX has failed to provide proof of the debt 's validity despite repeated requests. \n\nViolations by the XXXX XXXX XXXX : Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation ( FCRA Section 611, 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : The credit reporting agencies are resolving disputes within 24 hours or 48 hours without verifying information with the furnisher or providing supporting documentation. \n\nReporting Inaccurate Information ( FCRA Section 607 ( b ), 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : By continuing to report inaccurate or unverifiable information, the agencies fail to ensure maximum accuracy in consumer reports. \n\nFailure to Provide Documentation ( FCRA Section 609, 15 U.S.C. 1681g ) : Despite my multiple requests, the agencies have not provided the documentation allegedly used to verify this account.\n\nFailure to Notify the Furnisher ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) ) : It is your responsibility to notify the furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) within five business days of receiving my dispute. Based on my communications with XXXX, they have confirmed that the account was transferred to XXXX XXXX, and no valid documentation was provided to you. This suggests you did not properly contact the furnisher. \n\n\nHow Was the Information Verified? \n\nProvide a detailed explanation of how you verified this account, including all documentation provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \nWho Was Contacted During the Verification Process? \n\nIdentify the name, address, and contact information of the furnisher ( e.g., XXXX or XXXX XXXX ) you contacted and the date of that communication. \nWhy Have Documents Not Been Provided? \n\nIf the account was verified, why have the original signed agreement, payment history, and other requested documents not been sent to me? \n\nMy Demands : Immediate Removal of the Account : If XXXX XXXX XXXX and the credit reporting agencies can not validate the debt and provide proper documentation, the account must be removed from my credit reports under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ). \n\nProvision of Supporting Documentation : Provide all documents XXXX XXXX XXXX claims to have provided to verify the accuracy of the account, including : The original signed agreement. \nPayment history and balance calculations. \nEvidence of correspondence between the credit reporting agencies and XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \nIssuance of Form 1099-C : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with 26 U.S.C. 6050P and issue a 1099-C form if the debt has been charged off and deemed uncollectible. \n\nContinued Misreporting Without Proper Validation : If XXXX, XXXX, or TransUnion are claiming they verified the account but have not provided documentation, it implies they are violating FCRA Section 611 ( a ) ( 5 ), which requires deletion of unverifiable or inaccurate accounts.\n\nNo Right to Report Without Consent : Reporting inaccurate or unverifiable information is not only a violation of the FCRA but also compromises your rights under 15 U.S.C. 1681b, as reporting such information can not serve a legitimate business need or permissible purpose. \nStalling Tactics : The three-month delay in resolving your disputes, combined with inconsistent responses and refusal to provide documentation, suggests bad faith and intentional violations of federal consumer protection laws. \n\nExplanation of Investigation Procedures : The credit reporting agencies must explain the procedures used to \" verify '' this account and identify the furnisher of the information. \n\nLegal Notice : Failure to comply with these demands will result in the following actions : Formal Complaints : I will file complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and the IRS for violations of my consumer rights and tax law. \n\nLegal Action : I will pursue legal remedies under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o for willful and negligent noncompliance with the FCRA, as well as claims under the FDCPA and CFPA. \n\nIRS Reporting : If XXXX XXXX XXXX fails to issue a 1099-C, I will report this to the IRS using Form 3949-A for suspected tax violations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-16T16:02:24.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"398XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11566866","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-01-16T16:01:46.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has recently filed a <em>lawsuit</em> against XXXX, alleging systemic issues such as <em>failing</em> to forward consumer-provided evidence to furnishers, accepting unreliable responses, and <em>failing</em> to adequately <em>notify</em> consumers of dispute outcomes. These failures align with my experience, where XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion have neither corrected nor removed disputed items the evidence I provided, causing ongoing harm to my credit standing."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[11.571453,"11566866"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11582834","_score":11.553947,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to address severe inaccuracies and violations related to the reporting and handling of an account under my name, [ Account XXXX ]. Both XXXX XXXX XXXX and the credit reporting agencies are in violation of federal and state laws, as outlined below. This letter serves as a formal demand for immediate action to resolve these inaccuracies and to cease any unlawful activities. Experian, XXXX, and XXXX have failed to fulfill its legal obligation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) to conduct a reasonable investigation of disputed information on my credit report, leaving inaccurate or unverifiable accounts. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has recently filed a lawsuit against Experian, alleging systemic issues such as failing to forward consumer-provided evidence to furnishers, accepting unreliable responses, and failing to adequately notify consumers of dispute outcomes. These failures align with my experience, where Experian, XXXX, and XXXX have neither corrected nor removed disputed items the evidence I provided, causing ongoing harm to my credit standing. I am requesting immediate corrective action to remove or amend the disputed accounts, as Experian, XXXX, XXXX inaction violates federal law and my rights as a consumer. \nUnlawful Reporting Without Consent ( FCRA Section 604 ) : CRAs are allowed to report your information only for permissible purposes and with your implied consent ( e.g., for applying for credit or employment ). Continuing to report inaccurate or unverifiable information violates 15 U.S.C. 1681b.\n\nNegligent or Willful Noncompliance ( FCRA Sections 616 and 617 ) : Their refusal to investigate properly, provide records, or remove inaccurate information demonstrates negligence or willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o. This opens them up to statutory damages, actual damages, and legal penalties.\n\nFCRA Section 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) - Duty of Furnishers to Provide Accurate Information : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( the furnisher ) is obligated to report only accurate information. If they transferred the account to XXXX XXXX but failed to ensure the credit report reflects this transfer, they are in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ).\n\nFCRA Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) - Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation : By law, credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed accounts. If they resolve disputes in less than 24 hours or fail to contact the furnisher ( XXXX in this case ) for proper validation, they violate 15 U.S.C. 1681i. A three-month delay without resolution further constitutes a breach of the FCRA. \n\n\n\nBackground Information : XXXX XXXX XXXX claims the debt has been transferred to XXXX XXXX. However, XXXX XXXX denies ownership of this account and has informed me that I must pay the balance before any further action can be taken. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX has not issued a Form 1099-C for this \" written-off '' debt of {$10000.00}, which violates 26 U.S.C. 6050P under IRS requirements for cancellation of debt exceeding {$600.00}.\n\nThe credit reporting agencies claim the account has been \" verified and accurate '' without providing the supporting documentation I have requested multiple times under 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( FCRA Section 609 ).\n\nMy disputes with the credit reporting agencies are resolved within 24 hours or 48 hours, which indicates that no reasonable reinvestigation, as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( FCRA Section 611 ), has occurred. \n\nThe conflicting information between XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX demonstrates that neither party has ensured accurate or consistent reporting, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which mandates maximum possible accuracy in consumer reports. \n\nViolations by XXXX XXXX XXXX : Failure to Issue Form 1099-C ( 26 U.S.C. 6050P ) : XXXX is obligated to issue a XXXX for canceled debt exceeding {$600.00}. Its refusal to do so violates federal tax law. \n\nDeceptive Practices ( CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531 ) : Misleadingly transferring the debt to XXXX XXXX while claiming it is written off constitutes a deceptive act. \n\nFailure to Validate Debt ( FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g ) : XXXX has failed to provide proof of the debt 's validity despite repeated requests. \nViolations by the Credit Reporting Agencies : Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation ( FCRA Section 611, 15 U.S.C. 1681i ) : The credit reporting agencies are resolving disputes within 24 hours or 48 hours without verifying information with the furnisher or providing supporting documentation.\n\nReporting Inaccurate Information ( FCRA Section 607 ( b ), 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : By continuing to report inaccurate or unverifiable information, the agencies fail to ensure maximum accuracy in consumer reports. \nFailure to Provide Documentation ( FCRA Section 609, 15 U.S.C. 1681g ) : Despite my multiple requests, the agencies have not provided the documentation allegedly used to verify this account.\n\nFailure to Notify the Furnisher ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) ) : It is your responsibility to notify the furnisher ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) within XXXX business days of receiving my dispute. Based on my communications with XXXX, they have confirmed that the account was transferred to XXXX XXXX, and no valid documentation was provided to you. This suggests you did not properly contact the furnisher. \n\n\nHow Was the Information Verified? \n\nProvide a detailed explanation of how you verified this account, including all documentation provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \nWho Was Contacted During the Verification Process?\n\nIdentify the name, address, and contact information of the furnisher ( e.g., XXXX or XXXX XXXX ) you contacted and the date of that communication. \nWhy Have Documents Not Been Provided? \n\nIf the account was verified, why have the original signed agreement, payment history, and other requested documents not been sent to me? \n\nMy Demands : Immediate Removal of the Account : If XXXX XXXX XXXX and the credit reporting agencies can not validate the debt and provide proper documentation, the account must be removed from my credit reports under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\nProvision of Supporting Documentation : Provide all documents XXXX XXXX XXXX claims to have provided to verify the accuracy of the account, including : The original signed agreement. \nPayment history and balance calculations. \nEvidence of correspondence between the credit reporting agencies and XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \nIssuance of Form XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with 26 U.S.C. 6050P and issue a 1099-C form if the debt has been charged off and deemed uncollectible. \n\nContinued Misreporting Without Proper Validation : If Experian, XXXX, or XXXX are claiming they verified the account but have not provided documentation, it implies they are violating FCRA Section 611 ( a ) ( 5 ), which requires deletion of unverifiable or inaccurate accounts.