{"took":107,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":6,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6849897","_score":10.480866,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Early XXXX I bought a XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX. They had a car specifically listed on XXXX as Certified Pre-Owned, and the salesmen XXXX and XXXX assured me multiple times over the phone that it was in excellent condition. They told me repeatedly that the vehicle needed no repairs. When the vehicle was delivered on the XXXX, we noticed immediately that there were major concerns. We took it to three auto shops, one of them being a certified XXXX XXXX. All three told me that it was unsafe to drive and that I should park it. There are major concerns with the frame being almost completely rusted through in several places, the gas tank strap rusted through that it was about to fall out, the brakes are failing, and the steering is badly misaligned and leaking. We tried reasoning with the dealership asking them to reverse the sale, return my deposit and the money to the bank, and take the car back. They refused. I took the vehicle to three auto body shops, and two body work shops to get a comprehensive picture of the full extent and value of the vehicle. We have an inspection report from the certified XXXX XXXX for {$7900.00}. We have a body shop repair estimate for the frame and body work that needs to be done for {$13000.00} from XXXX XXXX XXXX. This shows that there is approximately {$21000.00} worth of damage and repairs to the vehicle that Westlake Financial financed me {$20000.00}. We tried reaching out to Westlake Financial Services on XX/XX/XXXX for the first time in regards to the loan they financed me for the vehicle. I waited so long to reach out to them only because I wanted to give them the best opportunity and a full picture of the extent of the situation. I made sure to have multiple auto inspections done, a XXXX valuation done, and an attempt to work something out with the dealership first. They told me they would file a dealership complaint, and then gave me a customer service email address to send my documents to ( XXXX ), providing proof of the deliberate concealment and horrible condition of the vehicle. I called Westlake again on XX/XX/XXXX and they said they didnt see any complaint filed on my account but that I could email the same address asking if they received my information yet, so I did. After still not receiving any acknowledgment of my complaint, I called again on XX/XX/XXXX where I was given a completely different email to contact their fraud audit team ( XXXX ) and find a resolution- they told me that there were currently no claims on my account whatsoever. I was sending all of my information, claims, and personal info to some random email. I am afraid to know what happened to my personal information that is all over those documents. I sent the fraud audit team an email with all of my supporting documents and inspections. On XX/XX/XXXX I received a phone call from a XXXX XXXX, she told me that they were unable to click the links in my documents due to security purposes and asked if I could resend them as attachments, so I did. I called Westlake again on XX/XX/XXXX to check in on the claim. I spoke with XXXX XXXX XXXX, who told me that due to the diagnostic report not showing any concerns with the engine or transmission, the fraud audit team had determined they were unable to move forward with my claim. I told them i couldnt believe that with all of the evidence of misrepresentation that had been committed against both of us, they wouldnt move forward with trying to come to an amicable resolution. He got off the phone with me to speak to his supervisor XXXX XXXX, who agreed that there was nothing they could do. XXXX XXXX asked me if I had asked the dealership if they would rescind the contract and take back the vehicle. I told him that I had, and they had refused. He said there was nothing more they could do. At this point I am upset and dont understand why the bank will not reasonably acknowledge my claim. I called Westlake again on the evening of XX/XX/XXXX and asked to speak to someone about my issue. I told XXXX XXXX that there was mention on both inspection reports about concerns with the transmission, why had their fraud audit team ignored this information. During this phone call, XXXX XXXX admitted that his company does not care if the dealership lied about any part of the vehicle when they were presenting it for financing, they only care if the dealership lied about the engine and the transmission. He said he would connect us with a supervisor, put us on hold, then transferred our call to the automated response and options menu for XXXX XXXX XXXX. This is extremely unprofessional and created a significant amount of distrust with the bank that is handling my sensitive information and auto loan. I hung up and redialed Westlakes phone number. This time we were connected with XXXX XXXX. During this phone call I found out that not once have I spoken with anyone who works for Westlake Financial Services. I have been speaking with representatives of the XXXX XXXX that is hired in the XXXX and XXXX to field phone calls for Westlake. I am concerned about what will happen to my personal information that I have to repeatedly tell all of these people each time I call and how will I know my information is being protected. I asked if I could speak to someone that was an actual representative of the bank so that I could give them the opportunity to respond to my claim and make an honest decision in regards to my account. He said he had to check with his supervisor to see if he was authorized to give us the phone number for the customer litigation department. He put us on hold then came back and said he had authorization and said we should call. I called this number and they told me that they can not see any information on my account because there is no active litigation on my account. Why was I even directed to call them? I called XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX to ask about the vehicles fraud audit claim. I told her that they told me they wouldn't pursue further because there is no mention of transmission or engine problems but I pointed out to her that on both XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX 's inspection reports they make mention of loud clunking noises and transmission hoses that need to be addressed. She said since it does not specifically say that either needs to be replaced, it is not worth pursuing. I told her that we never specifically asked either location to do a full diagnostic on the transmission or engine since there were so many other issues, and that I can go ahead and schedule that to be done tomorrow. She said that our loan was active for thirty days ending today so if I got any inspection done, it wouldn't matter. They only accept documents that are dated before the 30 day deadline. I am confident they only told me at the end that they had a deadline because Westlake did not want to give me the opportunity to cover all of my bases and have a full report to them in time. This is manipulative and withholding valuable information for them to not disclose that I needed all documents to be supplied within 30 days of the loan. During several of my phone calls with the bank, I had my boyfriend present because he is financially involved in this as well. I think it is important to point out that each time I took a phone call with them and stated he was on the line with me, that was when they would tell me that my call may be recorded for safety or training purposes. During none of my other phone calls would they tell me that my call was being recorded. That seems suspicious to me as well. \n\nThis vehicle sale and my fight against the fraud and misrepresentation of this sale has caused me great financial difficulty. I dont have a reliable vehicle to make it to work in order to make my car payments, and I am forced to rent a vehicle. I do not have the funds to be able to pursue litigation against this bank but they have told me now that litigation is my only option. I do believe that they misled me with the initially incorrect email and then kept dragging their feet in helping me after that, so that the 30 days would come and go to where contractually I am liable for this vehicle and the dealership can say they are off the hook. Now that the 30 days has passed, I can no longer get any responses from the dealership. The banks paid representatives have told me that they will no longer assist me with anything on my account unless I pursue litigation against Westlake. It is baffling how this bank can tell me they dont care about the fraud that has been committed against them and myself, leading me to believe they are in on it. Somehow they are able to continue to be an accessory to committing fraud and allowing dealerships to provide collateral to them that is not even worth the amount they are financing. This bank is engaging in suspicious behavior with these advertisement agencies and dealerships. Each time I call the bank, their automatic menu has an option to press a number if youre seeking information about financing through XXXX. I believe they are performing business alongside XXXX and these dealerships while knowing full well that their business practices are less than honest. I believe that they are aware that fraudulent advertising is being committed and that vehicle misrepresentation is a standard practice. I think that since the bank was able to get me to accept their high interest rate on the loan, that they dont care about the obvious fraud. Likely they think that due to the amount of money they will make off of my financing, it is better worth their time to not offer me their assistance. I would like the relationship between Westlake, XXXX, and their dishonest car dealerships such as XXXX XXXX XXXX to be called into question.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-04-17T22:31:21.000Z","issue":"Getting a loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"68134","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6849897","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Westlake Services, LLC","date_received":"2023-04-17T22:07:40.000Z","state":"NE","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Fraudulent loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>During</em> this phone call I <em>found</em> out that not once have I spoken with anyone who works for Westlake Financial Services. I have been speaking with representatives of the XXXX XXXX that is hired in the XXXX and XXXX to field phone calls for Westlake. I am concerned about what will happen to my personal information that I have to repeatedly tell all of these people each time I call and how will I know my information is being protected."]},"sort":[10.480866,"6849897"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22596398","_score":7.51846,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX Bank of America , N.A .\n\nAttention : Notice of Error and Request for Information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX RE : Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear Counsels - XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX .\n\nBank of Americas XX/XX/XXXX letter is a DOE and legally deficient, factually incomplete, and deliberately evasive. Bank of America, can not simultaneously claim that their response is provided under Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, while also arguing that the XX/XX/XXXX correspondence forwarded by XXXX XXXX was not a proper Notice of Error or Request for Information because it was not sent to your designated address. Regulation X does not permit a servicer to invoke its protections when convenient and disclaim its obligations when inconvenient.\n\nYour letter repeatedly states that no errors were identified and no corrections are required. These conclusory assertions are insufficient. You fail to describe the scope of any investigation performed, the systems or custodians searched, the retention policies applied, or the specific documents relied upon for each determination.\n\nA bare conclusion does not satisfy your obligations under Regulation X.\n\nError 1 HOA Payment Misapplication Your claim that all payments were applied correctly and that you have no record of any HOA payment misapplication is not credible. Bank of America has no authority to decide whether HOA payment errors occurred in this account. The U.S. government, via XXXX XXXX and other federal agencies, hired a third party who determined who has already conducted an audit and identified errors in the handling of the HOA and on this loan. That finding alone is supersedes Bank of America and it is sufficient to establish that servicing errors took place. Bank of America, with all their law firms, is not a regulatory agency and can not simply override or ignore a government audit by issuing a self-serving statement that it found no error.\n\nMoreover, the Loan History Statement you attached does not address the critical period when the property was under the control of your preservation contractors, ( Who admitted the locks were changed without authorization, and when the property was severely damaged.\n\nBank of America generated an AI letter as the HOA matter does not pertain to Bank of America. Furthermore, Bank of America, does not have access to accounting information nevertheless any ledger, accounting statement, or distribution record showing the actual amounts paid to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from the foreclosure sale proceeds, or how those amounts were credited against the loan or judgment and if Bank of America does have HOA information, it will be interesting to know how it was obtained.\n\nIt is now well documented that during this period, major banks, including through their relationship with XXXX XXXX, colluded with homeowners associations to drive foreclosures and extract payments from distressed homeowners. \nBank of America blanket denial, combined with the refusal to produce the actual HOA distribution records from the sale, raises serious questions about whether Bank of America is attempting to conceal the full extent of the payment misapplication and the improper benefit the Association received from the defective foreclosure process.\n\nA bare assertion that all payments were applied correctly without producing the underlying HOA ledgers, sale proceeds distribution records, or any explanation of how the government audit findings were considered does not constitute a reasonable investigation under Regulation X and the sole mentioned of it, means that an audit is merited. Error 2 Property Preservation Damage and Insurance Proceeds Bank of America state that property preservation activities were conducted in accordance with standard servicing practices and that Bank of America have no record of any insurance claims or proceeds. This response is inadequate. Your own preservation contractors caused damage to the property. One of your agents changed the locks and installed a lock-box without authorization, after which appliances and personal property were removed. The XXXX XXXX Police Department documented this incident. Your claim that you have no record of insurance claims does not address the damage caused by your own agents while the property remained legally mine. You have also failed to identify the systems searched or provide any preservation vendor records, invoices, or communications.\n\nError 3 Foreclosure Sale Based on Depressed Valuation You claim the foreclosure sale was conducted in accordance with applicable law and that the valuation was based on the condition of the property at the time of appraisal. You do not address the XX/XX/XXXX court order that specifically noted PROPERTY DAMAGE and directed Bank of America to repair the property within thirty days. You also ignore contemporaneous appraisals showing the damaged property was valued at approximately {$100000.00} less than half the judgment amount. You can not damage the property, ignore a court repair order, sell it in that condition, and then claim the valuation was accurate. You have provided no valuation analysis, property-condition evidence, or preservation records tied to the valuation.\n\nError 4 DOJ Enforcement Action Review and Exclusion from Settlements Bank of America state that the loan was not identified for review under any DOJ enforcement action or settlement. Bank of America response is not only disingenuous, but it also misleading.\n\nIn addition to the 2012 California-specific robo-signing case ( Case No. XXXX ), there were several major nationwide settlements involving Bank of America and its predecessor, XXXX. \nIn XXXX, the Department of Justice entered into its largest residential fair lending settlement in history against XXXX XXXX XXXX ( then owned by Bank of America ) in the Central District of XXXX. The {$330.00} XXXX settlement addressed systemic discrimination against minority borrowers. Plaintiff was excluded from any relief under this settlement despite extensive prior communications with Bank of America. \nIn XXXX, Bank of America, along with other major servicers, entered into the {$25.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX Settlement resolving widespread foreclosure and servicing abuses, including robo-signing. Bank of America paid the largest share of this settlement. Plaintiff was again excluded from any borrower relief.\n\nBetween XXXX and XXXX, Bank of America paid approximately {$16.00} XXXX to resolve Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities claims. Plaintiff received no compensation or remediation under any of these agreements, despite the clear overlap between the misconduct addressed in those settlements and the facts of her foreclosure, property damage, confirmation defects, and post-sale accounting issues.\n\nBank of America statement that the loan was not identified for review does not change the fact that Plaintiff was systematically excluded from relief programs designed to address the very categories of harm she suffered.