{"took":115,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":95,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13778789","_score":19.439537,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"has placed an account hold on our small telehealth business and is currently withholding thousands of dollars in legitimate customer payments without any specific explanation or policy violation. We use Squares platform to create and send payment links directly so all transactions occur within their system. \n\nOn or around XX/XX/year>, Square requested verification, which we provided promptly, including a government-issued ID and a formal business statement. Despite this, our funds remain inaccessible and we have not received a timeline for resolution. Customer payments are being held indefinitely, which is disrupting our ability to fulfill active wellness orders. \n\nWe contacted Square by phone on XX/XX/year>, and were told : There is no option to speak with a risk or compliance representative directly No update could be given on the status of our case No information is available on whether our documents have even been reviewed Square is refusing to provide any specific reasoning for the hold, a timeline for release, or any point of contact to escalate this further yet continues to hold funds from paying customers that were processed without error. \n\nThis is now interfering with our ability to operate, fulfill orders, and meet patient care obligations. If there has been no violation of Squares terms, we believe this may constitute an unlawful delay and unfair business practice.\n\nWe are requesting : Immediate review and release of our held funds Written confirmation of any concerns or flags on the account A direct contact from the risk or compliance team","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-30T00:00:43.000Z","issue":"Trouble accessing funds in your mobile or digital wallet","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"334XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13778789","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-29T23:55:21.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We contacted Square by phone on XX/XX/year>, and were told : There is no option to speak with a <em>risk</em> or <em>compliance</em> <em>representative</em> <em>directly</em> No <em>update</em> could be given on the status of our case No information is available on whether our documents have even been reviewed Square is refusing to provide any specific reasoning for the hold, a timeline for release, or any point of contact to escalate this further yet continues to hold funds from paying customers that were processed without error."]},"sort":[19.439537,"13778789"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20026293","_score":13.2803,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to file a complaint against * * Optum Bank * XXXX regarding an unresolved issue with my Health Savings Account ( HSA ). Despite multiple attempts to resolve the matter directly with the bank, the issue remains unresolved after several weeks. \n\nThe incident began around * * XX/XX/XXXX * *, when I attempted to make an HSA contribution of * * {$6800.00} * * for the * * XXXX tax year * *, which was within the allowable annual contribution limit. \n\nHowever, due to an * * ACH transaction failure * *, the contribution did not go through successfully. Even though the transaction failed, Optum Banks system incorrectly updated my HSA contribution records as follows : * My * * XXXX contribution limit was incorrectly increased to {$8500.00} ( maximum limit ) * * as if the contribution had been completed. \n* My * * XXXX contribution limit was reduced to a negative amount of approximately - {$5200.00} * *. \n\nThis incorrect reporting could potentially cause serious * * tax reporting issues and compliance risks * * for me. \n\nSince discovering the problem, I have contacted Optum Bank customer support * * multiple times over the past XXXX weeks * *. I have spent * * over XXXX hours * * speaking with various representatives explaining the issue and requesting correction. \n\nOptum Bank created internal support tickets for this issue : * * * Ticket # XXXX * * * * * Ticket # XXXX * * Despite these tickets and repeated follow-ups, the bank has * * not corrected the contribution records or provided a timeline for resolution * *. Each time I call, I am told the issue is being reviewed, but no progress has been made.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-06T04:11:15.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"78750","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20026293","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"OPTUM BANK, INC.","date_received":"2026-03-06T03:48:58.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem making or receiving payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Even though the transaction failed, Optum Banks system incorrectly <em>updated</em> my HSA contribution records as follows : * My * * XXXX contribution limit was incorrectly increased to {$8500.00} ( maximum limit ) * * as if the contribution had been completed. \n* My * * XXXX contribution limit was reduced to a negative amount of approximately - {$5200.00} * *. \n\nThis incorrect reporting could potentially cause serious * * tax reporting issues and <em>compliance</em> <em>risks</em> * * for me."]