\n\nNo Right to Report Without Consent : Reporting inaccurate or unverifiable information is not only a violation of the FCRA but also compromises your rights under 15 U.S.C. 1681b, as reporting such information can not serve a legitimate business need or permissible purpose.\n\nStalling Tactics : The three-month delay in resolving your disputes, combined with inconsistent responses and refusal to provide documentation, suggests bad faith and intentional violations of federal consumer protection laws.\n\nExplanation of Investigation Procedures : The credit reporting agencies must explain the procedures used to \" verify '' this account and identify the furnisher of the information.\n\nLegal Notice : Failure to comply with these demands will result in the following actions : Formal Complaints : I will file complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and the IRS for violations of my consumer rights and tax law.\n\nLegal Action : I will pursue legal remedies under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o for willful and negligent noncompliance with the FCRA, as well as claims under the FDCPA and CFPA. \n\nIRS Reporting : If XXXX XXXX XXXX fails to issue a 1099-C, I will report this to the IRS using Form 3949-A for suspected tax violations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-16T16:01:36.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"398XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11582834","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-01-16T15:22:14.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has recently filed a <em>lawsuit</em> against Experian, alleging systemic issues such as <em>failing</em> to forward consumer-provided evidence to furnishers, accepting unreliable responses, and <em>failing</em> to adequately <em>notify</em> consumers of dispute outcomes. These failures align with my experience, where Experian, XXXX, and XXXX have neither corrected nor removed disputed items the evidence I provided, causing ongoing harm to my credit standing."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[11.553947,"11582834"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11784489","_score":11.442602,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Subject : Formal Complaint Against XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion Regarding FCRA Violations, Reporting Inconsistencies, and Procedural Failures Dear CFPB Representative, This formal complaint highlights the systemic failures, procedural violations, and blatant disregard for the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) by XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion. These practices have resulted in fabricated dispute outcomes, inconsistent reporting, and significant harm to my credit profile. The most recent developments in my disputes further reveal why these CRAs are facing regulatory scrutiny. \nAs a victim of these practices, I request immediate regulatory enforcement and penalties against XXXX and TransUnion for their procedural violations and reporting failures, while commending XXXX for appropriately handling my dispute. Below, I outline the issues in detail : 1. Reporting Inconsistencies Across CRAs The discrepancies in how XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion handle the same disputed accounts reveal systemic failures in their compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires CRAs to maintain maximum possible accuracy. \nXXXX : Recently removed XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts without providing notice of dispute within five business days, as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ). Furthermore, I did not receive dispute results, yet the accounts are no longer on my report. Meanwhile, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX remain on my report, despite clear documentation of inaccuracies. \nTransUnion : Ignored my complaint entirely, providing no notice of dispute or investigation results as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ). All disputed accounts, including XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, continue to report inaccurately. Additionally, TransUnion is reporting an incorrect closing date of XX/XX/year> for the XXXX XXXX account, further demonstrating procedural failures. \nXXXX : Successfully removed the XXXXXXXX XXXX account and provided appropriate resolution, complying with its FCRA obligations. \nQuestion to CFPB : How can the same accounts be removed by one CRA but remain on the reports of others? These inconsistencies highlight not only failures in reinvestigations but also creditors inability to provide fair and accurate reporting under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2. \n\n\n2. XXXX Procedural Violations XXXX failure to follow FCRA-mandated procedures is consistent with the allegations in CFPB XXXX XXXX ( Case No. XXXX ). Specifically : No Notice of Dispute : XXXX failed to notify me of the dispute process within five business days, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ).\n\nNo Results of Dispute : Despite removing two accounts ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX did not provide dispute results as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ). \nRemaining Inaccuracies : The continued reporting of XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX accountswhile other CRAs have removed similar accountsdemonstrates XXXX failure to ensure maximum accuracy. \nThese actions mirror the claims in the CFPBs lawsuit, which highlights XXXX reliance on flawed dispute processes and automated systems like e-OSCAR, leading to inaccurate reporting and procedural violations. \n3. TransUnions Failure to Act TransUnions complete disregard for my complaint underscores its systemic violations of FCRA standards : No Response to Complaint : TransUnion failed to acknowledge or act upon my dispute, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), which requires CRAs to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information. \nNo Notice of Dispute : TransUnion did not notify me of the dispute process within five business days, a clear violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ).\n\nInaccurate Reporting : TransUnion continues to report incorrect information, including the false closing date of XX/XX/year> for the XXXX XXXX account, which is both misleading and damaging. \n4. Violations by Creditors Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 The creditors involvedXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) for furnishing inaccurate information and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) for failing to notify me within 30 days of reporting negative information. \nDespite clear documentation of inaccuracies, these creditors have failed to meet their statutory obligation to provide accurate and verifiable information to all CRAs. Their negligence has resulted in : Accounts removed by one CRA but inaccurately reported by others.\n\nNo proof of proper notification prior to reporting negative information, violating FCRA requirements.\n\n5. Legal Violations and Relevant Precedent The systemic issues outlined above reflect ongoing practices highlighted in regulatory actions against these CRAs : CFPB XXXX XXXX ( Case No. XXXX ) : Demonstrates XXXX repeated failure to forward relevant dispute information, reliance on unreliable furnishers, and fabricated dispute outcomes. \nCFPB Consent Order AgainsXXXX XXXX ( 2025-CFPB-0002 ) XXXX Highlights XXXXXXXX flawed dispute processes and over-reliance on automated systems, similar to the failures demonstrated by TransUnion and XXXX. \nThese precedents affirm the urgent need for regulatory enforcement against XXXX and TransUnion for their ongoing noncompliance with federal law. \n6. Demands for Regulatory Action I respectfully request that the CFPB take the following actions : 1. Investigate XXXX and TransUnion for procedural violations under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ), ( a ) ( 5 ), and ( a ) ( 6 ).\n\n2. Enforce penalties against both CRAs and the creditors for their failure to comply with 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) and 1681s-2 ( a ).\n\n3. Require XXXX and TransUnion to : Provide written notice of disputes and results for all actions taken. \nImmediately remove inaccurate accounts, including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. \n4. Investigate creditors ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) for furnishing inaccurate information and failing to notify me of negative reporting. \nConclusion The repeated violations by XXXX and TransUnion have caused significant financial and emotional harm. Their failure to follow FCRA-mandated procedures and ensure accurate reporting is unacceptable. XXXX compliance in removing disputed accounts demonstrates that corrective action is possible when CRAs follow federal guidelines.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-27T17:31:41.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33579","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11784489","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-01-27T17:31:38.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As a victim of these practices, I <em>request</em> immediate regulatory enforcement and penalties against XXXX and TransUnion for their procedural violations and reporting failures, <em>while</em> commending XXXX for appropriately handling my dispute. Below, I outline the issues in detail : 1."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[11.442602,"11784489"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11784516","_score":11.417603,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Subject : Formal Complaint Against Experian, XXXX, and XXXX Regarding FCRA Violations, Reporting Inconsistencies, and Procedural Failures Dear CFPB Representative, This formal complaint highlights the systemic failures, procedural violations, and blatant disregard for the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) by Experian, XXXX, and XXXX. These practices have resulted in fabricated dispute outcomes, inconsistent reporting, and significant harm to my credit profile. The most recent developments in my disputes further reveal why these CRAs are facing regulatory scrutiny. \nAs a victim of these practices, I request immediate regulatory enforcement and penalties against Experian and XXXX for their procedural violations and reporting failures, while commending XXXX for appropriately handling my dispute. Below, I outline the issues in detail : XXXX. Reporting Inconsistencies Across CRAs The discrepancies in how Experian, XXXX, and XXXX handle the same disputed accounts reveal systemic failures in their compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires CRAs to maintain maximum possible accuracy. \nExperian : Recently removed XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts without providing notice of dispute within XXXX business days, as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ). Furthermore, I did not receive dispute results, yet the accounts are no longer on my report. Meanwhile, XXXX XXXX and XXXX remain on my report, despite clear documentation of inaccuracies. \nXXXX : Ignored my complaint entirely, providing no notice of dispute or investigation results as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ). All disputed accounts, including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX continue to report inaccurately. Additionally, XXXX is reporting an incorrect closing date of XX/XX/year> for the XXXX XXXX account, further demonstrating procedural failures. \nXXXX : Successfully removed the XXXX XXXX  account and provided appropriate resolution, complying with its FCRA obligations. \nQuestion to CFPB : How can the same accounts be removed by one CRA but remain on the reports of others? These inconsistencies highlight not only failures in reinvestigations but also creditors inability to provide fair and accurate reporting under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2.