\n\nIncomplete Foreclosure Accounting and Record Destruction Bank of America state that records concerning the distribution of foreclosure proceeds and the VA net-value acquisition calculation are no longer retained in your archival system. You provide only a partial Loan History Statement. You have not demonstrated that you conducted a reasonable search of all servicer files, foreclosure files, legal files, guaranty-claim files, or vendor files. Simply claiming records are purged or may be with the VA does not satisfy your obligations under Regulation X or in active litigation. Bank of America have also failed to provide document retention policy, purge dates, or an affidavit from a records custodian.\n\nCredit Reporting Response You state that the loan is no longer being reported to consumer reporting agencies and that prior reporting was accurate when made. This is insufficient. You have not identified what was actually reported, when it was reported, to which agencies, or what documents you reviewed to conclude the reporting was accurate and how negatively impacted and impacts my credit- despite that U. S. Federal agencies found these errors. A conclusory statement does not constitute a reasonable investigation.\n\nDemand for Supplemental Response Bank of America must supplement its response within ten ( 10 ) business days and provide the following : All documents reviewed or relied upon for each no error determination.\n\nThe complete foreclosure sale accounting, including distribution of proceeds and any VA net-value calculations.\n\nAll property preservation vendor records, invoices, work orders, and communications.\n\nAll HOA ledgers and records showing amounts paid from sale proceeds and how they were credited.\n\nAll insurance claim and proceeds records ( or a sworn explanation if none exist ) .All credit reporting history for this loan.\n\nA request-by-request explanation, tied to a specific Regulation X exception, for every document withheld as over-broad, burdensome, irrelevant, privileged, or outside your possession.\n\nFailure to provide a complete and compliant supplemental response will be treated as continued noncompliance with Regulation X and as evidence of bad faith.\n\nNothing in this letter waives any rights, claims, objections, remedies, or damages. All prior reservations of rights remain in full force and effect.\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Notice of Fiduciary and Ethical Obligations to XXXX XXXX XXXX This addemdum is directed to you in your capacity as counsel for Bank of America , N.A . in connection with the above-referenced loan and property. You are hereby placed on formal notice of your fiduciary duties and ethical obligations as an officer of the court. It appears that AI drafted a letter with matters that do not pertain to Bank of America.\n\nAs an attorney representing a client in matters involving federal statutes, ongoing litigation, and regulatory compliance, you owe duties that extend beyond mere advocacy for your client. These include : Duty of Candor to the Tribunal Under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3, and the corresponding rules adopted by the jurisdictions in which you practice, you have an affirmative duty to be candid with courts and to correct false or misleading statements made to any tribunal.\n\nThis duty continues even after a representation has concluded if you later learn that false evidence or statements were presented.\n\nDuty to Avoid Assisting in Fraud or Misrepresentation You may not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third party, nor may you assist a client in conduct that you know is criminal or fraudulent. This includes responses to formal regulatory requests under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), 12 U.S.C. 2605, and Regulation X.\n\nDuty to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation When responding to a borrowers Notice of Error or Request for Information under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, counsel has an obligation to ensure that the servicer has conducted a reasonable search and that the response is accurate and complete. A response that relies on conclusory statements while withholding material records does not satisfy this duty. \n\nDuty as an XXXX of the XXXX You are not merely a private advocate. You are an XXXX of the legal system with a special responsibility for the quality of justice. This includes the obligation to refrain from conduct that undermines the integrity of judicial or administrative processes, including the concealment of material information or the making of representations that are inconsistent with known facts in the record. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX response letter issued on behalf of Bank of America contains multiple deficiencies that raise serious concerns about compliance with these obligations. These include contradictory positions regarding the applicability of Regulation X, conclusory no error findings unsupported by identified records, failure to produce critical accounting and distribution documents from the foreclosure sale, and incomplete or evasive responses regarding property preservation, HOA payments, and credit reporting.\n\nYou are further advised that continued reliance on prior responses, blanket assertions that records have been purged, or deflection of responsibility to other entities ( such as the VA ) without a demonstrated reasonable search of all relevant files may constitute a violation of your ethical duties, particularly in light of the government audit findings and the documented internal concerns regarding the foreclosure and title issues.\n\nThis letter serves as formal notice that any further deficient or misleading responses may be used as evidence of bad faith and may be brought to the attention of the appropriate courts, regulatory bodies, and disciplinary authorities.\n\nNothing in this letter constitutes a waiver of any rights, claims, or remedies available to me. All prior objections, demands, and reservations of rights remain in full force and effect.\n\nI expect a complete and compliant supplemental response within the timeframe previously demanded. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Issue in XXXX Letter, Why Its an Error, Regulation/ Legal Problem 1 ) Contradictory position on Regulation X, '' They claim the response is under 1024.35 & 1024.36, but then say your XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX letter ( forwarded by XXXX ) was not a proper RESPA request because it wasnt sent to the designated address. '' You can not invoke the protections of Regulation X while simultaneously disclaiming its obligations. This is a classic bad-faith tactic.\n\n2 ) Conclusory no error findings, '' They repeatedly say no errors were identified without describing what investigation was done, which systems were searched, or which documents were reviewed. \", Regulation X requires a reasonable investigation. A bare conclusion is insufficient ( see XXXX XXXX Bank of America ). \n\n3 ) Failure to identify relied-upon documents, They never clearly list what records they actually reviewed for each no error determination., Required under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ( e ) and 1024.36 ( d ).\n\n4 ) Global / blanket objections, '' They make a broad statement that some requests are overbroad, burdensome, or not in their possession without tying each objection to specific requests. \", Regulation X requires them to respond to the reasonably identifiable portion and explain each withholding specifically.\n\n5 ) Incomplete foreclosure accounting, '' They only gave a partial Loan History Statement and claimed records of foreclosure proceeds distribution and VA net-value calculation are no longer retained. They did not prove they searched all relevant files ( servicing, legal, foreclosure, vendor ). \", This is not a reasonable search. They also failed to provide retention policy or custodian affidavit.\n\n6 ) VA record deflection, They say VA net-value records may have been maintained by the VA without showing they searched their own guaranty-claim files or vendor files., XXXX ( as servicer ) had obligations to maintain and produce these records.\n\n7 ) Weak valuation response ( Error 3 ), '' They claim the sale was proper and valuation was accurate, but completely ignore the XX/XX/XXXX court order ( PROPERTY DAMAGE ) and the XX/XX/XXXX appraisals showing ~ $ XXXX value. \", They must address the specific evidence you raised.\n\n8 ) Misleading settlement response ( Error 4 ), They say the loan was not identified for any settlement. This is misleading because you were excluded from the XXXX XXXX Fair Lending Settlement and the XXXX XXXX XXXX Settlement despite the nature of your claims., They are downplaying the pattern of exclusion.\n\n9 ) Credit reporting response is conclusory, '' They say the loan is no longer reported and prior reporting was accurate when made without identifying what was reported, when, or to which bureaus. \", This does not constitute a proper investigation or correction under FCRA or RESPA.\n\n10 ) Record destruction without justification, \" They admit BPOs and old escrow statements were purged but provide no retention policy, purge dates, or proof of reasonable search before destruction ( especially after litigation was foreseeable ). \", This can support spoliation arguments.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-27T00:09:47.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"21209","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22596398","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-05-26T23:46:12.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Duty to Avoid <em>Assisting</em> in Fraud or Misrepresentation You may not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third party, nor may you <em>assist</em> a client in conduct that you know is criminal or fraudulent. This includes responses to formal regulatory requests under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), 12 U.S.C. 2605, and Regulation X."]},"sort":[7.51846,"22596398"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12975224","_score":6.3268414,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"STATE OF NEW YORK\nWESTCHESTER COUNTY\n--------------------------------------\t\t\t\t   \n\n1.\tThe post office address of the claimant is 148 Clove Road, New Rochelle, NY 10801.\n(Plaintiff herewith listed is also known as, her, she, me, my, I, and claimant.)\n\n2.\tThese claims arises from the acts and omissions of the defendants The State of New York. Details of said acts and omissions are as follows:\n\n\n3.\tCAUSES OF ACTIONS: (CoA)\nThe Plaintiffs Cause(s) of action is a legal claim that allows her to seek judicial relief. These CoAs gives the Plaintiff the legal right to seek a remedy and relief from the State of New York because of acts of omission, failure to perform duty to protect, and the breach of the States obligation to keep its citizen, the Plaintiff, from harm, the harm that is still existing and still being allowed by the defendant(s), and that is being perpetuated on the Plaintiff by immoral groups, companies, entities, and individual persons, that has committed fraud, and illegal transactions against the Plaintiffs mortgage, and is still stealing from the Plaintiff, and that has brought severe financial and emotional harm to the plaintiff. The Plaintiffs CoA is also for the group of operative facts that is giving rise to more than one basis for suing; factual situations and matters that entitles me, the Plaintiff, to obtain a remedy and relief in court from my New York State, that failed to protect me and has been derelict in the duty to protect me from fraud, harm, destruction, illegal dealings, and abuse from these bad entities.\nThe CoAs listed are the Mortgage frauds and the fraudulent transactions and theft of over $500,000.00 from the Plaintiffs home and equity done by misconduct to her mortgage and escrow through fraud and deliberate theft by: Countrywide, XXXX XXXX XXXX New York Bank of Mellon, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX servicers. The loan numbers listed below are the loan numbers that was used to force illegal foreclosures, and then into illegal modifications. They used multiple loan numbers to divert the system, with ambiguity sidetracking, using these multiple loan numbers, by first, illegally applying, immediately, $5,000.00, to Plaintiffs loan stating the Plaintiffs original loan was $445,000.00, when in fact, the Plaintiffs original purchase price is only $440,000.00. The fraud to the Plaintiffs mortgage began immediately after she was already the victim of a Countrywide mortgage scam, and then immediately became victim to the XXXX XXXX XXXX, New York Bank of Mellon, and their servicers: XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX  Their  increases added to the Plaintiffs mortgage balance is transactional fraud, stealing, and deliberate theft. These bad acts began happening during the financial takeovers of the Plaintiffs mortgage from each entity, starting with XXXX XXXX XXXX transaction from Countrywide. Plaintiff was then illegally forced, immediately, into an illegal and secret foreclosure and modification with illegal secret and hidden fees, illegal balloons, that forced the Plaintiff into her escrow being managed by these new banks and servicers, who then began adding their illegal fees, and illegal interest, and increased interest rate into the Plaintiffs mortgage loan, and stealing escrow funds, all together stealing over $XXXX in funds and equity. These are the Loan numbers: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Loan XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Loan XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\na. CoA: Every month that Plaintiff makes a mortgage payment, plaintiff is forced to pay for the illegal inflated XXXX, and now the illegal ballooned balance of XXXX mortgage balance, that has risen, even more now in the year XXXX  Plaintiff bought her home in XXXX, and the purchase price was only XXXX (NOT XXXX, AS THESE 2-BANKS AND THEIR SERVICERS LISTS AS PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL  MORTGAGE BALANCE). Before Countrywide defaulted and went under, Plaintiffs original mortgage balance purchase was only XXXX NEVER XXXX. WHERE DID THIS EXTRA XXXX  ADDED TO PLAINTIFFS MORTGAGE BALANCE COME FROM? The Plaintiff has been overcharged illegally since the Countrywide default and since these other 2-banks and their servicers took over the Plaintiffs mortgage and escrow. This has been and still is illegal, and Plaintiff has been and still is being forced to pay an illegal and inflated mortgage payment and escrow on an illegal balance. Twenty-two (22) years later, due to fraud, Plaintiffs mortgage has illegally increased to over XXXX. This is an abusive and outrageous derelict of duty allowed by the State of New York and its agencies that the Plaintiffs New York State government will not take notice of nor assist in the Plaintiffs many, many pleas for their help against this fraud and theft. The Plaintiffs mortgage should be less than XXXX, in XXXX, which is XXXX  years into my homes mortgage loan. I am XXXX  years old and should be retired, but I cannot retire because I have to pay for this illegal inflated mortgage. The Plaintiff has been placed into an extremely dire situation, by fraud, with no help, or remedy, or assistance for relief from her New York State government. I have a 30-year fixed mortgage in year 22 of my 30-year mortgage. The mortgage balance has risen taking the Plaintiffs home extremely higher in the mortgage balance instead of decreasing for a 30-year payoff.\nb. CoA: Countrywide was Plaintiffs mortgage bank that went under due to fraud. Her original mortgage was with Countrywide for XXXX that went under, due to fraud, became compromised and no one from the State of New York, nor the NYS Banking Department, nor the NYS Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau, nor the NYS courts, nor the Office of the Attorney General, would help the Plaintiff with this matter to determine the next steps or what to do with her abandoned Countrywide loan, even though she asked all of the agencies and the defendant(s) for help repeatedly. Plaintiff had no missed payments, and she was still paying her loan via the Countrywide website on time and still paying her own escrow on time. The Plaintiff was not aware or informed of Countrywides default by any government agency nor The State of New York as a homeowner, the victim of a Mortgage scam.\nc. CoA: The Plaintiff was not informed about this Countrywide fraud and their bank scam becoming invalid and in default or defunct by any State of New York agency. The Plaintiff  and her loan was left abandoned. The State of New York was and is derelict in duty to the Plaintiff.\nd. CoAXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX took over Plaintiffs mortgage loan, but did not contact the Plaintiff immediately to inform her that they were her newly replacement mortgage holders, a very delayed harmful action. The State of New York still has done nothing about this delay by XXXX, who then began to deal fraudulently with the Plaintiff. The plaintiff asked and requested repeatedly for the State of New York and its agencies to look into this transaction transfer and nothing was done. The defendant(s) was and is still derelict in their duty.\ne. CoA XXXX  illegally damaged Plaintiffs credit and FICO score immediately taking over her mortgage loan. The Plaintiff only found out that XXXX  took over her loan, because when XXXX  took over, XXXX  immediately damaged Plaintiffs credit and FICO score, even though the Plaintiff  had never missed any payments, and was still paying her own escrow timely. The Plaintiff learned that BOA was her new mortgage bank  because the 3-credit bureaus informed the Plaintiff that her credit was listing derogatory information by the mortgage bank: XXXX. This is how the Plaintiff found out XXXX  was her new mortgage loan company, and this negative information was listed by XXXX, in the excessive amount of over XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX  had not contacted the Plaintiff at all prior to their bad derogatory information listed on her credit file or to inform the Plaintiff they were her new mortgage bank. The purchase price of Plaintiffs mortgage in XXXX XXXX was only XXXX All 3-credit bureaus investigated her complaint and dispute of the credit damage and excessive amount, but XXXX  upheld the XXXX  balance stating the mortgage balance was correct. I made numerous complaints to my state agencies and government, but no one from any New York State Agency or government office would contact me back or communicate with the Plaintiff at all. A derelict of their duty to the Plaintiff. Especially, after the Countrywide mortgage scam.