},"sort":[13.2803,"20026293"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8244197","_score":13.278851,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to file a formal complaint against KIA Finance for their gross negligence and repeated failures in handling my vehicle registration transfer from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Since XX/XX/2023, I have faced numerous roadblocks due to their incompetence, jeopardizing my compliance with legal requirements and causing significant financial hardship. \nThe Issues : Incorrect Titling Address : Despite repeatedly clarifying that the title 's garaging address XXXX XXXX XXXX  differs from the mailing address XXXX XXXX XXXX KIA Finance continues to send the title with the incorrect address. This critical error prevents me from registering my vehicle in XXXX, where I have resided for nearly XXXX months. \nState Requirement Violation : New York law mandates vehicle registration within 30 days of establishing residency. Due to KIA Finance 's persistent errors, I risk exceeding this legal timeframe and incurring potential penalties.\n\nInadequate Customer Support : Despite assigning an Executive Customer Support representative in XX/XX/2023, communication remains abysmal. My attempts are met with lengthy response delays, conflicting information from lower-level support, and a complete lack of proactive updates on the title 's status. The last contact, in XX/XX/2023, was only achieved after directly involving the representative in a call with the MA  RMV to expose their consistent form submission errors. Since then, I have received no further communication despite repeated attempts. \nFinancial Burden : KIA initially acknowledged their responsibility by covering the cost of re-registering the car in MA in XX/XX/2023. However, after this call with the MA RMV confirming their incorrect form submissions, they inexplicably retracted their admission of fault and refused to reimburse the resulting insurance overages I incurred.\n\nMy Request : I urge your immediate intervention to resolve this frustrating and costly situation. I request the following : Expedited Address Correction : KIA Finance must submit a corrected form to the MA RMV reflecting the accurate garaging address ( MA ) and mailing address ( NY ).\n\nInvestigation and Corrective Action : Conduct a thorough investigation into the repeated titling address errors and implement robust measures to prevent future occurrences.\n\nImproved Communication : Facilitate effective communication with KIA Finance, mandating regular updates on the title 's progress and establishing a definitive timeline for its arrival.\n\nReimbursement : KIA Finance must honor their initial acknowledgment of culpability and reimburse me for the insurance overages they caused due to their negligence.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-30T02:03:35.000Z","issue":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"124XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8244197","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA","date_received":"2024-01-30T01:24:26.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Unable to receive car title or other problem after the loan is paid off"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Due to KIA Finance 's persistent errors, I <em>risk</em> exceeding this legal timeframe and incurring potential penalties.\n\nInadequate Customer Support : Despite assigning an Executive Customer Support <em>representative</em> in XX/XX/2023, communication remains abysmal. My attempts are met with lengthy response delays, conflicting information from lower-level support, and a complete lack of proactive <em>updates</em> on the title 's status."]},"sort":[13.278851,"8244197"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18238230","_score":12.92177,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I received a voicemail from Citibank Fraud Prevention requesting that I verify recent activity on my account. The message included a callback number and a reference number ( XXXX ). I was unavailable at the time, but later that day I attempted to return the call using the provided number and received no answer. I then contacted Citibank directly at XXXX, and XXXX. \n\nAfter being routed to a representative and completing identity verification ( SSN, card number, and name ), I was transferred to the fraud department. I was asked to verify several ACH deposits and purchases made in Florida. I explained that I had recently traveled to XXXX, Florida, and confirmed that all activity was mine, including deposits related to stock sales, Stripe direct deposits, and everyday food purchases. I was told the matter would be reviewed by another team and that I should wait XXXX hours. \n\nAfter waiting the full XXXX hours, I called again on XX/XX/XXXX at approximately XXXX XXXX at XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ( all citibank support numbers and the last number is the referenced number in the voicemail that I was told to call back at ). I went through the same identity verification and transaction review process and again confirmed all activity as legitimate. I was told once more that the issue would be escalated and that I would hear back within another XXXX hours. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called again after not receiving any update and was told the same thing for a third time that the case was under review and I should wait another XXXX hours. \n\nBecause Citibank continued to block my account despite my full cooperation and verification, I was unable to access my funds. This directly caused me to miss a payroll direct deposit of {$3100.00} that was scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX. I rely on these funds to pay existing credit card debt and other financial obligations. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I attempted to log into my account and found that I no longer had access using Face ID or my credentials. When I called Citibank again, I was informed for the first time that my checking account had been closed. I was told that I would receive my remaining balance by check in 3060 days, and that a letter explaining the reason for closure would also be sent within that timeframe. No explanation was provided during the call and the customer service representative seemed in a rush to hang up as soon as possible. \n\nThis situation has caused significant financial hardship. I have outstanding credit card payments due, and being deprived of access to my own funds for up to 60 days puts me at risk of late payments, increased interest charges, and damage to my credit score all through no fault of my own. I fully cooperated with every fraud inquiry and verified all activity as legitimate. \n\nAll the calls were reported to me by the customer service representative as monitored and recorded. If that proof is needed I request for that as proof as well. \n\nI respectfully request : An immediate explanation for the closure of my account. \n\nExpedited release of my funds rather than waiting 3060 days. \n\nAssistance in mitigating the financial harm caused by the prolonged restriction and closure of my account. \n\nI believe this handling of my case is unfair and unreasonable given my full compliance and the lack of any unresolved fraud.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-23T04:08:00.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"110XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18238230","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2025-12-23T03:42:32.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Funds not received from closed account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I believe this handling of my case is unfair and unreasonable given my full <em>compliance</em> and the lack of any unresolved fraud."]},"sort":[12.92177,"18238230"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17245204","_score":12.121801,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"b'On XXXX XXXX XXXX, I began attempting to resolve an issue with my XXXX  credit card account (last four digits: XXXX) after my account became restricted and I was unable to access it. Since that date, I have followed all instructions provided by XXXX  representatives and have made multiple documented attempts to obtain assistance and resolution.\\n\\nAs part of XXXX  requirements to address the account restriction, I was instructed to submit extensive identity-verification documents, including:\\n\\nMy Social Security card\\nMy drivers license\\nA utility bill\\n\\nThese documents were specifically requested by a senior representative named XXXX, who indicated that the matter was being handled at the senior management level. I promptly submitted all of these documents as requested. Despite this, my account remained restricted, and I received no clear explanation or progress update.\\n\\nEven while the restriction remained in place, I continued to receive automated emails and automated IVR calls instructing me to log in or view my account. These systems do not provide an option to reach a live representative, and because my access is fully locked, I am unable to complete the actions XXXX  automated systems are directing me to take. This is both misleading and unhelpful.\\n\\nPursuant to my last conversation with XXXX  (again with the senior representative XXXX), I additionally complied with their payment requirement. I mailed the payment via USPS certified mail, with the following details:\\n\\nUSPS Tracking Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXPayment Method: XXXX XXXX Money Order\\nAmount: $XXXX\\nPayable To: XXXX  Credit Card Payments\\nAccount: Last 4 digits XXXXMy name and address clearly listed on the money order\\n\\nI informed XXXX  of this payment and advised them that they may monitor tracking for delivery confirmation.\\n\\nFrom XXXX XXXX XXXX through XXXX XXXX XXXX, I sent multiple emails to senior management, including Customer Service leadership, the Fraud Department, and the Office of the President. Despite:\\n\\nProviding all identity-verification documents that XXXX  and senior management requested, and Sending the required payment in the manner they specified,\\n\\nI have not received a single acknowledgment, update, or written response from any senior representative.