\n\n2. Experians Procedural Violations Experians failure to follow FCRA-mandated procedures is consistent with the allegations in CFPB vs. Experian ( Case No. XXXX ). Specifically : No Notice of Dispute : Experian failed to notify me of the dispute process within five business days, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ).\n\nNo Results of Dispute : Despite removing two accounts ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), Experian did not provide dispute results as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ). \nRemaining Inaccuracies : The continued reporting of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX other CRAs have removed similar accountsdemonstrates Experians failure to ensure maximum accuracy. \nThese actions mirror the claims in the CFPBs lawsuit, which highlights Experians reliance on flawed dispute processes and automated systems like e-OSCAR, leading to inaccurate reporting and procedural violations. \nXXXX. TransUnions Failure to Act TransUnions complete disregard for my complaint underscores its systemic violations of FCRA standards : No Response to Complaint : XXXX failed to acknowledge or act upon my dispute, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), which requires CRAs to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information. \nNo Notice of Dispute : XXXX did not notify me of the dispute process within five business days, a clear violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ). \nInaccurate Reporting : XXXX continues to report incorrect information, including the false closing date of XX/XX/year> for the XXXX XXXX account, which is both misleading and damaging. \n4. Violations by Creditors Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 The creditors XXXX XXXX, and XXXX in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) for furnishing inaccurate information and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) for failing to notify me within 30 days of reporting negative information.\n\nDespite clear documentation of inaccuracies, these creditors have failed to meet their statutory obligation to provide accurate and verifiable information to all CRAs. Their negligence has resulted in : Accounts removed by one CRA but inaccurately reported by others. \nNo proof of proper notification prior to reporting negative information, violating FCRA requirements. \nXXXX. Legal Violations and Relevant Precedent The systemic issues outlined above reflect ongoing practices highlighted in regulatory actions against these CRAs : CFPB vs. Experian ( Case No. XXXX ) : Demonstrates Experians repeated failure to forward relevant dispute information, reliance on unreliable furnishers, and fabricated dispute outcomes. \nCFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX Highlights Equifaxs flawed dispute processes and over-reliance on automated systems, similar to the failures demonstrated by XXXX and Experian. \nThese precedents affirm the urgent need for regulatory enforcement against Experian and XXXX for their ongoing noncompliance with federal law. \n6. Demands for Regulatory Action I respectfully request that the CFPB take the following actions : 1. Investigate Experian and XXXX for procedural violations under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ), ( a ) ( 5 ), and ( a ) ( 6 ).\n\n2. Enforce penalties against both CRAs and the creditors for their failure to comply with 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) and 1681s-2 ( a ). \nXXXX. Require Experian and XXXX to : Provide written notice of disputes and results for all actions taken. \nImmediately remove inaccurate accounts, including XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \nXXXX. Investigate creditors ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) for furnishing inaccurate information and failing to notify me of negative reporting. \nConclusion The repeated violations by Experian and XXXX have caused significant financial and emotional harm. Their failure to follow FCRA-mandated procedures and ensure accurate reporting is unacceptable. XXXX compliance in removing disputed accounts demonstrates that corrective action is possible when CRAs follow federal guidelines.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-27T17:31:28.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33579","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11784516","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-01-27T17:10:37.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As a victim of these practices, I <em>request</em> immediate regulatory enforcement and penalties against Experian and XXXX for their procedural violations and reporting failures, <em>while</em> commending XXXX for appropriately handling my dispute. Below, I outline the issues in detail : XXXX."