\nf. CoA: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  then immediately added an illegal balloon onto the Plaintiffs mortgage loan along with secret, and hefty illegal fees, illegal interest, and a high interest rate, done, after destroying the Plaintiffs creditworthiness. A fraudulent and illegal act that my State of New York has still not helped to protect the Plaintiff from of help remedy with a relief.\ng. CoA: XXXX  will not give Plaintiff the information that states why they applied these secret and illegal actions: ballon, fees, excessively added interest, high interest rate, and illegal damaging derogatory information to the credit reports, against the Plaintiff and her loan, and to date, XXXX,  is still avoiding and refusing to give this exact financial accounting for the breakdown of these illegal add-ons and the balloon. Just that there is a ballon, and I have to pay it, was their customer services response to the Plaintiff. The State of New York and its agencies allowed these banks and their servicers to send out erroneous information and documents and did nothing to stop the fraud and theft. The act of omission and dereliction of duty to the Plaintiff by her State of New York and its agencies.\nh. CoA: The Plaintiff asked the State of New York and its agencies for help; they did nothing to assist or help her with this illegal situation or in an investigation: (The NYS Banking Department, The NYS Consumer Fraud Protections Bureau, The NYS Office of the Attorney General, the NYS courts, [and the Federal Court who I will also list a CoA for in this Claim.]. These New York state agencies gave no help or remedy or relief to the Plaintiff. The act of omission and a dereliction of duty.\ni. CoA: XXXX  then tried to secretly foreclose on the Plaintiffs loan. When the Plaintiff proved that she had never missed payments, XXXX  then forced the Plaintiff into an illegal modification that also added more illegal hidden fees and illegal interest and an even higher interest rate. The NYS courts would not stop this illegal action against the Plaintiff and would not allow me to appear in court to state my case with evidence. The State of New York did nothing to investigate or help the Plaintiff in this fraud and scam. The Stat of New Yorks bad acts of omission and dereliction of duty. The Judicial system would not help, even with evidence of proof from the Plaintiff. \nj. CoA: The Plaintiffs State of New York agencies and NYS courts would not help me or stop this harm and abuse of fraud. Plaintiff will show that she hired a law firm of attorneys for help: The Radow Law Group, that stole Plaintiffs retainer funds and lied about a litigation they never started and that never happened, and that they had never filed court papers, and never appeared in any courtroom on behalf of the Plaintiff. But this Radow Law Group billed Plaintiffs retainer for these fees. Nothing was ever done, just additional fraud to the Plaintiff by these attorneys. The Plaintiff know these Radow attorneys never did anything because the court and judge told the Plaintiff that the court had never heard of these attorneys, and they were never in any New York State court about my mortgage case, or for the Plaintiff, for any reason, and that Plaintiffs case was never filed and there was no motions or appearances by these attorneys: Radow Law Group. [I will list and show the cause of action against the State of New York in reference to this Radow Law Group in this claim  See exhibits.] When I tried to get help with these fraudulent attorneys, while still trying to get help with the fraudulent mortgage, the State of New York and its agencies did nothing to help. The act of omission and a dereliction of duty.\nk. CoA: XXXX XXXX XXXX immediately damaged Plaintiffs credit report so she could not refinance elsewhere after finding out about the Countrywide fraudulent scam and the (Plaintiff has the XXXX  apologizing letter for damaging her credit that was issued much too late), because the Plaintiff presented refinance documents from another bank (Peopless Bank), the bank that was going to help Plaintiff refinance away from the XXXX  fraud, and because Plaintiff was able to present to Peoples Bank her on time mortgage and escrow payments, and credit history before the Countrywide scam and XXXX  takeover of her mortgage, Peoples Bank was willing to refinance the Plaintiff, but the damages done by XXXXXXXX  and XXXX  deliberate slowness to correct the Plaintiffs credit reporting, caused delays for the refinance, and made the Plaintiff lose her good interest rate from Peoples bank, and lose out on the refinance because Peoples Bank could not wait for such a delay waiting for XXXX  correction, and XXXX  duty to respond promptly. The State of New York did nothing to help with this matter. The act of omission and a dereliction of duty.\nl. CoA: XXXX  fraud: hidden fees, illegal ballon, excessive fees, excessive interest and increase interest rates, and damages to Plaintiffs credit, prohibited the Plaintiff from being able to refinance away to stop the fraud and drove Plaintiffs other credit obligations into a dire situation, including Plaintiffs employment. The NYS Office of the Attorney General, nor the NYS agencies, nor the NYS courts, [and the Federal Court who Plaintiff will also list as a CoA for in this Claim,] is the defendant(s) act of omission and a dereliction of duty\nm. CoA: XXXX  then immediately sold Plaintiffs mortgage to New York BANK OF MELLON  (NY-BOM), before correcting Plaintiffs credit, who then also added their NY-BOM fraudulent and hidden fees, illegal balloon, illegal interest, and illegal fees, interest, and high interest rate to Plaintiffs mortgage that was already subjected to fraud and theft. Plaintiff  continually asked the State of New York and its agencies for help; they did nothing to assist or help the Plaintiff with this illegal situation or launch a viable investigation: not (The NYS Banking Department, The NYS Consumer Fraud Protections Bureau, The NYS Office of the Attorney General, nor the NYS courts, [and the Federal Court who Plaintiff will also list as a CoA for in this Claim.] The defendant(s) act of omission and a dereliction of duty.\nn. CoA: Both XXXX XXXX XXXX and New York Bank of Mellon used the mortgage servicer: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who then put their XXXX  servicers fraudulent hidden fees, illegally forced Plaintiff into another escrow that they took over. The NY-BOM and XXXX  then began to charge illegal escrow fees to the plaintiff by force with unlawful, illegal interest into the Plaintiffs mortgage loan and then began to steal the funds from the Plaintiffs escrow account, that she was forced into with a new and illegal modification from NY-BOM, along with XXXX  additional hidden fees. The State of New York and its agencies still has not helped the Plaintiff and is still allowing the Plaintiff to be harmed, abused, and subjected to severe fraud and theft. The Plaintiff was suffering trying to hold onto her family home. The act of omission and dereliction of duty by the State of New York to the Plaintiff.\no. CoA: These three (3) banks: Countrywides fraud, XXXX XXXX XXXX  Fraud, New York Bank of Mellons fraud, and the servicers: XXXX XXXX XXXX  and now XXXX, has to date: XXXX XXXX  stolen over $500,000.00 (Five hundred thousand US dollars), in funds and equity from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiffs home, and equity by their fraudulent activities and excessive thefts. The Plaintiffs New York State government, the State of New York agencies, courts, and NYS Office of the Attorney General still has done nothing to protect the plaintiff from this fraud, harm, abuse, and theft with no remedy or relief. An act of omission and a dereliction of duty.\np. CoA: XXXX theft of Plaintiffs escrow funds is still continuing, and XXXX  continue to demand more and more funds. XXXX  demanded so much excess funds for my escrow, they started taking my mortgage payment, illegally, to pay my escrow instead of my mortgage loan. By doing this they tried to place the Plaintiff into a foreclosure, again, and then they placed the Plaintiff into another new modification again, with hidden fees, and adding more illegal fees. The State of New York did nothing to stop this and allowed this abuse, harm, fraud, and theft. An act of omission and a dereliction of duty to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has continually asked for help.\nq. CoA: SLS then rejected Plaintiffs mortgage loan payments when she complained and asked for a forensic financial accounting, and for a request to escrow-out as they had promised to do, once the Plaintiff proved they were stealing her escrow funds, but the Plaintiffs State of New York has still done nothing to address this fraud, abuse, theft, and harm to the Plaintiff. An act of omission and a dereliction of duty to the Plaintiff by the State of New York.\nr. CoA: SLS stated they took the mortgage payments to pay Plaintiffs escrow, (an escrow that Plaintiff had always paid: her taxes and HO insurance, herself, with not problems and never late). These SLS servicers late payments continued that eventually initiated the tax assessor to contact me because the SLS was not paying the taxes out or on time. SLS told bogus lies about the escrow funds they were stealing from the Plaintiff escrow account. SLS said that the Plaintiffs taxes went up and the insurance premiums increased. These were lies that Plaintiff proved in writing to the State of New York agencies, NYS banking Department, the CFPB, and the OAG. But these agencies and government offices did absolutely nothing to stop these lies and fraud. An act of omission and a dereliction of duty to the Plaintiff.\ns. CoA: The Plaintiff proved SLSs fraud and lies for the escrow thefts, but still the State of New York did nothing to help the Plaintiff or her mortgage. Plaintiff proved that she had grieved her own taxes, (something these servicers would never do), and by the Plaintiff being a senior citizen her age brought her taxes down (documents available in exhibits). Plaintiff proved that SLS lied about the homeowners (HO) insurance premiums. SLS stated they were told by the insurance agent that the Plaintiffs premiums increased and SLS presented false insurance documents, not knowing that the Plaintiff was the insurance agent on her policy and is still the writing insurance agent for her own homeowners insurance policy, since 2003. But, the State of New York, its agencies, NYS courts, or NYS government did nothing about these lies and thefts. So, Plaintiffs mortgage payments and escrow was continually (and is still continually be stolen). These escrows payment are the means that helps SLS and its banks steal funds and equity from the Plaintiff and her mortgage. (Documents of evidence available) An act of omission and a dereliction of duty by the State of New York to protect the Plaintiff.\nt. CoA I, XXXX XXXX  Plaintiff, was just billed by XXXX, now SXXXX XXXX an illegal charge to the escrow for school taxes. Shellpoint demanded more escrow dollars from me to make this payment. I had just had a demand for more escrow dollars in  XXXX from XXXX, before XXXX  took over servicing for XXXX to pay taxes that are fraudulent demands. When XXXX  demanded more excessive funds from me again, four months later in XXXX  I called the tax assessors office who told me that my taxes were now in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX because I am XXXX  years old and my taxes has been reduced from over XXXX and this is the balance that was billed to my mortgage.  The tax assessor also sent me the document they sent to XXXX  that clearly indicated this information and that the bill would only be XXXX  and not the payment of XXXX because it has been reduced, and the new payment is only $2,352.07 (documents available in the exhibits). SLS/Shellpoint was charging the Plaintiffs escrow illegally and stealing the funds from the escrow account). (Document from assessor tax letter). Where are these funds stolen from the escrow? NOW IN XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FOR THE XXXX  IS ASKING FOR MORE FUNDS FOR THE ESCROW ACCOUNT. Again, where are the funds from the XXXX that has been stolen? The State of New York and its agencies still has done nothing to remedy these thefts of abuse and has not helped in any relief from this harm to the Plaintiff. An act of omission and a dereliction of duty.\nu. CoA: The Plaintiff has been asking: XXXX, The State of New York, The Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau, The NYS OAG for help, to find out where these stolen funds from the Plaintiffs escrow are that has been disappearing, because these dollars are no longer in her escrow account up to the date XXXX XXXXXXXX  is still demanding more escrow funds from the plaintiff: XXXX XXXX. WHERE ARE THESE STOLEN FUNDS? The State of New York and its agencies still has done nothing to remedy these thefts of abuse and has not helped in any relief from this harm to the Plaintiff. An act of omission and a dereliction of duty.\nw. CoA: To date: XXXX XXXX each and every time that Plaintiff makes a mortgage payment, since Countrywide defaulted on their fraudulent scam mortgage loan, the Plaintiff  has been subject to even more severe, scam, fraud, financial abuse, and emotional abuse, that has placed her in financial and emotional harm and her State of New York, its agencies, Courts, NYS OAG has done nothing to protect or assist her in getting back the equity and funds stolen and to finally stop this continued theft of the Plaintiff and her mortgage. The State of New York and its agencies still has done nothing to remedy these thefts of abuse and has not helped in any relief from this harm to the Plaintiff. An act of omission and a dereliction of duty.\nXXXX. CoA: The Plaintiff had just recently tried to hire a forensic audit company. I requested the service of this forensic accountant (listed below), to audit my mortgage. He was ready and avidly pursuing my audit request. At a $10,000.00 fee. He was: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MD XXXX  Try the Loan Calculator\nRecommended by the American Bar Associations Guide to Homeownership\n\nBut, when I told him I would be ready to start a case to go into court with him and his findings, once he completed the audit, he said he only does the forensic, he does nothing in court and would give me his findings on paper. I told him I will hire an attorney to help me in court and for him to communicate the audit findings with the attorney that I hire to take into court. Immediately this XXXX XXXX then sent me an email saying he could no longer help me. I have not been able to contact him since.\n\nAll the Plaintiff did was offer to hire an attorney to assist the forensic mortgage audit and take the information he concluded in his audit into court. Plaintiff believes she, once again, was about to become a victim of dishonesty, theft, and fraud. The State of New York has repeatedly allowed the Plaintiff to be subjected to fraudulent abuse. An act of omission and a dereliction of duty.\n\ny. CoA: The Plaintiff just recently file a lawsuit, as pro se, because all efforts to hire a professional representative became subjected to fraud. The court case that was recently filed is the followingXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX interceded and help me with this dishonest judge. But XXXX  does not litigate. There are also multiple cases that I had filed in the Supreme Court in White Plains, but they cannot seem to find the state docket numbers, even though I paid the filing fees, motion fees, and XXXX  fees. The XXXX XXXX XXXX  never filed my action, I had too. This XXXX fraud almost sent me into a foreclosure and forced another modification with hidden fees and excessive interest. I still have not received any help about this fraud from my State of New York, or its agencies. An act of omission and a dereliction of duty.\nz. CoA: The defendant(s) dereliction of duty to the Plaintiff constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct. But for the dereliction of duty and bad acts and omissions by Plaintiffs State of New York and its agencies to the Plaintiff, who has been severely harmed and abused by these mortgage banks, their servicers: XXXX and the XXXX XXXX XXXX et al, the Plaintiff would have been remedied. Today, XXXX  the XXXX XXXX just raised my mortgage payment by over XXXX per month, because they are trying to force their PSI insurance company into my home insurance at XXXX, annually, with their fees per installment and my XXXX  insurance is only XXXX. Additionally, XXXX  states that my taxes have increased when I proved that my taxes, due to my XXXX XXXX XXXX  as a senior, has decreased. WHERE ARE THE XXXX  FUNDS THAT XXXX  DEBITED FROM MY ACCOUNT A FEW MONTHS AGO: ILLEGALLY? XXXX  MADE THE PROMISE TO ALLOW THE PLAINTIFF TO ESCROW OUT AND PAY HER OWN ESCROW AFTER PLAINTIFF MADE 12-MONTH OF ON TIME PAYMENTS. THE PLAINTIFF HAS MADE YEARS OF ON TIME PAYMENTS SINCE THE LAST ILLEGAL FORCED MODIFICATION, AND THE PLAINTIFF IS STILL BEING FORCED TO PAY THE ILLEGAL ESCROW THAT THE BANK & SERVICERS ARE MANIPULATING TO THEIR BENEFIT WITH ILLEGAL DEMANDS FOR MORE AND MORE FUNDS AND FEES. THE ESCROW MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE BANK AND SERVICER AND BACK TO THE PLAINTIFF.\nPlaintiff states here in this legal complaint these causes of action and request for remedy, relief, and immediate help from the State of New York, the defendant(s).