\\n\\nIn my correspondence dated XXXX XXXX XXXX, I again formally summarized:\\n\\nThat my account remained fully restricted\\nThat all requested identity-verification documents had already been submitted to XXXX  as part of a senior management review\\nThat my payment had been mailed exactly as instructed\\nThat I continued to receive automated messages I could not act upon\\nThat I required written confirmation regarding my credit protection and fee reversal\\nThat written communication was necessary due to ongoing service failures\\n\\nDespite this, no one from Customer Service, Fraud, or the Office of the President has providd any substantive update.\\n\\nI additionally sent a detailed message to senior leaders clearly outlining the seriousness of this situation from a professional perspective, as I have over 30 years of experience in financial services in roles spanning customer service, escalation management, technical operations, risk, control, and compliance. I explained that:\\n\\nIn any well-run financial institution, once a matter is escalated to senior leadership, ownership shifts fully to senior management.\\nThe customer is not sent back to the same departments that previously failed to meet expectations.\\nSenior management must provide direct and timely communication.\\nEscalation structures, accountability, and internal controls must be respected.\\n\\nInstead, XXXX  allowed the matter to be pushed back down to the very same departments that repeatedly failed to respond or act. This represents a breakdown in escalation management, communication protocols, governance, and internal controls.\\n\\nAs of XXXX XXXX XXXX, after:\\nSubmitting all identity-verification documents directly to the senior representative XXXX  at his request,\\nSending the required $XXXX  payment via certified mail, and\\nRepeatedly escalating and following up in writing,\\nI still have not received any written correspondence, explanation, or update from any senior leader or department.\\nMeanwhile, my FICO score has already been negatively impacted, despite my full compliance and the fact that the delays were entirely caused by the account restriction and XXXX  lack of communication.\\n\\nIn summary:\\nI submitted all identity-verification documents (Social Security card, drivers license, utility bill) specifically requested by senior representative XXXX  in connection with a senior management-handled escalation.\\nI mailed the required $XXXX  payment via certified mail as instructed.\\nMy account remains restricted with no access.\\nI continue to receive automated messages I cannot act upon.\\nI sent multiple escalation emails to senior management without any substantive response.\\nI explicitly informed XXXX  that their process is flawed and inconsistent with standard escalation practices in the financial industry.\\nMy credit has already been harmed due to XXXX  handling of this situation.\\n\\nI am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review this matter, require XXXX  to correct the damage to my credit, reverse any improper fees, restore access to my account, and address the failures in their escalation, verification, and communication procedures.'","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-15T01:00:11.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33547","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17245204","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-15T00:59:41.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["\\n\\nAs of XXXX XXXX XXXX, after:\\nSubmitting all identity-verification documents <em>directly</em> to the senior <em>representative</em> XXXX  at his request,\\nSending the required $XXXX  payment via certified mail, and\\nRepeatedly escalating and following up in writing,\\nI still have not received any written correspondence, explanation, or <em>update</em> from any senior leader or department."]},"sort":[12.121801,"17245204"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17241745","_score":12.121801,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"b'On XXXX XXXX XXXX, I began attempting to resolve an issue with my XXXX  credit card account (last four digits: XXXX) after my account became restricted and I was unable to access it. Since that date, I have followed all instructions provided by XXXX  representatives and have made multiple documented attempts to obtain assistance and resolution.\\n\\nAs part of XXXX  requirements to address the account restriction, I was instructed to submit extensive identity-verification documents, including:\\n\\nMy Social Security card\\nMy drivers license\\nA utility bill\\n\\nThese documents were specifically requested by a senior representative named XXXX, who indicated that the matter was being handled at the senior management level. I promptly submitted all of these documents as requested. Despite this, my account remained restricted, and I received no clear explanation or progress update.