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[11.417603,"11784516"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11784491","_score":11.414704,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Subject : Formal Complaint Against XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion Regarding FCRA Violations, Reporting Inconsistencies, and Procedural Failures Dear CFPB Representative, This formal complaint highlights the systemic failures, procedural violations, and blatant disregard for the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) by XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion. These practices have resulted in fabricated dispute outcomes, inconsistent reporting, and significant harm to my credit profile. The most recent developments in my disputes further reveal why these CRAs are facing regulatory scrutiny. \nAs a victim of these practices, I request immediate regulatory enforcement and penalties against XXXX and TransUnion for their procedural violations and reporting failures, while commending XXXX for appropriately handling my dispute. Below, I outline the issues in detail : 1. Reporting Inconsistencies Across CRAs The discrepancies in how XXXX, XXXX, and TransUnion handle the same disputed accounts reveal systemic failures in their compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires CRAs to maintain maximum possible accuracy. \nXXXX : Recently removed XXXXXXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts without providing notice of dispute within five business days, as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ). Furthermore, I did not receive dispute results, yet the accounts are no longer on my report. Meanwhile, XXXX XXXX and XXXX remain on my report, despite clear documentation of inaccuracies. \nTransUnion : Ignored my complaint entirely, providing no notice of dispute or investigation results as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ). All disputed accounts, including XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX continue to report inaccurately. Additionally, TransUnion is reporting an incorrect closing date of XX/XX/year> for the XXXX XXXX account, further demonstrating procedural failures. \nXXXX : Successfully removed the XXXXXXXX XXXX account and provided appropriate resolution, complying with its FCRA obligations. \nQuestion to CFPB : How can the same accounts be removed by one CRA but remain on the reports of others? These inconsistencies highlight not only failures in reinvestigations but also creditors inability to provide fair and accurate reporting under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2. \n\n\nXXXX. XXXX Procedural Violations XXXX  failure to follow FCRA-mandated procedures is consistent with the allegations in CFPB XXXX XXXXXXXX ( Case No. XXXX ). Specifically : No Notice of Dispute : XXXX failed to notify me of the dispute process within five business days, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ). \nNo Results of Dispute : Despite removing XXXX accounts ( XXXX Bank and XXXX XXXX Bank ), XXXX did not provide dispute results as required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ). \nRemaining Inaccuracies : The continued reporting of XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX other CRAs have removed similar accountsdemonstrates XXXX  failure to ensure maximum accuracy. \nThese actions mirror the claims in the CFPBs lawsuit, which highlights XXXX reliance on flawed dispute processes and automated systems like e-OSCAR, leading to inaccurate reporting and procedural violations. \nXXXX. TransUnions Failure to Act TransUnions complete disregard for my complaint underscores its systemic violations of FCRA standards : No Response to Complaint : TransUnion failed to acknowledge or act upon my dispute, violating 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), which requires CRAs to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information. \nNo Notice of Dispute : TransUnion did not notify me of the dispute process within five business days, a clear violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ).\n\nInaccurate Reporting : TransUnion continues to report incorrect information, including the false closing date of XX/XX/year> for the XXXX XXXX account, which is both misleading and damaging. \n4. Violations by Creditors Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 The creditors XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) for furnishing inaccurate information and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) for failing to notify me within 30 days of reporting negative information. \nDespite clear documentation of inaccuracies, these creditors have failed to meet their statutory obligation to provide accurate and verifiable information to all CRAs. Their negligence has resulted in : Accounts removed by one CRA but inaccurately reported by others. \nNo proof of proper notification prior to reporting negative information, violating FCRA requirements. \n5. Legal Violations and Relevant Precedent The systemic issues outlined above reflect ongoing practices highlighted in regulatory actions against these CRAs : CFPB XXXX XXXXXXXX ( Case No. XXXX ) : Demonstrates XXXX repeated failure to forward relevant dispute information, reliance on unreliable furnishers, and fabricated dispute outcomes. \nCFPB Consent Order Against XXXX ( 2025-CFPB-0002 ) : Highlights XXXX  flawed dispute processes and over-reliance on automated systems, similar to the failures demonstrated by TransUnion and XXXX. \nThese precedents affirm the urgent need for regulatory enforcement against XXXX and TransUnion for their ongoing noncompliance with federal law. \n6. Demands for Regulatory Action I respectfully request that the CFPB take the following actions : 1. Investigate XXXX and TransUnion for procedural violations under XXXX5 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ), ( a ) ( 5 ), and ( a ) ( 6 ).\n\n2. Enforce penalties against both CRAs and the creditors for their failure to comply with 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) and 1681s-2 ( a ). \nXXXX. Require XXXX and TransUnion to : Provide written notice of disputes and results for all actions taken. \nImmediately remove inaccurate accounts, including XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. \nXXXX. Investigate creditors ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ) for furnishing inaccurate information and failing to notify me of negative reporting. \nConclusion The repeated violations by XXXX and TransUnion have caused significant financial and emotional harm. Their failure to follow XXXX procedures and ensure accurate reporting is unacceptable. XXXX compliance in removing disputed accounts demonstrates that corrective action is possible when CRAs follow federal guidelines.