\nAdditionally, but for the purposes of the intentional infliction of financial fraud, emotional distress and abuse, the extreme and outrageous illegal dealings and conduct of the mortgage banks, servicers, and law firms, it is these entities actions that is so severely inappropriate, and illegal, and harmful to the Plaintiff, that it is outside of the bounds of what is tolerated by anyone in society, and the Plaintiff request a remedy and relief from the defendant(s), from the State of New Yorks due to the dereliction of duty and bad acts of omission to the Plaintiff. These entities thefts and frauds are so unacceptable that it is not okay by the Plaintiff, according to society's standards, to be abused and harmed and subject to such financial fraud and scams and that it is the defendant(s) dereliction of duty that should not have allowed the Plaintiff to be so unjustly harmed. The Plaintiff has had no protection from the State of New York, its agencies, and governments. The Defendant(s) bad acts of omission and dereliction of duty to the Plaintiff.\nBut for the State of New York and its agencies, who still has done nothing to remedy these thefts of abuse, scams, and harm to Plaintiffs financial situation by these frauds, her stolen equity in the amounts of over $500,000.00, and being forced to pay an illegal and excessive mortgage payment, still monthly and illegal escrow funds, still to date: XXXX XXXX  on the fraudulent balance of oveXXXX XXXX  the State of New York is in a very bad act and omission and dereliction of duty to the Plaintiff for no help at all and has failed to help the Plaintiff receive any remedy and relief from the bank, servicers, New York State agencies, courts, or the NYS OAG, from these fraudulent entities. This leaves the Plaintiff heavily burdened and unable to find justice, even in her own out-of-pocket by hiring professionals with retainer fees, due to the lack of help from the State of New Yorks failure to protect and enforce laws to ensure legal dealing for the Plaintiff, and her right to justice.\nThe Plaintiff, therefore, is seeking a remedy and relief from the State of New York in the amount of XXXX  (Eight million, and five hundred thousand US dollars). This calculation is for the harm the State of New York allowed mortgage banks, entities, and others to operate illegally against the Plaintiff with illegal dealings and who committed repeated fraud against the Plaintiff, with the intent to commit fraud causing harm to the Plaintiff, that has been allowed due to the State of New Yorks dereliction of duty and bad acts of omission, that is still forcing the plaintiff to continue to payout to these corrupt organizations; who has been committing fraud against the Plaintiff and her home, for over 1XXXX years and is still continuing to do so in XXXX.\nThe Plaintiff respectfully request the remedy and relief or whatever relief the courts deems fair and faithful for the stolen funds and equity, and for the harm and abuse due to the bad acts of omission and dereliction of duty by the State of York to protect the Plaintiff. \nThat the Defendant(s) and its agencies in their bad acts of omission and dereliction of duty to the Plaintiff, allowed bad entities and their agents, and other individuals listed in this complaint to intentionally, maliciously, and without just cause, knowingly commit fraud and abuse to the Plaintiff and her mortgage that caused her irreparable harm.\nThat as a result of the Defendant(s) lack of actions to protect XXXX XXXX Plaintiff is forced to bring this lawsuit, pro se, with hopes of finally receiving justice, restitution, and an amicable remedy and relief.\nThe Plaintiff, XXXX XXXX XXXX pray for such remedy and relief as in law or equity that she may also be entitled.\n_","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-15T11:38:05.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"10801","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12975224","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","date_received":"2025-04-15T11:19:23.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I told him I will hire an attorney to help me in court and for him to communicate the <em>audit</em> findings with the attorney that I hire to take into court. Immediately this XXXX XXXX then sent me an email saying he could no longer help me. I have not been able to contact him since.\n\nAll the Plaintiff did was offer to hire an attorney to <em>assist</em> the forensic mortgage <em>audit</em> and take the information he concluded in his <em>audit</em> into court."],"issue":["Trouble <em>during</em> payment process"]},"sort":[6.3268414,"12975224"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2680977","_score":5.9343567,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Okay just to be clear I have filed complaints since about 7 months ago with every federal, state, local,  house, goveneor, sheriff, chief, representatives and more I had sent out over 5000 emails,  an according t my XXXX bill I had made over 20,000 in the last two months alone. Denial letters from free legal services from missiouri and arkansas, denial from help from victiums of crimes special programs and denial from attorney generals and on and on and on. \n\nOk it kind of a long story it actually starts almost five months ago, lets just say since five months ago we have suffered hacking and scammers, and idenity theft and it was bad for a while we were  and are almosr 7000 in debt just from that alone not including everything on my credit record with is almost 70,000 which I thnk some is my student loans. Well after afew weeks the calmed down a bit.\nWell about a week  a month after that, I had to stop working because of my health being so XXXX so I havent worked in almost 4 months now and still waiting on XXXX to kick it.  \nWell we ended up having to get  another vehicle,  cause of my appointsments and hospital visits it wasnt working out with husbands shedule. And he was goning to lose his job if we kept at it\nSo on XX/XX/XXXX we finally got someone to give us a chance with a truck which my husband used for work sometimes.\nWell that was the first time XXXX XXXX lied to me, when they called me about being approved for sure I was told all we had to do was come and sign the papers and it was going to be XXXX  Dollars Down.  No more than that, I thought thank god,\nWell of course I still had not be released to go back to work yet not sure when I am going back honestly,  my health is XXXX XXXX, andy ways  about  a week of having the truck it started acting up they were very slow to respond abut the issue and it took  almost two weeks for them to actually do something about it.\n\nWell XX/XX/XXXX I told my husband since we were so far in debt with everything with the scamming and hacking that we was not going to have to file for bankcruptcy and I had researched online that we can file for a petition of affirmation of  automatitc stay of assets which would help keep the only assets we had\nWell I went online which since we had got hacked, and scammed and the idenity theft I had set up proxy, vpns, IP addresses,  and emails and everything it was that bad. \n\nWell I was online again looking for free legal help to fill the  paperwork out and were to get the forms from online frokm the district courst of missouri and I filled it all out the waviers for the courts cost and fees and everything else then was told that it  would be filed on XX/XX/XXXX and that afternoon was told go aheaed and send out to the dealerships and in a few days we finish the rest of the procedure and it was gonna cost like XXXX dollars well with me not working I had just got my last check and all  ihad left ws XXXX so I gave him that through online transfer. \n\nSo the next day XX/XX/XXXX at around XXXX we heard a tow truck outside and my husband went to look and their they were taking his truck, we had not received one call, one , text, or email or any notice that this was happening at all.   My husband jumped in my car and drove two hours away to talk to them to see what was going on and when he got there they \n\nTHE FINACE SIDE OF THE COMPANY TOLD HIM HE COULD HAVE THE TRUCK BACK IF HE PAID THEM XXXX FOR TOWING IT.   \nWELL WHY HE WAS OUT THERE I HAD GONE ONLINE AND FILIED OUT COMPLAINTS I KNOW THEY ARE IN THE WRONG FOR DOING THAT. \n\nWELL THAT SAME DAY I TALKED TO THE GM XXXX WHICH TOOK ME 8 TIMES TO GET HIM BECAUSE XXXX I THINK HER NAME WAS OR XXXX KEPT LYING TO ME WHEN I ASKE TO SPEAK TO THE GM SHE SAID SHE WAS AND THAT IS NOT HOW SHE INTRADUCED HERESLF ON THE PHONE WHEN ANSERING PLUS I HAD TALKE D TO HER MANY TIMES BEFORE.\n\nHAD TO GO THROUGH CUSTOMER SERVICE LINE AND ASK FOR GM FINALLY GOT  HIM XXXX\n\nAND HE SAID THAT BECAUSE FO THE COMPLAINTS I HAD SUBMITTED THATS WHY THEY TOOK THE TRUCK AND IT WAS BEING REVIEWED BY THEIR SUPPOSEDLY TEAM OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. \n\nYET THEY TOLD MY HUSBAND THAT THEY RECEIVED THE PAPERS ABOUT THE BANK RUPTCY AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY THEY TOOKT THE TRUCK BACK.\n\nCONFLICTING STORIES THERE,  WELL SINCE THEN I HAVE BEEN ONLINE TRYING TO LEARN HOW TO UPGRADE TO EFILE WELL THAT WAS A WEEK WASTED TO COME AND FIND OUT I CANT WHEN I HAVE DOCUMENTS FROM ONLINE SHOWING AND STATING ON HOW YOU CAN IF YOU REPRESENTING YOURSELF PRO SE\n\nWELL IN THAT TIME THEY BARLY SPOKE TO ME THEY TALKED TO MY HUSBAND THOUGH.  WELL THRUSDAY HE TALKED TO THEM LATE EVENING  AND THEY TOLD HIM THAT IF I DROPPED THE LAWSUIT THAT THEY WOULD RETURN THE TRUCK BACK TO US AND WOULD BE CHARGED FOR THE TOWING\n\nFUNNY THING IS ABOUT THE WHOLE THING I NEVER FILED YET I GOT SOME HELP AND WE WERE HAVING SOMEONE SERVED A DEMAND LETTER WITH ONE OF THE BARGGININGS WAST TO RETURN THE TRUCK.\n\nSO APPARENTLY HE HAS BEEN TALKING TO XXXX, AND XXXX, AND XXXX AT XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AR. XXXX XXXX\n\nWELL THE NEXT DAY I SENT VIA EMAIL AND ONLINE FAX TO HEADQUARTERS WELL WHAT THEY SHOW ONLINE AS HEADQUARTERS AND SENT TO THE XXXX NUMBER EMAIL EVEN THOUGH IST XXXX AR. XX/XX/XXXX EMAIL AS WELL. \n\n I  WLL ATTACH COPY OF THAT AS WELL, WELL DIDNT HEAR NOTHING AND MY HUSBAND ASKED ME TO CALL THEM SO  I DID STARTING AT XXXX XXXX TILL  ABOUT XXXX AT NIGHT WHEN I CALLED THEY HUNG UP, PUT ME ON HOLD FOREVER AND THEN HANG UP TAKE MESSAGE FOR XXXX AND SAID HE WAS BUSY AND DIDNT EVER CALL BACK AT ALL I CALLED EVERY NAME ON LIST TO CORP. OFFICE IN XXXX, IN AND LEFT MESSAGE STATING I SENT EMAIL EXKPLAING THE REASON WE WAS FILING AND THERE WAS NO LAWSUIT AND THAT ALL WE WANTED WAS WHAT WE ASKED FOR.   THEN  ABOUT XXXX XXXX XXXX FINALLY ANSERED THE DOOR HE \n\nSTATED TO ME HE TEXTED MY HUSBAD THAT MORING AND TOLD HIM THAT HE WOUDLNT KNOW TILL XXXX\nAND THAT HE MIGHT HAVE TO BE PUT INTO ANOTHER VEHICAL NOT THE TRUCK.\n\nNOW, I WAS VERY MAD SINCE FRIDAY I HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT RESEARCH AND RESEARCH AND I FOUND OUT A LOT OF THINGS \n\nWHICH ALL GO AGAINST OUR CIVIL RIGHTS, AND POOR WORK ETHICS ON THEIR POINT OF VEIW, \nNOW THEY TOLD MY HUSBAND THAT THE ONLY HE COULD HAVE HIS THINGS OUT OF THE CAR WAS TO GIVE BACK THE OTHER KEY .\n\nWELL LIKE I SAID I HVE RESEARCHED XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX AND I HAVE FOUND OUT A LOT ABOUT THIS COMPANY AND I ALSO HAVE AT LEAST OVER 25000 DOWNLOADS OF MISSIOURI,  ARKANSAS, AND XXXX  LAWS ON CIVIL RIGHS, CIVIL RIGHTS AND AUTOMOBILES AND CIVIL RIGHT AND REPOSSIONS AS WELL.\n\nI HAVE OVER 100 TABS SAVED ON PHONE AND LAPTOP AND DOCUMENTS ABOUIT THIS COMPANY, MANY LAWSUITS AND LOTS OF UNFAIR PRACTICES AND AND REPOSSESIONS AND MORE, \n\nI WILL ONLY SEND CERTAIN THINGS PRETAING TO THIS MOSTLY .\n\nEverything here I have got off their websites, contracts  as employees, share holders,  and more mainly going to focus on the problem at hand and I have read and downloaded all the law archives from Missouri, Arkansas, Indianan. I have read and downloaded the laws pertaining to civil rights, repossession and arbritaration laws as well and I  have downloaded the Byrider Franchising hand book 0n how they are to run the the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX stores the chains of commands policy they are to follow and more and I also have clips of the contract as well\nWHICH THE CONTRACT AND THEIR POLICYS CONTRADICT THEMSELVES AND THEY DID NOT FOLLOW ANY OF THE PROCEDURES ON CONTRACT OR HANDBOOK. Portioning to this mess.\n\nLike I mentioned before we were victims of crime again which was reported but of course due to lack of man power which was lied. XXXX  police officer said and time and no leads  cant do much about that problem at all, but the company XXXX XXXX would not even hear our story or didnt take any compassion to our situations.\n\n\nLISTED BELOW IS EVERYONE I HAD CALLED AND LEFT MESSAGES AND EMAILED AND FAXED LETTERS TO SEE ABOUT GETTING THIS CLEARED UP WITH OF COURSE NO RESPONSE FROM ANY OF THE MEMBERS WAS TOLD BY THE  EMPLOYEES OUT OF XXXX AR. XXXX XXXX THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO US YET THEY CONTINUED COMMUICATION WITH MY HUSBAND NOT MUCH BUT MORE SO HIM THEN ME AND I AM THE BUYER\n\nSO ONLINE WHEN YOU LOOK UP MAIN HEADQUARTERS FOR XXXX XXXX THIS IS WHAT COMES UP //.\n\nXXXX XXXX\t\t\t\t\tAKA----XXXX \n\nXXXX AR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX HEADQUARTERS              AFTER YOU REWORD THINGS COMES UP\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX IN XXXX\nPhone--XXXX XXXX XXXX\nFax--XXXX XXXX XXXX\nEmail--XXXX\n\nSO THE WEBSITE IT GIVES A LIST OF NAMES OF SUPPOSEDLY THE PEOPLE RUNNING THIS LOCATION::\nXXXX XXXX PRESIDENT-- LEFT 6 MESSAGES ON VOICEMAIL, XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXX\n\nXXXX XXXX--CONSUMER AFFAIRS SPECIALIST ( WHICH THAT IS WHAT I WAS TOLD WHO I NEEDED TO SPEAK WITH)---XX/XX/XXXX    LEFT 15 VOICE MAILS\n\nXXXX XXXX--DIRCTOR OF SALES--XX/XX/XXXX  LEFT 8 MESSAGES\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX-- XX/XX/XXXX  LEFT 4 VOICEMAILS\n\nXXXX XXXX-- LEFT 4 VOICEMAILS XX/XX/XXXX \nXXXX XXXX--XX/XX/XXXX LEFT 3 VOICEMAILS XXXX XXXX XXXX--XX/XX/XXXX LEFT 3 VOICEMAILS\n\nXXXX  XXXX--XX/XX/XXXX LEFT 5 VOICEMAILS XXXX XXXX--XX/XX/XXXX  LEFT 2 VOICEMAILS\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX--XX/XX/XXXX  LEFT 6 VOICEMAILS\n\nSUPPOSEDLY EMAIL FOR OFFICE IS ----XXXX  WHICH GOES TO XXXX AR.   AND CUSTOMER SERVICE EMAIL IS XXXX\nWHICH IM SURE GOES TO XXXX AR. LOCATION AS WELL\n\nTHAT WAS ALL DAY SATURDAY I TRIED CALLING CORP OFFICE AND ONLY SENT OUT ONCE THE EMAIL TO THE EMAILS ON WEBSITES AND FAXED TO THE FAX NUMBERS AS WELL\n\nXXXX \nXXXX AR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nXXXX I THINK HE A GM XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AND I THINK XXXX\n\nHAVE ALL SAID DIFFERENT STORIES TO ME WHEN AND IF THEY ANSWERED OR TOOK MY CALLS \n\nAND HAD TOLD MY HUSBAND MANY DIFFERENT STORIES AS WELL VERY CONFLICTING STORIES\n\n\n\nWELL I FOUND OUT\nXXXX CUSTOMER SERVICE IS LINKED TO BOTH PLACES AND TRANSFERS CALLS ONLY TO XXXX AR   I CALLED THEM 25 TIMES  XXXX\n\nSO I WAS MAD, MY HUSBAND WAS MAD CAUSE THEY KEEP LYING TO US AND TELLING US DIFFERENT STORIES.. SO I DID DIGGING AROUND ON EACH PERSON AND THE COMPANY ITSELF AND I DOWNLOAD ALL PUBLIC ARCHIEVES  OF THE LAWS FOR CONSUMERS AND BUSINESS AND ARBRITRATION LAWS AS WELL AND I WIL COPY AND PASTE WHAT I HAD SEND LINKS DOCUMENTS AND PICTURES TO BACK UP MY FINDINGS \n\nAND I ALSO CAME ACROSS THEIR FRANCISHING HAND BOOK ON HOW THEY ARE TO RUN THEIR BUSINESS AND HOW THEY TARGET PEOPLE WHO ARE FINIANCALLLY UNSTABLE AND LIE TO THEM AND CHARGING HOW MUCH INTERSET THEY WANT NO MORE THOUGH THAN  35% AND MORE I HAVE DOWNLOAD COMPLAINTS OF THINGS THEY HAVE DONE SIMILAR TO THIS AND NO BODY REALLY DONE MUCH\n\nI AM REQUESTING TWO THINGS AT THIS TIME\n\nFRIST IS THE TRUCK BACK WITH TITLE NO MORE LEASE AT ALL OR NEW TRUCK \n\nSECOND AND I WONT THIS IS A SUIT BROUGHT ON THEM AS WELL OR BEING DECEITFUL AND MISLEADING AND BREAKING LAWS AND MORE BAD BUSINESS JUDGEMENTS AS WELL.\n\nSO WHEN YOU XXXX XXXX  HEADDQUARTERS IT COMES UP XXXX IN AND THAT I FOUND LIKE I SAID GOES ROUTED TO XXXX  AR,\n\nI HAVE A PICTURE OF THAT, WHEN YOU ENTER THE WEBSITE AND PICK A LOCATON AND CHOOSE INDIANA  WELLL XXXX  IN LOCATION DONT COME UP HAVE PICTURE AS WELL.\n\n\nLIKE I SAID I DID A LOT OF DIGGING AROUND ON THESE PEOPLE I ACTUALLY HAVE HOME ADDRESSESS AND PHONE NMBERS HOME ONES AND CELLS AND SOCIAL MEDIA WEBSITES THEY CONNECTED TO AS WELL AND MUCH  MORE FAKE WEBSITES, NUMBERS GENERATED TO FULL CONSUMERS INTO BELIVING THEY CALLING CUSTOMER SERVICE BUT NOT THEY JUST CALLING THE STORE THEY HAVING A PROBLEM WITH AND GET TRANSFERRED AROUND FOUND ALSO THAT IF YOU GO TO \n\nXXXX---DIRECT WEBSITE AND MAKE A PAYMENT AND THEY DONT TELL YOU THIS AND I DONT TRUST IT AT ALL SO I DIDNT MAKE A PAYMENT IT TAKES YOU TO A THIRD PARTY WEBSITE NOT EVEN CALLED XXXX OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH XXXX WEBSITES.\n\nALSO FOUND OUT THAT XXXX XXXX IS NOT REGISTERED WITH THE FEDERAL BANK RESERVERS I CHECKED NOT ON THERE NOR IS BYRIDER OR XXXX OR SOME OF THE OTHER NAMES I TRIED TO ENTER AS WELL\n\nI WILL SUBMIT THAT ALL AS WELL. THEY ARE APPARENTLY REGISTERED AND IN.GOV WITH 4 DIFFERENT NUMBERS AS WELL AND DIFFERENT ADDRESSES AND NAMES AND CONTACTS WHICH I DID TRY TO REACH OUT TO AND NOTHING I WILL ATTACH ALL THAT AS WELL.  \n\n XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL, XXXX----XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)   XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Florida XXXX (Address of Principal Executive Offices, Including Zip Code) (XXXX) XXXX (Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code)    XXXX XXXX \n\n\nTHIS RIGHT HERE HIS JUST ONE OF THE REGISTRATION NUMBERS THEY HAVE NOT TO THE ADDRESS THAT THEY SAY IS CORP OFFICE HEADQUARTES DONT EVEN MATCH UP\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. is an entity registered at Indiana with company number XXXX. Company is incorporated onXX/XX/XXXX. Current status of the company is Merged. The company's agentis XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IN, XXXX - XXXX, USA The company's secretaryis XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IN, XXXX, USA The company's presidentis XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IN, XXXX, USA\nCompany information\n\nFrom  \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX IS THE SERVING AGENT WHOM I WOULD LIKE SERVED AND EVERYONE ELSE SERVED AS WELL THEY ALL LIE \n\nAgent\nName\tXXXX XXXX XXXX\nAddress\tXXXX XXXX XXXX., XXXX, IN, XXXX - XXXX, USA\nSecretary\nName\tXXXX XXXX XXXX\nAddress\tXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IN, XXXX, USA\nP\n\nFrom  \n\n\nTHIS IS FROM PAGE 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS REVIEW \n\nThe Company utilizes its Loss Prevention and Recovery Department (the LPR) to perform on-site audits of branch compliance with \nCompany underwriting guidelines. XXXX audits Company branches on a schedule that is variable depending on the size of the branch, length of \ntime a branch has been open, current tenure of the Branch Manager, previous branch audit score and current and historical branch profitability. \nXXXX reports directly to the Accounting and Administrative Management of the Company. The Company believes that an independent review \nand audit of its branches that is not tied to the sales function of the Company is imperative in order to assure the information obtained is \nimpartial.  \n\nTHIS IS FROM PAGE 9 AS WELL CALLED MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTS\n\nThe Companys Management Information Services personnel maintain a number of reports to monitor compliance by customers with their \nobligations under Contracts and direct loans made by the Company. These reports may be accessed on a real-time basis throughout the \nCompany by management personnel, including Branch Managers and staff, at computer terminals located in the main office and each branch \noffice. These reports include delinquency aging reports, customer promises reports, vehicle information reports, purchase reports, dealer \nanalysis reports, static pool reports, and repossession reports.  \nA delinquency report is an aging report that provides basic information regarding each account and indicates accounts that are past due. The \nreport includes information such as the account number, address of the customer, home and work phone numbers of the customer, original term \nof the Contract, number of remaining payments, outstanding balance, due dates, date of last payment, number of days past due, scheduled \npayment amount, amount of last payment, total past due, and special payment arrangements or agreements.  \nAny account that is less than 120 days old is included on the delinquency report on the first day that the Contract is contractually past due. \nOnce an account becomes 30 days past due, repossession proceedings are implemented unless the customer provides the Company with an \nacceptable explanation for the delinquency and displays a willingness and the ability to make the payment, and commits to a plan to return the \naccount to current status. When an account is 60 days past due, the Company ceases recognition of income on the Contract and repossession \nproceedings are initiated. At 120 days delinquent, if the vehicle has not yet been repossessed, the account is written off. Once a vehicle has \nbeen repossessed, the related loan balance no longer appears on the delinquency report. Instead, the vehicle appears on the Companys \nrepossession report and is sold, either at auction or to an automobile dealer.  \n\nWhen an account becomes delinquent, the Company immediately contacts the customer to determine the reason for the delinquency and to \ndetermine if appropriate arrangements for payment can be made. If payment arrangements acceptable to the Company can be made, the \ninformation is entered in its database and is used to generate a Promises Report, which is utilized by the Companys collection staff for \naccount follow up.  \n\nThe Company prepares a repossession report that provides information regarding repossessed vehicles and aids the Company in disposing of \nrepossessed vehicles. In addition to information regarding the customer, this report provides information regarding the date of repossession, \ndate the vehicle was sold, number of days it was held in inventory prior to sale, year, make and model of the vehicle, mileage, payoff amount \non the Contract, XXXX book value, XXXX XXXX value, suggested sale price, location of the vehicle, original dealer and condition of the \nvehicle, as well as notes other information that may be helpful to the Company.  \nThe Company also prepares a dealer analysis report that provides information regarding each dealer from which it purchases Contracts. This \nreport allows the Company to analyze the volume of business done with each dealer and the terms on which it has purchased Contracts from \nsuch dealer.  \n\nThe Companys policy is to aggressively pursue legal remedies to collect deficiencies from customers. Oral requests for payment are made \nbeginning when an account becomes 11 days delinquent. When an account becomes 30 days delinquent and the customer has not made \npayment arrangements acceptable to the Company or has failed to respond to the requests for payment, a repossession request form is prepared \nby the responsible branch office employee for approval by the Branch Manager for the vicinity in which the borrower lives. Once the \nrepossession request has been approved, first by the Branch Manager and second by the applicable District  \n   \n\n\nTHIS STATES HOW ANYONE IN THE COMPANY CAN ACCESS ALL INFORMATION ALTER INFORMATION BASICALLY DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, NOT PRIVACY \n\nComputerized Information System  \nThe Company utilizes integrated computer systems developed by XXXX to assist in responding to customer inquiries and to monitor the \nperformance of its Contract and direct loan portfolio and the performance of individual customers under Contracts. All Company personnel are \nprovided with real-time access to information from a single shared database. The Company has created specialized programs to automate the \ntracking of Contracts and direct loans from inception. The Companys computer network encompasses both its corporate headquarters and its \nbranch office locations. See Monitoring and Enforcement of Contracts above for a summary of the different reports prepared by the \n\n\n\n\nTHIS THEY VIOLADATED AS WELL  FALSE IMPLICATIONS  PAGE 11\n\n Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and applicable state law counterparts \nprohibit the Company from contacting customers during certain times and at certain places, from using certain threatening practices \nand from making false implications when attempting to collect a debt.  \n  \n\nNO PRIVACY WITH INTERGRATED DATABASE BUT IT SAYS THEY HAVE TO KEEP OUR STUFF PRIVATE THEY DONT PAGE 11 AS WELL\n\n Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and applicable state law counterparts \nprohibit the Company from contacting customers during certain times and at certain places, from using certain threatening practices \nand from making false implications when attempting to collect a debt.  \n  \n\nSTATES THEY MAY NOT INTERFER  PAGE 12\n\nBankruptcy. Federal bankruptcy and related state laws may interfere with or affect the Companys ability to recover collateral or \nenforce a deficiency judgment.  \n\n\nNEXT IS ABOUT HOW EMPLOYESS ARE TO HANDLE THINGS AND WHO HANDLES THEM AND THE PROCDURES AND THE DO AND DONTS  ASLO PAGE 12, 13, 14, 15 ,16.17:::IPAGE 14 STATES THAT AS SOON AS THEY REPOSSES A VEHICLE ITS TOOK TO AUTION RIGHT AWAY\n\n\nThe auction proceeds we receive from the sale of repossessed vehicles and other recoveries are subject to fluctuation due to economic \nand other factors beyond our control.  \nIf we repossess a vehicle securing a Contract, we typically have it transported to an automobile auction for sale. Auction proceeds from the sale \nof repossessed vehicles and other recoveries are usually not sufficient to cover the outstanding balance of the Contract, and the resulting \ndeficiency is charged off. In addition, there is, on average, approximately a 30-day lapse between the time we repossess a vehicle and the time \nit is sold by a dealer or at auction. The proceeds we receive from such sales depend upon various factors, including the supply of, and demand \nfor, used vehicles at the time of sale. Such supply and demand are dependent on many  \n   \nHERE IT STATES WRONGFUL REPOSSETIONS, BANRUPTCY VIOLATOINS AND MORE\n\nWe are subject to risks associated with litigation.  \nAs a consumer finance company, we are subject to various consumer claims and litigation seeking damages and statutory penalties, based \nupon, among other things:  \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n12  \n   \n  usury laws;  \n   \n  disclosure inaccuracies;  \n   \n  wrongful repossession;  \n   \n  violations of bankruptcy stay provisions;  \n   \n  certificate of title disputes;  \n   \n  fraud;  \n   \n  breach of contract; and  \n   \n  discriminatory treatment of credit applicants.  \n\n\nSome litigation against us could take the form of class action complaints by consumers. As the assignee of Contracts originated by dealers, we \nmay also be named as a co-defendant in lawsuits filed by consumers principally against dealers. The damages and penalties claimed by \nconsumers in these types of actions can be substantial. The relief requested by the plaintiffs varies but may include requests for compensatory, \nstatutory and punitive damages. We also are periodically subject to other kinds of litigation typically experienced by businesses such as ours, \nincluding employment disputes and breach of contract claims. No assurances can be given that we will not experience material financial losses \nin the future as a result of litigation or other legal proceedings.  \n\nPAGES 17-21 SAYS THE HAVE TO PRACTICE PROPER COLLECTION POLICES WHICH THEY DID NOT::\n  licensing requirements;  \n  requirements for maintenance of proper records;  \n  payment of required fees to certain states;  \n  maximum interest rates that may be charged on loans to finance new and used vehicles;  \n  debt collection practices;  \n  proper disclosure to customers regarding financing terms;  \n  privacy regarding certain customer data;  \n  interest rates on loans to customers;  \n  telephone solicitation of direct loan customers; and  \n  collection of debts from loan customers who have filed bankruptcy.  \n\n\nAGAIN ON PAGE 18  INTERGRATED DATABASE\n\nWe may experience problems with our integrated computer systems or be unable to keep pace with developments in technology.  \nWe use various technologies in our business, including telecommunication, data processing, and integrated computer systems. Technology \nchanges rapidly. Our ability to compete successfully with other financing companies may depend on our ability to efficiently and cost-\neffectively implement technological changes. Moreover, to keep pace with our competitors, we may be required to invest in technological \nchanges that do not necessarily improve our profitability.  \nWe utilize integrated computer systems to respond to customer inquiries and to monitor the performance of our Contract and direct loan \nportfolios and the performance of individual customers under our Contracts and direct loans. Problems with our systems operations could \nadversely impact our ability to monitor our portfolios or collect amounts due under our Contracts and direct loans, which could have a material \nadverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. \n\n\nOKAY THIS ON PAGE 97 OF THEIR POLICY HANDBOOK CALLED GOVERNING LAW.\n\n16. GOVERNING LAW.  \n(a) The validity, interpretation, construction and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the internal laws of the State \nof Florida, except that Section 16(b) shall be construed in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act if arbitration is chosen by the Employee \nas the method of dispute resolution.  \n(b) Any dispute arising out of this Agreement shall, at the Employees election, be determined by either (i) arbitration under the \nrules of the American Arbitration Association then in effect (but subject to any evidentiary standards set forth in this Agreement), in which \nboth parties shall be bound by the arbitration award, or (ii) by litigation. Whether the dispute is to be settled by arbitration or litigation, the \nvenue for the arbitration or litigation shall be Tampa, Florida. The parties consent to personal jurisdiction in each trial court in the selected \nvenue having subject matter jurisdiction notwithstanding their residence or situs, and each party irrevocably consents to service of process in \nthe manner provided hereunder for the giving of notices.  \n\n\n  \n(b) Any dispute arising out of this Agreement shall, at the Employees election, be determined by either (i) arbitration under the \nrules of the American Arbitration Association then in effect (but subject to any evidentiary standards set forth in this Agreement), in which \nboth parties shall be bound by the arbitration award, or (ii) by litigation. Whether the dispute is to be settled by arbitration or litigation, the \nvenue for the arbitration or litigation shall be Tampa, Florida. The parties consent to personal jurisdiction in each trial court in the selected \nvenue having subject matter jurisdiction notwithstanding their residence or situs, and each party irrevocably consents to service of process in \nthe manner provided hereunder for the giving of notices.\n\nTHESE NEXT FEW PAGES 115 10 125 ARE THE AUTOMOBILE DEALER RETAIL AGREEMENT PLANS:::\n\nThe undersigned Dealer proposes to sell to the undersigned XXXX XXXX XXXX. (XXXX), from time to time, Promissory Notes, Security \nAgreements, Retail Installment contracts, Conditional Sales Contracts, or other instruments hereinafter referred to as Contracts, evidencing \ninstallment payment obligations owing Dealer arising from the time sale of motor vehicle(s) and secured by such Contracts. It is understood \nthat XXXX shall have the sole discretion to determine which Contracts it will purchase from Dealer.  \n   \nIndemnity : As a separate and cumulative obligation, Dealer shall defend and hold XXXX harmless from any and all claims, defenses, \noffsets, damages, suits, administrative or other proceedings, cost (including reasonable attorneys fees), expenses, losses, and liabilities. \n(Collectively Claims) arising out of connected with or relating to the Contract or the goods or services sold there under. Timing of \nindemnification is within 7 days of demand by XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX. (hereinafter referred to as XXXX XXXX XXXX. or the Company) requires ethical conduct in the practice of \nfinancial management in all aspects of business activities.  \nThe XXXX XXXX XXXX. Code of Ethical Conduct for Financial Managers applies to all senior officers serving in a financial role. The Chief \nExecutive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Controller, as well as certain other senior financial officers, hold an elevated role in corporate \ngovernance and are expected to act in accordance with the highest standards of personal and professional integrity, to comply with all \napplicable laws, rules, and regulations, to preserve and protect shareholders interests, and to abide by the XXXX XXXX XXXX. Code of \nBusiness Conduct and Ethics and other policies and procedures adopted by XXXX XXXX XXXX. that govern the conduct of its employees. \nThis Code of Ethical Conduct is intended to supplement the XXXX XXXX XXXX. Code of Business Conduct and Ethics.  \nAs the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Controller, or other senior financial officer, I certify to you that I adhere to and \nadvocate the following principles governing my professional and ethical conduct in the fulfillment of my responsibilities. I agree to:  \n   \n  a. Comply with the Companys internal policies and procedures; \nb. Act at all times in accordance with the Companys Code of Business Conduct and Ethics which has been provided to me and with \nwhich I will comply; \nc. Engage in and promote honesty, integrity and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of \ninterest between personal and professional relationships; \nd. Provide accurate, complete, objective, timely and understandable financial disclosures in regards to internal reports as well as \nd\ndocuments filed or submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, any governmental, private or public regulatory agency, \nor used in public communications; \ne. Comply with applicable federal, state, provincial, and/or local governmental laws, rules and regulations, as well as appropriate \nprivate and public regulatory agencies; \nf. Respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of performing my work responsibilities except when authorized or \notherwise legally obligated to disclose such information; \ng. Act in good faith, responsibly, with due care, competence and diligence, without misrepresenting or omitting material facts or \nallowing my independent judgment to be compromised; \n  h. Avoid using confidential information acquired in the course of performing my job responsibilities for personal advantage; \n\n\nTHEY HAVE FIVE PAGES OF DEALERSHIPS THEY GET THERE CARS FROM PAGES ON PAGES ON HOW THEY KEEP FROM PAYING TAXES AND GET EXTRA MONEY THEY ARE CROOKS AND THEY ARE ALL THROUGH ONE MAIN GUY XXXX XXXX XXXX.  \n\nXXXX IS NOT EVEN A REAL BANK THEY GET THEIR MONEY FROM OTHER PLACES\nTHEY STOLE FROM US\n\n\nTHE MAIN STORES COMPANYS WE HAVING ISSUES WITH WILL BE LISTED FIRST ALL THE REST ARE POSSIBLE PLACES WHERE SUPPOSEDLY THEY ARE WHICH ONLINE AND ON SOME OF THEIR WEBSITES THEY ARE LISTED ON ONE OF THE TWO ADDRESSES LISTED FIRST.    ALSO NAMES OF SOME OF THE ASSOCIATES THAT WERE THE MAIN ISSUE ARE LOCATED AT THE XXXX AR LOCATION,  THE ONES TO INDIANA ARE NOT EVEN AT THAT LOCATION I FOUND OUT\n\nXXXX XXXX\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AR XXXX\nXXXX\n\nTHE FOLLOWING PEOPLE WHO DID THIS AND HAVE NOT CONTACTED US LIED TO US AND REFUSED TO TALK TO US AND TOLD US","date_sent_to_company":"2017-09-21T19:11:20.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay your loan","sub_product":"Lease","zip_code":"65616","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2680977","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Byrider Franchising, LLC","date_received":"2017-09-21T16:54:45.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX <em>audits</em> Company branches on a schedule that is variable depending on the size of the branch, length of \ntime a branch has been open, current tenure of the Branch Manager, previous branch <em>audit</em> score and current and historical branch profitability. \nXXXX reports directly to the Accounting and Administrative Management of the Company."]