\\n\\nEven while the restriction remained in place, I continued to receive automated emails and automated IVR calls instructing me to log in or view my account. These systems do not provide an option to reach a live representative, and because my access is fully locked, I am unable to complete the actions XXXX  automated systems are directing me to take. This is both misleading and unhelpful.\\n\\nPursuant to my last conversation with XXXX  (again with the senior representative XXXX), I additionally complied with their payment requirement. I mailed the payment via USPS certified mail, with the following details:\\n\\nUSPS Tracking Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXPayment Method: XXXX XXXX Money Order\\nAmount: $XXXXPayable To: XXXX  Credit Card Payments\\nAccount: Last 4 digits XXXXMy name and address clearly listed on the money order\\n\\nI informed XXXX  of this payment and advised them that they may monitor tracking for delivery confirmation.\\n\\nFrom XXXX XXXX XXXX through XXXX XXXX XXXX, I sent multiple emails to senior management, including Customer Service leadership, the Fraud Department, and the Office of the President. Despite:\\n\\nProviding all identity-verification documents that XXXX  and senior management requested, and Sending the required payment in the manner they specified,\\n\\nI have not received a single acknowledgment, update, or written response from any senior representative.\\n\\nIn my correspondence dated XXXX XXXX XXXX, I again formally summarized:\\n\\nThat my account remained fully restricted\\nThat all requested identity-verification documents had already been submitted to XXXX  as part of a senior management review\\nThat my payment had been mailed exactly as instructed\\nThat I continued to receive automated messages I could not act upon\\nThat I required written confirmation regarding my credit protection and fee reversal\\nThat written communication was necessary due to ongoing service failures\\n\\nDespite this, no one from Customer Service, Fraud, or the Office of the President has providd any substantive update.\\n\\nI additionally sent a detailed message to senior leaders clearly outlining the seriousness of this situation from a professional perspective, as I have over 30 years of experience in XXXX XXXX in roles spanning customer service, escalation management, technical operations, risk, control, and compliance. I explained that:\\n\\nIn any well-run financial institution, once a matter is escalated to senior leadership, ownership shifts fully to senior management.\\nThe customer is not sent back to the same departments that previously failed to meet expectations.\\nSenior management must provide direct and timely communication.\\nEscalation structures, accountability, and internal controls must be respected.\\n\\nInstead, XXXX  allowed the matter to be pushed back down to the very same departments that repeatedly failed to respond or act. This represents a breakdown in escalation management, communication protocols, governance, and internal controls.\\n\\nAs of XXXX XXXX XXXX, after:\\nSubmitting all identity-verification documents directly to the senior representative XXXX  at his request,\\nSending the required $XXXX  payment via certified mail, and\\nRepeatedly escalating and following up in writing,\\nI still have not received any written correspondence, explanation, or update from any senior leader or department.\\nMeanwhile, my FICO score has already been negatively impacted, despite my full compliance and the fact that the delays were entirely caused by the account restriction and XXXX  lack of communication.\\n\\nIn summary:\\nI submitted all identity-verification documents (Social Security card, drivers license, utility bill) specifically requested by senior representative XXXX  in connection with a senior management-handled escalation.\\nI mailed the required $XXXX  payment via certified mail as instructed.\\nMy account remains restricted with no access.\\nI continue to receive automated messages I cannot act upon.\\nI sent multiple escalation emails to senior management without any substantive response.\\nI explicitly informed XXXX  that their process is flawed and inconsistent with standard escalation practices in the financial industry.\\nMy credit has already been harmed due to XXXX  handling of this situation.\\n\\nI am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review this matter, require XXXX  to correct the damage to my credit, reverse any improper fees, restore access to my account, and address the failures in their escalation, verification, and communication procedures.'","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-15T01:00:08.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33547","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17241745","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-11-15T00:59:41.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["\\n\\nAs of XXXX XXXX XXXX, after:\\nSubmitting all identity-verification documents <em>directly</em> to the senior <em>representative</em> XXXX  at his request,\\nSending the required $XXXX  payment via certified mail, and\\nRepeatedly escalating and following up in writing,\\nI still have not received any written correspondence, explanation, or <em>update</em> from any senior leader or department."]