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-27T17:31:41.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33579","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11784491","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-01-27T17:31:38.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Was not notified of investigation status or results"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As a victim of these practices, I <em>request</em> immediate regulatory enforcement and penalties against XXXX and TransUnion for their procedural violations and reporting failures, <em>while</em> commending XXXX for appropriately handling my dispute. Below, I outline the issues in detail : 1."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to <em>provide</em> a public response"]},"sort":[11.414704,"11784491"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":98,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":98}]}},"product":{"doc_count":98,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":44,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":44}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":28,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":20},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":3},{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Private student loan debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":13,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":13}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"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":"Reverse 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":1},{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"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}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":98,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":27,"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":14},{"key":"Was not notified of investigation status or results","doc_count":10},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":14,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":14}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":12,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":6},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":3},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":2},{"key":"Public record information inaccurate","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":10}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":7,"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":7}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Seized or attempted to seize your property","doc_count":3},{"key":"Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit","doc_count":3},{"key":"Sued you in a state where you do not live or did not sign for the debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Notice to repossess","doc_count":2},{"key":"Account reinstatement or redemption after repossession","doc_count":1},{"key":"Damage caused or loss of personal items in vehicle during the actual repossession","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Don't agree with the fees charged","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":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":98,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":95},{"key":"No","doc_count":3}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":98,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":69},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":27},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1},{"key":"Untimely response","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":98,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":98}]}},"company":{"doc_count":98,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":20},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":18},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":13},{"key":"RAS LaVrar, LLC","doc_count":4},{"key":"Aldridge PIte Haan, LLP","doc_count":3},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":3},{"key":"Hayt Hayt & Landau, P.L. (FL)","doc_count":2},{"key":"OneMain Finance Corporation","doc_count":2},{"key":"Rausch Sturm LLP","doc_count":2},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":2},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":2},{"key":"TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC","doc_count":2},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"American Credit Acceptance, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Coinbase, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Consumer Attorneys of America, P.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit Corp Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit Karma, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fay Servicing, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Navient Solutions, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Oliphant United, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Patenaude & Felix A Professional Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":98,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":32},{"key":"GA","doc_count":16},{"key":"OR","doc_count":7},{"key":"TX","doc_count":7},{"key":"CA","doc_count":6},{"key":"MD","doc_count":5},{"key":"HI","doc_count":3},{"key":"NY","doc_count":3},{"key":"TN","doc_count":3},{"key":"LA","doc_count":2},{"key":"NV","doc_count":2},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"DC","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"OH","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":98,"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":48},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":98,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":20},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":9},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[11.414704,"11784491"],"3":[9.208185,"6312290"],"4":[7.7165904,"14901496"]}}}