},"sort":[5.9343567,"2680977"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12028314","_score":5.3750377,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"As of today's date, I have not heard from Wells Fargo regarding if I'm impacted by the CFPB settlement. From XXXX XXXX XXXX I attempted XXXX loan modifications and was declined/denial every time followed by XXXX foreclosure notifications.   foreclosure and bankruptcy financially have ruined my credit. I'm seeking recovery of all damages available under the law including compensatory and punitive damages as well as attorney fees and costs. HAMP required mortgage Wells Fargo the mortgage servicer to offer loan modifications to borrowers who met certain threshold requirements. These modifications would lower a borrowers mortgage payments to a manageable \nlevel (typically XXXX  percent of the borrowers monthly income) and allow the borrower to avoid foreclosure. Unfortunately, this did not happen. However, Wells Fargo, because of an alleged faulty calculation failed to offer a loan modification. Instead, Wells Fargo needlessly tried to foreclose on my Home. Wells Fargo has attempted to cast its conduct here as resulting from a faulty calculation. However, Wells Fargos problem goes much deeper than a single miscalculation. Wells Fargos conduct here reflects the same type of extreme and outrageous conduct that has embroiled Wells Fargo in a string of public scandals. This software determined customers eligibility for a \ngovernment-mandated mortgage modification during a time of extreme financial distress. Its importance to these customers lives cannot be overstated. Yet Wells Fargo not only failed to verify that its software was correctly calculating whether customers met threshold requirements for a mortgage modification, it also failed to regularly and properly audit the software for compliance with government requirements - allowing life-changing errors to remain uncorrected for years on end.\n\nWells Fargo Admits Loan Modification Error, Wrongfully Foreclosed on Homes\nA quarterly filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission in August XXXX revealed that Wells Fargo made an error in denying mortgage modifications to hundreds of borrowers. The securities filing says that Wells Fargo discovered a calculation error in its automated software for calculating whether a borrower should be offered more favorable loan terms instead of foreclosure. Wells Fargo says the error affected XXXX homes that were in the foreclosure process between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX.\nIn XXXX XXXX Wells Fargo revised its estimate, announcing that the miscalculation affected XXXX homes that were going through foreclosure between XX/XX/XXXX, andXX/XX/XXXX.\nAs Wells Fargo explains, two federal government programs require Wells Fargo and other lenders to offer loan modifications to keep people in their homes when they are in default, rather than going through the expensive process of foreclosure. Wells Fargo did not comply with this law, it says, due to a software glitch that affected XXXX  mortgages that were in default. Ultimately, XXXX homes were foreclosed on, when a mortgage modification should have been offered, according to Wells Fargos disclosures.\nSenators Agree: Wells Fargo Computer Glitch Compensation Program Is Inadequate to Repair Damage from Wrongful Foreclosure\nWells Fargo says it has set aside XXXX million to remediate the wrongful disclosures caused by the software miscalculation. Split amongst the XXXX people, Wells Fargo says it wrongfully foreclosed on, which would amount to only about XXXX per person. But reportedly, the checks Wells Fargo is sending out are lower than that. Wells Fargo is telling people they can go to mediation if they want more money.\nSenator XXXX XXXX  said of Wells Fargos remediation plan: Setting aside a few thousand dollars for each of the people affected. Pathetic. According to Senator XXXX who sits on the Senate Banking Committee, Wells Fargos remediation plan does not offer nearly enough to compensate for the devastating ripple effect a foreclosure can have, including the stress and trauma of losing ones home, related health problems, and destroy[ing] peoples credit. Senator XXXX continued:\nIt is hard to imagine how Wells Fargos estimate of XXXX million for remediation would come close to remunerating impacted customers.\n\nList of Challenges and Issues Ive had with Wells Fargo over the last XXXX  years. Starting from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I entered a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This loan was predatory. A predatory loan is a fraudulent and unfair, deceptive, or abusive loan that can trap borrowers in debt. Predatory lenders often target people who are in financial need. \nDue to the nature of the pick-a-payment loan, the monthly payment increased to an amount that I could not pay so I ended up filing for Bankruptcy in XXXX to remain in my home. In XXXX XXXX XXXX fell as a bank due to pick-a-payment loans and was acquired by XXXX In XXXX XXXX  was acquired by Wells Fargo as it also fell due to pick-a-payment loans. In XXXX XXXX XXXX my bankruptcy was discharged, and as such XXXX  issued a 1099c stating my debt had been canceled and that I was no longer responsible for the debt. However, my loan with XXXX was never reaffirmed nor was the lien released. However, the security deed was not updated to reflect any changes to my loan. \n\nIn XXXX I was given a loan modification by XXXX and issued another 1099c also cancellation of debt.  Also, in XXXX  I was given another modification by Wells Fargo but not issued a 1099c. In XXXX I was given another modification but this time I was but into a XXXXyear loan and Wells Fargo updated the security deed to reflect the new loan amount and to show Wells Fargo as the lien holder.    \n\nXXXX  Wells Fargo increased my mortgage to XXXXyear loan. They Modified my mortgages and told me if I dont agree with the XXXX-year term, I will most likely lose my home to foreclosure. \nAfter signing the XXXX-year loan modification I later found out Wells Fargo added a XXXX mortgage (stealth modification).\nAs the country tried to crawl out of the last recession, homeowners across America sought mortgage modifications to make their home loans more manageable. However, some homeowners say that Wells Fargo not only modified their loans without asking but that this lower rate added years  perhaps decades  to the terms of their mortgages. Wells Fargo has once again found itself in the middle of a growing scandal, as the bank faces accusations of making unauthorized changes to the mortgage loans held by customers who have entered bankruptcy.\nThis issue came to light after multiple homeowners sued the bank, claiming it had changed the terms of their mortgages without permission. While its unclear just how many of these modifications Wells Fargo has made, at least seven lawsuits, including one potential class-action complaint, have been filed against the bank.\nThe class-action lawsuit [PDF], filed in a federal court in North Carolina, accuses the bank of making at least three improper modifications to one couples mortgage beginning in XXXX. The couple filed for XXXX XXXX bankruptcy, which allows people to reorganize their finances while they work toward getting out of debt, in XXXX XXXX. According to the complaint, they were surprised to find in XXXX XXXX that Wells Fargo had filed a stealth modification to their mortgage even though their bankruptcy plan had been approved by the court.\nAny modifications to a bankruptcy plan must be approved by the court and those involved in the case. However, in this case, the couple claims they never agreed to allow Wells Fargo to change their loan terms. The filed modification, which was part of a loan modification trial process at Wells Fargo, lowered the couples monthly mortgage payments from XXXX XXXX XXXX.\nWhile paying a few hundred dollars less each month might be nice, buried deep in the terms of the modification was notice that the mortgage had been extended to XXXX years.\nUnder the couples XXXX XXXX plan, they were to pay their remaining XXXX  mortgage over 14 years, incurring about XXXX in interest charges. With Wells Fargos unauthorized extension, they would pay the remaining mortgage amount over an additional XXXX years, incurring not only the XXXX interest charges already planned, but an additional XXXX XXXX XXXX  depending on interest rates.\nTo make matters worse, the couple claims the Wells Fargo notice of modification implied that they would lose their home if they did not accept the modification.\nBy following the steps outlined below, you can begin to restore your mortgage account to good standing, the notice stated. If you fail to take the following steps and continue to miss or make late mortgage payments, you risk further damage to your credit and possibly foreclosure of your home.\nThe lawsuit claims that the couple should not have been in danger of foreclosure as they had not missed any payments before filing for bankruptcy and had made all planned payments that had come due.\nFollowing the filing of this modification, the couple claims that Wells Fargo filed similar changes with the court in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, neither of which were approved or requested by the couple.\nAccording to the lawsuit, Wells Fargo may have submitted the modification plans to enrich itself through incentive payments by the U.S. government.\nThe New York Times reports that some lenders take part in certain programs designed to encourage loan modifications for troubled borrowers. In these cases, the bank can receive up to XXXX from government programs for each loan it adjusts.\nAdditionally, the lawsuit claims that by modifying the loans for a longer term, Wells Fargo can collect millions of dollars in additional interest and servicing fees.\nAllegations found in the North Carolina class-action lawsuit have been detailed in several other complaints against Wells Fargo, the Times reports.\nIn one case, XXXX XXXX XXXX a Texas lawyer, tells the Times that he first thought Wells Fargo had made a simple clerical error when it came to a clients loan modification. But after looking into the issue he found a pattern of filing false documents with the federal court.\nThese modifications, he says, wreaked havoc on the customers finances and bankruptcy reorganization. XXXX tells the XXXX that one of his clients, who filed for bankruptcy in XXXX XXXX, received a letter in XXXX from the bank notifying them that they had been approved for a trial loan modification. While the couple didnt approve or request the changes, the bank submitted them to the court.\nIn this case, the payments were reduced from XXXX XXXX XXXX While the client had a plan in place to repay their loan in XXXX  years, the modification extended that time to 40 years, increasing interest charges by an extra XXXX\nA spokesperson for Wells Fargo tells the Times that the bank denies the claims made in the lawsuits, contending that both the borrowers and courts were notified of mortgage modifications properly. As for pushing through modifications without borrower approval, the rep says, We do not finalize a modification without receiving signed documents from the customer and, where required, approval from the bankruptcy court.\n\nXXXX  Wells Fargo Mortgage Servicing Violations\nSoftware Miscalculations: A glitch in the banks automated system incorrectly calculated that certain homeowners did not qualify for mortgage modifications, leading to wrongful foreclosures.\nLoan Modification Denial: Wrongfully denying eligible borrowers the opportunity to modify their mortgages, resulting in avoidable defaults and eventual foreclosures.\nFailure to Offer Modifications: Banks failed or delayed in offering loan modifications to homeowners who qualified under federal programs, leading to foreclosure even though the borrowers were entitled to more favorable modified loan terms.\nInaccurate Loan Reporting: Erroneously reporting some borrowers as being ineligible for mortgage relief, preventing them from accessing loss mitigation programs that could have saved their homes.\nImproper Fees and Interest Rate Miscalculations: Improperly charging fees and miscalculating interest rates on adjustable-rate mortgages have caused significant financial losses for homeowners.\nMisapplied Payments: Some homeowners reported that payments intended for mortgage modifications were misapplied, causing confusion and leading to wrongful foreclosure due to perceived defaults.\nFailure to Implement Federal Guidelines: Failing to follow federal mortgage relief guidelines that require loan modifications before initiating foreclosure proceedings.\n\nLoss of Mortgage Documentation: Errors in internal systems caused the loss of critical loan documents, which resulted in homeowners being wrongfully denied mortgage modifications.\n\nInadequate Communication: Poor communication practices from banks led to homeowners missing crucial modification deadlines, ultimately resulting in foreclosure even though they were eligible for assistance.\n\nNegligence in Monitoring Errors: Even after discovering errors that caused wrongful modification denials, banks failed to act promptly to rectify the issue, prolonging the harm to homeowners.\n\nFailing to honor your forbearance agreement.\nForeclosing earlier than allowed by recent federal protections put in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic.\nEngaging in practices that violate the 1968 Truth in Lending Act (TILA)\nFailing to comply with your loan modification agreement; and/or\nFailing to give you timely notices you are entitled to receive under federal and state law, such as a notice of default, or a pre-foreclosure breach notice.\n\n4-\tIve received two checks from Wells Fargo\nWhy is Wells Fargo Sending Settlement Checks Now?\nWhile the exact reason Wells Fargo is sending out these settlement checks remains unclear, the bank has likely uncovered a major servicing violation, like the issues outlined above. These violations may have occurred over several years before being discovered. Given the severity of these errorspotentially leading to homeowners losing their properties through foreclosureWells Fargo is likely issuing these checks as a preemptive effort to settle legal claims before they escalate into more costly lawsuits in the future.\nHow Big Are the Settlement Checks from Wells Fargo?\nBased on clients lawsuits, the settlement checks typically range from XXXX XXXX XXXX  with higher amounts indicating more serious violations. If you receive a very large, unsolicited settlement check in the mail, this could be a sign that your case is particularly strong, making it essential to consult with an attorney. \n\n5-\tIssues highlighting the challenges I have faced when seeking loan modifications with Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo loan modification problems include:\nDenial of Loan Modifications: Many borrowers report being denied loan modifications, often without clear reasons.\nDocument Submission Issues: Borrowers frequently have to send in the same document multiple times, leading to frustration.\nConfusion About the Process: Many homeowners feel uncertain about the status of their applications and the overall process.\nNegligence in Handling Applications: There have been claims that Wells Fargo acted negligently in denying modifications to eligible borrowers.\nWidespread Mismanagement: Reports indicate that Wells Fargo has made errors that resulted in the wrongful denial of loan modifications and other issues affecting mortgage customers.\n\n6-\tHarm Done by Wells Fargo Loan Modification Error, Wrongfully Foreclosure \na.\tSevere Emotional Distress XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\tWrongfully attempted Foreclosure XXXX times XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.\tHired 3rd party agencies to assist with modification and to stop or avoid foreclosure XXXX XXXX  Had to liquidate retirement accounts to avoid wrong foreclosures. This involved an additional 10% tax due to hardship early withdrawal of 401k XXXX XXXX  Borrowed money from family members XXXX XXXX\tEntitled to punitive damages XXXX   \n\nWells Fargo Unlawful Reporting  Pain & Suffering\nItem\tAmount\nMoney paid to reinstate loan XXXX over 9-year period \nMoney was paid to attorneys/agencies to help stop multiple foreclosure attempts over 9 years.\tApprox. XXXX XXXX XXXX  \nLiquidation of multiple 401k\tLost saving/retirement funds = approx. XXXX XXXX XXXX \nTime spent for management of this issue  XXXX  hrs/year\tApprox XXXX  IRS confiscation of all tax refunds since XXXX\tApprox. XXXX XXXX  per year for XXXX years) \nIRS enforced maximum withholdings  single filer status\t\nApprox. XXXX XXXX  per year.) \nIRS\tXXXX  IRS debt XXXX\nMedical conditions due to stress:\nDuring the past 9 years, we have been under hardship and undue stress leading to the following medical conditions: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  \nAmount - XXXX\nMortgage paid over 9 years totaling over $300,000\nDamaged Credit  I have filed XXXX XXXXtime to stop foreclosure since XXXX which now prevents me from getting a loan.\nUnable to get loans\nXXXX  \nThere have been several lawsuits filed against Wells Fargo ranging from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which have been very similar situations to my situation. Therefore, Im seeking XXXX XXXX XXXX  \nAbove is a list of activities and damage that have severely impacted me and my family due to Predatory lending, reporting 1099c by Wells Fargo, formerly known as XXXX.  Wrongful foreclosure attempts, Loan Modification Errors, ETC. These problems have negatively impacted our quality of daily life (i.e., no vacations, no dinners out, no shopping, etc.) and damaged our credit. This psychological trauma/mental health, stressful event needs to end. After XXXX  years of being on this mortgage, it is still unclear if my mortgage is valid. XXXX XXXX and Now Wells Fargo have all failed me as a borrower. I was given a predatory loan that is a fraudulent, unfair deceptive, or abusive loan that can trap borrowers in debt. After several government bailouts to these mortgage companies, Im trapped in debt that appears no way out but foreclosure. \n\nWhat is Wrongful Foreclosure Action\nA wrongful foreclosure is when a lending institution forecloses on a property without any proper legal basis.  This can be through mistakes, negligence or intentional misconduct.  