},"sort":[12.121801,"17241745"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16668094","_score":11.836656,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"1. My complaint starts when I received a letter from Chase stating my account was closing. Chase stated there was concerning activity and I was instructed by Chase in writing to destroy all cards and checks associated with the accounts ( attached ). \n\nA. The concerning activity I attempted to appeal this decision through the CFPB to get directly in contact with the XXXX XXXX but was met with a response that their decision was remaining the same. In their response, I noticed they revised their original statement referring to it as unexpected activity when responding to my appeal ( attached ). I would like clarification on this inconsistency, as the original terminology used is associated with accusations, which brings me to the next part of my complaint ; When a Chase XXXX representative previously accused me of money laundering when discussing my personal transfers. This was documented as a complaint with Chase, and after making them aware of that statement, two Chase managers called me directly about the issue, attempting to discuss the statement that was made. Now I have received a letter from Chase, after a transfer that was performed, dated the same day, providing notice that my accounts will be closing. A transfer that was performed in accordance with Chases published guidance, and yet Chase ultimately blamed me for activity being concerning that it itself directed and encouraged.. I will be attaching Chases own How to Avoid a Fee terms ( attached ). \n\nB. Credit Card Fraud and Possible Identity Theft I followed the instructions in the letter directly as stated, then discarded all the material. On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX   EST, a Chase representative contacted me to verify transaction activity and I then realized I fell victim to fraud. I explained the letter I received and having trouble destroying a metal card, but ultimately followed the instructions on the letter. The representative claims she has no idea what I was talking about and intimidated me for following instructions by Chase then later stated during the call that my Social Security number and personal data may have been compromised due my actions the very outcome that resulted from following Chases own written instructions. \n\n- This sequence of events reflects negligence and a deceptive practice under the Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ). Furthermore, because Chases instructions directly created a risk of unauthorized use of my account and personal data, this also implicates Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 ), which governs consumer liability and bank obligations following unauthorized transactions.\n\n2. Chases failure to deliver communications, including my account statements, through my authorized electronic communication channel, and the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive financial information 1. I was enrolled in Chase Banks paperless statements program, which required me to provide an email address for electronic communications.\n\n2. My original email address was later compromised, so I updated my email address in Chase Banks online system. Chase acknowledged and confirmed the updated email, and communications have been successfully sent to the new email since then. My old email was removed from my account profile and is no longer authorized. \n\n- When I updated my email address, this update served as an express revocation of consent for Chase to send any further electronic communications or statements to my previous email address. Chase acknowledged this change, and the old address no longer appeared in my online banking profile.\n\n3. After this update, I opened a new account with Chase, using the updated email address on the application. However, Chase sent communications, including statements, for this accountincluding account type, product type, balances, due dates, statement details, and the last 4 digits of my cardto my old, unauthorized email address. An address never provided for this account.\n\n4. I did not receive certain communications and statements at any authorized communication channel, preventing me from monitoring my accounts and accessing financial records I am entitled to. \n\nLegal and Regulatory Basis for Complaint 1. E-SIGN Act / Paperless Agreement Violation : Under the E-SIGN Act, electronic records must be delivered in a manner that ensures the customer can reliably access them. Chase failed to deliver statements to my authorized email, violating my rights under the paperless agreement.\n\n2. UDAAP Unfair and Abusive Practices ( Dodd-Frank Act 5531, 5536 ) : - Unfair : Chases failure to send statements to my authorized email caused substantial harm by preventing access to account information necessary for financial management.\n\n- Deceptive : Chase represented that my email information had been updated and that all paperless statements would be sent to my authorized address, which did not occur. - Abusive : Sending sensitive account information to an old, unauthorized\nemail interfered with my ability to manage my finances and exposed me to potential fraud risk.