However, it goes, borrowers should always exercise due diligence making sure they dont fall prey to such practices.  \nWhen Your Rights Are Violated\nLending institutions stand to profit by foreclosing on a property.  It may be done by mistake or by unfair means for financial gain.  Whether accidental or deliberate, wrongful foreclosures have huge ramifications for homeowners.  Families can lose their homes, and their credit is so badly impacted by foreclosure that getting a new mortgage is next to impossible, to say nothing of how bad credit can impact other areas of life.  Wrongful foreclosures also cause undue stress on a family, especially if they must completely rearrange their lives (new neighborhoods/cities/schools / etc.).  Many homeowners may decide to pursue legal action against lenders, to reclaim some semblance of their former lives.\nWrongful Foreclosure Cases\nThere are several high-profile cases to illustrate what happens when wrongful foreclosures happen.  One of the most well-known cases involves Wells Fargo.  In 2019, Washington DCs Eastern U.S. District Court ruled that Wells Fargo wrongfully took back hundreds of homes.  It wasnt deliberate on Wells Fargos part, but a textbook example of a technical glitch in software that caused hundreds of borrowers not to get the loan modifications they qualified for.  As part of the judiciary relief, Wells Fargo gave each borrower more than $10,000.  Victims also had further recourse under a class action settlement with the bank.\nIn another case, a lending institution told a couple they couldnt get a loan modification without getting behind on payments.  They defaulted on their loan and filed for bankruptcy on the advice of the lender.  They lost their home anyway because the lender continued with foreclosure proceedings, even with a bankruptcy stay in place.  The couple eventually were awarded more than $45 million in actual and punitive wrongful foreclosure damages and court costs.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-28T09:47:50.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"30331","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12028314","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-02-12T22:11:23.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Hired 3rd party agencies to <em>assist</em> with modification and to stop or avoid foreclosure XXXX XXXX  Had to liquidate retirement accounts to avoid wrong foreclosures."]},"sort":[5.3750377,"12028314"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3357398","_score":3.7191033,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern, After marrying United States XXXX XXXX   XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, my husband and I naturally choose to open a joint checking account in XX/XX/XXXX with his already existing USAA account. We made the call together and answered all of the questions that were probed. My husband is the primary account contributor and account holder as I have a different bank. All was well until I received a call from USAA on XX/XX/XXXX during my lunch break at work. I thought this call was in regards to a flood claim that was denied, but the representative stated I had some missing information from my membership profile. I thought the call was very odd as they were requesting some personal financial information ( estimated net worth, annual income, etc. ) that was required by the Patriot Act that I answer. I was worried it was a scam so I decided it would be best to call them myself the next day. I first looked specifically at the Patriot Act ( 2001 ),  Bank Secrecy Act ( BSA ), and Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act ( GLBA 1999 ). I learned two were designed after XX/XX/XXXX to help detect terrorism, money laundering, and illegal activities and the other to protect financial privacy. Turns out all that is required under Section 326 : Verification of Identification of the Patriot Act is : Name, Date of Birth, Social Security Number, ( to confirm they are a US citizen ), Address, and comparison with government lists of known/suspected XXXX activity ( usually referred to as banking systems ). This is in addition to record keeping as a requirement of the Treasury. All of which are used to verify the identity of the personwhich is understandable and I agree necessary. Yet, nowhere does any federal regulation however require financial information, despite USAAs claims. All of the following summaries below were direct recorded conversations, and I am willing to share them if needed. I am hoping to get confirmation that this information is required by federal law, and if it is not, I would like to take legal action against USAA as I believe it is a violation of my financial protection rights. What follows is quite extensive, but felt it imperative I be comprehensive. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I called USAA myself to confirm their claim. The agent demanded the information was required by federal law by the Patriot Act and Bank Secrecy Act and that I was required to answer the personal finance questions. I was informed if I did not answer the questions the account would be closed or our assets frozen. I was confused why the needed information was not gathered when we opened the account and was uncomfortable about the questions as it didnt seem it was a federal regulation, so I requested to speak to a manager. The following conversation was with XXXX, of the executive resolutions team, as the senior advisor at USAA : I enquired, did I sign your privacy notice? After we determined it is never actually signed, in regards to my privacy, she checked and confirmed my privacy preference is share. I asked, What changed where you are now required to get my information since you didnt get it before as it is required by federal law? Or is it not required and this is just something that USAA is doing? She replied, No this is something that is required for secondary account holders by the federal law. So I inquired, When we opened the account you claim we used the primarys ( my husbands ) information and that has been sufficient for the last year. This isnt my primary account I have a different bank. So why all of the sudden now are you threatening to inactivate our account if I dont give you this information? If it wasnt required before what makes it required now? The only answer Ive gotten is that it is federal law ; so either you werent compliant with federal law and are now being required to get the information, or it is for your own interest. I would like to know what those interests are, what you are going to do with this information, if you are going to be sharing any of this information, or using it for rates or other data then I am required to view the privacy notice for you to do that. So I am confused. As I was not the primary account holder, I was told I was not allowed to get access to the information we provided when the account was opened. I would have to wait for my husband to be present. \nIn the meantime, I reached out to my personal bank on XX/XX/XXXX. They advised me NOT to share this information as it is not a federal law and could be shared. I decided to take another step further and speak to XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, another Federal Bank to see if this information was indeed required by all other banks as USAA claimed. I spoke to manager XXXX and the conversation went as follows : I wondered what questions she would be asking us or what information would they need to open a joint account and she stated, IDs, maiden name, SSN, DOB. While they may have different policies, as for it being a law, all banks would be following it, as far as I know it is not considered a law. Even if there are financial questions that we may ask you for loans, credit card, or investment accounts, they are up to you if you want to answer. This confirmed my research that it was not a federal requirement. \nLater the same day of XX/XX/XXXX, when my husband was home, we spent two hours on the phone to try and get some answers. First, was with USAA agent XXXX. In summary we challenged why this information wasnt provided when the account was opened, this was due to periodic reviews of accounts, the accounts who have not answered these questions are being notified they do need to answer the questions. We had wanted to view the paperwork when the account was opened, but she did not have the information because, we do not have that information to see. It is at the back office where they opened the account. We insisted to be transferred to them stating she would be right back with us. We waited on hold for over 45 minutes, with no answer and never spoke to her again. \nOn our next attempt we decided to call as if we were opening an account to see how that department would answer our questions. After talking to USAA representative XXXX, we were told I should be able to access any information even though I am not the primary contrary to what I have been told prior. XXXX stated we have to ask financial information as all banks do. After waiting on hold for another 10 minutes for him to review the notes, and the nature of our call he stated again, I do not have access to see the information or the answers that were provided when you opened the account. I work in XXXX and XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX. He did confirm that he was asking those same questions when accounts were being opened now : annual income, estimate net worth, occupation, etc.. He stated there are other regulations that require income information under customer due diligence under regulation D and various banking regulations. He was not able to send me information about due diligence so we were conferenced in to Senior with Executive resolutions XXXX ( CEO member relations? ) : XXXX tried to assist us in trying to figure out what information we provided when opening the account. She stated, let me explain to you whats going on. You would not have gotten this information when you opened your account. There was an enhancement to the Patriot Act last year [ XXXX ]. So, this year, all the banks have to comply with the enhancement of the Patriot Act. So those questions like your employment, your income, things like that. So those are a federal regulation now that banks are required to collect this information as part of the customer due diligence information to better get to know your customers ( KYC ) due to all of the terrorism, and things like that going on. We stated we thought we answered our annual income and other questions when we opened the account. She stated each person on the account needed to provide separate information even though we were married. XXXX directed me to the FDIC.gov website to search Customer Due Diligence ( CDD ) which I did. I told XXXX that my personal bank advised I do not give this information as they were not required to and she stated, well they will be. This is a federal regulation that went into effect. XXXX confirmed we started asking these questions this year, but the law went into effect last year so the banks now have to go in and get this information from account holders. I told her all that I could find in regards to the laws were name, date of birth, SSN, and she articulated, It will state other information on that website regarding the customer due diligence where you can ask certain information. On the website I saw nothing even closely related to financial information being required on the CDD update. We repeated to request to see what information was given upon opening of our joint checking account before we add to anything, in hopes to make any information accurate and true. XXXX then stopped answering our questions, and transferred us again to the back office that never answered the phone while hanging up. We waited on hold for 15 minutes to no avail. \nThe final call, was still on XX/XX/XXXX, was the checking department where we spoke to representative XXXX. Irritated she also couldnt access the information we provided when we opened our account so we could verify what information we already provided. I educated her this information was required by the Patriot Act to be kept and maintained for 5 years. We were then compelled to be transferred to specialist XXXX for the next hour about the KYC and CCD questions. We exasperated explaining we were trying first to confirm what information they already had before adding more to it, then trying to better understand their requirement as it was not a federal law to provide financial information under the BSA, Patriot Act, or Due Diligence update. The conversation with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX went as follows as is quite lengthy : I dictated Are you filing a SAR? I am not comfortable sharing the information as it increases my risk of identity theft, a data breach, you can share the information with credit bureaus, internal marketing, external marketing, joint marketing, and affiliates. I have not been told how this information will be protected, or how it is shared, or how you secure the information. I have been told I can not opt out, and it is a violation of the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999 [ nor had I seen a privacy notice for XXXX ]. Until those questions are answered for me this is not allowed. She rudely exclaimed, So I will first say the majority of what you say is incorrect. It is absolutely required under the BSA and under the Patriot Act. Any large bank by FDIC regulation is required to abide by these laws. I agreed these are federal laws, but that financial questions are not apart of those laws. She stated, Yes they are Maam. I quoted section 326 of the Patriot Act, and she ignored it. She was able to confirm in the notations that they had my employment information, physical address, your social security number, date of birth, citizenship, and your full name. That is what we have on file. I stated that my annual income is not a requirement of a federal law as they are already able to verify my identity by the Patriot Act. She stated, yes, it is a requirement and I will agree to disagree. I requested to speak to legal to learn how they will protect and share and secure the information and opt me out of sharing. Id like them to show me the privacy notice from this year or you are not getting the information. I would like to speak to legal to hear on the record what they will do with the information to protect and secure it and opt me out of sharing or I am not going to answer. She replied, okay then your account will be closed. Our legal department does not reach out to customers regarding this matter because it is a standard matter and you absolutely are required. I stated, no other banks Ive spoken with are requiring this information and that is not true. She stated, that is it true and I dont need to speak to your banks as that would be a waste of my time. This conversation is not productive and you have received the same information from five different people. After threatening to end the call, she exclaimed, you have your opinion and it is not factual. I apologize if you disagree but that is not going to change the federal regulations. \nInstead of her ending the call, I stated there was something else she could help with in regards to why if this requirement came out in XX/XX/XXXX, why we werent asked upon opening the account in XX/XX/XXXX. She held there was an internal audit around the time we opened our account and found there was information that they did not have on file as I have already told you. It did not go out in mass issue to members as it would have overwhelmed their system and call volumes. It has just taken this long to get to my name. They have to go through all of their records from the XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX and so yes we have had to do that in groups. We had her confirm once my husband was on the phone that he had already answered the questions they have everything that they need on file for him but was not able to determine when or how he answered the questions. \nMy husband calmly stipulated are the questions different for my personal account because I thought when we opened our joint account, we did it at our combined income levels not separate. She simply said yes, so we reiterated, if they have the combined income of mine and hers together as one number, we needed access to it so we could separate it properly, instead of adding more to it which would change our risk factor. She detailed we can not have a joint answer for two people. However, she was not able to confirm what our annual income was for the account. I do not see it in front of me it is in the back-office records. I was troubled saying, if I gave you my annual income now, it could be potentially adding it to the joint income they may already have which wouldnt be accurate for the federal government She informed us, Their records department is a non-member contact, which is why you never got a response from them as they do not accept phone calls, they are a back office department. We tried to explain we had already been transferred to them twice today and she declared she didnt know how and she couldnt speak to what has happened on previous calls. We stated again we needed to either give us the information that is on our records right now, or we have to update them both together. XXXX described, what I update will just go through the system to records and add to it. There is no way to remove it even if he were to call and change it. No so these are general questions. All these are for it to be sure we can do mitigate risk and be sure that we can do risk monitoring for our members activity. Thats all it is for. So, we corroborated if we gave you the wrong information and were put into a different risk bracket that was going to be a problem. XXXX held, So no, you are misunderstanding what I am saying sir. We do not put you into brackets based on risk factors or anything like that. All it is, is to know if a member makes XXXX-XXXX and a wire comes in for a XXXX dollars that looks strange. That is all it is for. Just so we can have a gauge. Kind of a point a perception to go off of, a point of reference that is literally all it is. We stated in order to do that accurately, we would need to update our information together to separate it. She alleged, we do not have a way to update it, and my husband verbalized, then that is a problem for you not for me. She threatened, not necessarily because if you refuse to provide this information your account will be closed. I can not change an existing number ; I can input new data into the records system that is a form on your profile that is personally attached to you. It then gets sent to our back office for them to file. I can not change his because there is no place to input it. \nAs we expressed concern our direct deposits would be leaked into the account the following week she voiced, I could not find exactly a turn around time for when we needed to move our money out before the account closes. What I would have to do would be to put in a work order to the back office stating that you are refusing to answer the questions. Then at that time they review the account for closure. They would send out an official check with the remaining funds. The team that handles this, [ the MOET team ], it is not records. All direct deposits would be rejected go back to the sender, or if it is within a day or two it could force reopen it if it had not closed completely but usually goes back to the sender. Due to the inconvenience, my husband verified there was no way we could opt out of this, and she expressed, no sir it is a federal regulation. I struggled to get her to conference us into the MOET team who was handling this situation as seniors in the bank, however after being on hold for 20 minutes, she was not able to contact them. XXXX exclaimed she could no longer spent any more time with us to be available for other customers. She confirmed they were very backed up due to all of this going on and it is not a large department. I was frustrated that we would not be able to contact them ourselves and therefore our account would be closed. She confirmed there is no way to contact them by email, by direct number, or any other format by her understanding. This is because they do not use email for secured information. \nConsequently, on Saturday XX/XX/XXXX I realized the need to escalate the complaint so I could have someone call us back since the MOET team was not easily available before the account would be closed. A representative, XXXX, with the Executive Resolutions team, helped me to file a complaint and I was told I would be getting a call back from the CEOs office. She once more confirmed the information is used for banking regulations under the Patriot Act and passed in XXXX after XX/XX/XXXX. When it comes to the Patriot Act it advises us as a financial institution just making sure we are doing our customer due diligence we have to know who our customers are. That is ensuring that we know the individual that is with us here at USAA and what they are using the front for. If someone is using the account as money laundering or transferring money to foreign countries. So that we are not letting people move money around that shouldnt be moving money around. If we do not know our customers enough, you can be asked again and re-verify the information periodically to verify it is still accurate and on file. I reaffirmed in regards to due diligence we didnt have any foreign accounts, and my personal account was not at this bank, and my husband is the primary account holder for the joint checking account which they have his information. I confirmed no other federal banks are requiring these questions. I quoted the GLBA and that our last privacy notice was in XXXX and that was a concern and we are not being given the option to opt out. I tried to express my concerns of using the federal government phrase when it is not a federal requirement, and that it was a serious compliant. She agreed that I should speak to the MOET team. I articulated again they do not answer the phone and she agreed it is a busy department and that you have to wait as they are working overtime. Therefore, I was concerned it wouldnt be resolved in a timely fashion. In my attempt to reach the quality department no one answered again. I was confirmed the CEOs office would contact me within one business day after confirming my phone number on Saturday. \nTwo businesses days later on Tuesday XX/XX/XXXX, I conversed with XXXX from the CEOs office. I gave her a summary of my complaints that our documentation when the account was opened can not be verified, changed, or updated, thus denying us to potentially separate our incomes into two separate numbers. I explained the MOET team could not be reached. I also expressed concern about their requirement to answer the income questions as they are not a federal law for income information as I do not have a loan with them and am not a primary account holder. I told her I didnt appreciate being treated like trash, and be threatened to close my account stating it is a federal law when it is not. Intimidating people to answer questions when the federal government does not require income information and canceling accounts is a huge problem. XXXX stated she was trying to figure out when the account would be closed, but is still waiting from a response from the MOET team. She claimed, It is our current policy and our hands are being tied due to federal guidelines that are forcing us to change and ask these specific questions. I also know that if these questions are not being answered the account will more than likely be closed. They can inactivate the account and in other instances it will be closed. In order to get us into compliance we are being instructed we have to ask this. I requested, to see something official in a document file. I requested to see the policy by email or by mail. I stated that I would like to see that where it specifically asks for income information. She stated, she does not see them written down specifically to ask income questions. I inquired, then how do you know that as a fact? She admitted, I am still waiting for answers. As far as closing accounts we are covered by our depository agreement to do that. That has nothing to do with KYC and that they are closing accounts and inactivating them if the KYC isnt answered. She summarized my concerns and stated she would get back to me with hopefully answering all of my questions. \nOn Thursday XX/XX/XXXX I got another call from a different USAA representative trying to get me to answer the questions again. They stated they will call again in five business days, and then proceed to close the account if I do not answer the questions. She was unaware of the investigation in XXXX office. Later in the evening on XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke to XXXX for the second time. She stated they still will not tell me what the answers were upon opening our joint checking account. They will not update his information unless there was a new product that was applied for and that they will remain there unless a new product is applied for. I postulated, why can they not answer what they are? Do they not have the questions or the answers when the account was opened? Why cant they tell you? It concerns me they do not have them, which is a federal regulation of the Patriot Act they keep them on file. You said the information is under his [ husbands ] primary account. It is unacceptable they cant prove or say what our income is, but that they have it on file, how do they know what they have? It is my legal right to know what I answered, and you are telling me no that I cant have the information. She confirmed that my husband was asked CDD questions this XX/XX/XXXX through the USAA app detour. However, she does not have access to the questions and has been having computer problems all day and her co-worker never supplied them as requested. In regards to what document stated they need to ask income information, she specified it was under the CDD guidelines from the XX/XX/XXXX amendment in the four specific guidelines. She stated she could not distribute the internal document that requires it but did pass legal review and compliance. That is what they are using to fulfill the requirements of the four CDD guidelines. The privacy notice she stated was listed on the USAA website and was revised in XXXX and it has not changed since then, but it is delivered annually and it does state they collect income information. My guess is that is still the current privacy promise and it has not been updated since then but I will verify that. If the privacy promise hasnt changed the revision date it would be the last time that it was revised and therefore is the same. I questioned why the year wouldnt be changed for the new year ( XXXX ), and she stated it didnt need to. I was concerned by this because they are now collecting new income information but it didnt require any changes. \nXXXX verified that we did not answer the questions when the account was opened. I questioned this fact as she does not have access to those and has no idea what was actually requested or answered. This was because she was still trying to get that information from the MOET time. She admitted she does not know. I repeated until we know for sure, I do not want to add to a joint income balance, we can not proceed. If they are refusing to give it to her then thats a problem. In regards to the CDD questions, we determined they make up their own policy which I am not allowed to see stating that it requires income information. I recapped it applies to a USAA policy and is NOT A FEDERAL REQUIREMENT OR LAW. \nXXXX reasoned, when a regulator comes to look at us and asks how are you complying with the CDD guidelines that were outlined, we present them with the CDD questionnaire, period. That is how it relates to the CDD guidelines. It is our internal process and policy due to the government requirement. I argued, the government does not require everyone to answer income information. That is not true. Your institution is requiring that by yourselves. It is not a federal guideline to obtain income information for a joint checking account. Or for any account. Your bank is determining that and doing it all by themselves. Which, granted, you are compliant because you are getting name, DOB, and SSN which is all that is required. You are just going above and beyond thatwhich is fine if you want to. However, stating it is a FEDREAL LAW for me to give it to you is not the case. It is not a federal law for me to provide you my income information. There are laws that protect my financial privacy and I do not have to give it to you, which is why you can close my account and I can go somewhere else. If it was a federal requirement, I would be required at every other bank, which I am not. I spoke to six of the top bank executives in this country that are bigger than you and it is not a federal regulation. So, by you threating people and telling them that it isis a problem because it is not. Even when they called today, they said the same thing. USAA is requiring it, but it is not a federal law. She alleged, so that we comply. I repeated, it is required that you comply by confirming my identity with name, DOB, SSN, and address, running it through your banking system, and with my occupation. That is more than enough to verify someones identity which is all that the CDD requires. Your bank is going outside of that and getting income information. This is fine like I said, but it is not a federal requirement for me to specifically give you my income ; it is not. She finally admits, no it is a requirement of USAA in order for us to meet the guidelines. I again, it is not a federal requirement, it is USAAs requirement. I told her I had a screen shot on my phone it was a federal regulation, it is not. Do you understand? It is a problem. It is your regulation and thats it. It is just yours. She says, so we are in compliance with the federal regulation and the CDD requirements. I strained to clarify, we have been in compliance with you since we opened our account. Stating that if we dont answer the questions, we are not is a lie. And threatening to close my account with you is also a problem because you are stating it is a federal regulation when it is your regulation. Those are two very different things. You are still in compliance even if you were to take the income information out. She says, well not when our policy states that we have to obtain that information, we are not in compliance. I enlightened, even the OCC that regulates you doesnt require that. I could understand that you could close our account because we didnt meet your policy guidelines, thats fine. But telling me specifically it is because it is a federal requirement is not the case. It is not complaint with your policy and your policy alone. \nWe tried to go over it again. I replicated, It isnt because I am not being federally compliant with the law like you are claiming, it is that it is compliant with USAA policy, not the federal government. By you telling me it is a violation of the Patriot Act is not the case. By you telling me it is a violation of the BSA is not the case. By you telling me it is a violation of the XX/XX/XXXX CDD is not the case. Because those are federal laws. There is nothing in any of those laws that specifically require income. It does not exist. That is USAAs policy not the federal government. So by all of these conversations I have on recordings of you telling me that, all the screenshots, and documents, is a big problem. When asking about reaching out to legal she assures me, So legal has already went over our questions I was flustered, okay, are they aware that youre telling people it is a federal regulation for me to answer my income questions? If they were, they would be fixing it immediately as it is a USAA policy. I dont understand why you cant just say it is a USAA policy? Why are you throwing words around and trying to include the federal government when it is none of their business to ask me those questions. Are they aware you are asking them? Because the OCC was concerned [ I spoke to them on XX/XX/XXXX ]. Are they aware of that? That you are telling customers it is a federal requirement by the Patriot Act? No other big banks ask those questions, just you, because it is your own policy. She stated, I am understanding. \nFor additional confirmation, I called XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX as they are the second largest bank in the United States with assets worth {$2200.00} XXXX dollars in XXXX so figured it would be a worthy source. I spoke to XXXX, she stated to open a joint checking account they would need, license, 2 forms of id ( government and personal ), type of account, SSN, address. I have worked for the bank for 38 years and we have never requested income information. We do not ask net worth or income as it is not a government regulation. I can assure you if it was XXXX XXXX XXXX would be doing it. This was encouraging that asking personal financial information was indeed NOT a federal regulation. This was further established with two other local banks in my area to provide some additional ease. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX I spoke to XXXX of MI, OCC, and confirmed with CFPB, and MI Attorney General there is no requirement for financial information and each suggested I file complaints. I followed up with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX. She confirmed we have private settings, our account won't be closed until XXXX, but was unable to find any information from when the account was opened. She stated there were no issues with their privacy notice or way they are doing things and was approved by legal and compliance. I request help. I feel what USAA is doing is a violation of Section 326 of the Patriot Act, Record Keeping, and the GLBA. I am not comfortable with how they have conducted this process, and feel as though they are intimidating people to sacrifice their private financial information by manufacturing it is a federal law. To my knowledge we do not meet any of the BSA requirements that would make us candidates for filing a SAR. In recent legal cases vs.USAA in XX/XX/XXXX I want to make sure this is allowed and is not similar violation","date_sent_to_company":"2019-08-28T04:55:29.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"48125","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3357398","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2019-08-28T04:31:00.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["She held there was an internal <em>audit</em> around the time we opened our account and <em>found</em> there was information that they did not have on file as I have already told you. It did not go out in mass issue to members as it would have overwhelmed their system and call volumes. It has just taken this long to get to my name. They have to go through all of their records from the XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX and so yes we have had to do that in groups."]},"sort":[3.7191033,"3357398"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":6,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":6}]}},"product":{"doc_count":6,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"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":2},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lease","doc_count":1},{"key":"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}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":6,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief","doc_count":1},{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fraudulent loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":6,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":5},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":6,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":6}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":6,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":6}]}},"company":{"doc_count":6,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Byrider Franchising, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"Westlake Services, LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":6,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"NE","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":6,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":3},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":6,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":4},{"key":"Older American","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":{}}}