\n\nLegal basis for revoked consent A. E-SIGN Act Under 15 U.S.C. 7001 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C ) ( ii ), consumers have the right to withdraw consent for electronic delivery at any time, and the institution must honor that withdrawal within a reasonable period.\n\nBy sending statements to the revoked address, Chase : * Ignored a withdrawn consent, and * Failed to provide effective electronic delivery as required by E-SIGN.\n\nUnder 15 U.S.C. 7001 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C ) ( ii ), I had the right to withdraw or modify my consent to receive records at a specific electronic address. My email update and Chases acknowledgment constituted withdrawal of consent for the prior email address. By continuing to send records to that revoked address, Chase failed to comply with the E-SIGN Acts consumer consent and withdrawal provisions. \n\nB. Regulation P ( GLBA, 12 C.F.R. 1016.13 ) Regulation P also ties consent and authorization to nonpublic personal information sharing. Once you revoke consent, the bank must stop sending or disclosing information to that contact channel.\n\nUnder 12 C.F.R. 1016.13, financial institutions must respect consumer directions regarding disclosure and delivery of nonpublic personal information. My revocation of consent for th\ne prior email address made any further disclosures to that channel unauthorized under Regulation P.\n\n3. Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) and Regulation P ( 15 U.S.C. 68016809 ; 12 C.F.R. Part 1016 ) - The GLBA and Regulation P require financial institutions to protect the confidentiality of nonpublic personal information ( NPI ) and to ensure that disclosures are made only to authorized recipients.\n\n- Chases continued transmission of account statements containing personal and financial details to an unauthorized, compromised email address constitutes a failure to safeguard NPI and an unauthorized disclosure under these provisions.\n\n4. Violation of the FTC Safeguards Rule ( 16 C.F.R. Part 314 ) - The Safeguards Rule, issued under the GLBA, requires financial institutions to maintain appropriate procedures to protect customer information from unauthorized access or disclosure.\n\n- Chases failure to prevent statements from being sent to an unauthorized email shows a breakdown in internal safeguards and information-security controls.\n\n5. Potential Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ( ECPA 18 U.S.C. 2511 ) - The ECPA prohibits the intentional transmission of electronic communications containing personal data to unauthorized or unintended recipients. By sending confidential statements to a deauthorized, compromised email address, Chase may have violated the ECPAs prohibition against the unauthorized disclosure of protected electronic communications.\n\n1. Following the account closure, I contacted Chase to request copies of my account statements, since I never received them through any authorized channel which banks are federally required to retain and make available. The representative named XXXX stated on a recorded line that I would need to step into a branch to receive my statements, despite me explaining that I was outside the country and unable to appear in person. When I informed her that such a requirement obstructs my rights as a consumer, she replied that it was procedure and then abruptly ended the call. \n\nAt the time my accounts were active, I was enrolled in paperless statements and regularly accessed them through Chase Online Banking. Since the closure, Chase has revoked my ability to view past statements electronically and now refuses to issue them physically by mail, thereby denying me access by both methods. This is not only unreasonable it is directly inconsistent with federal regulations requiring that consumers be able to access or reproduce their own account records within the retention period. \n\nChases refusal to provide statements through a reasonable and accessible means constitutes a violation of multiple consumer protection and recordkeeping laws, including : * 12 C.F.R. 1005.9 ( Regulation E ) and 12 C.F.R. 1030.6 ( Regulation DD ) Failure to provide periodic statement information as required for consumer accounts * 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( UDAAP ) Unfair restriction of access to financial records that causes harm the consumer can not reasonably avoid * 15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq. ( E-SIGN Act ) Denial of continued access to electronic disclosures and statements after consent was established Limiting statement access only to an in-branch process especially when the customer can not physically appear and previously received paperless electronic disclosures is an unfair and obstructive practice under federal law. It prevents the consumer from reviewing transactions, filing disputes, and maintaining accurate financial records, all of which constitute substantial harm. \n\nCompounding these issues, these incidents form a clear pattern of poor data handling, noncompliance, and consumer harm. I followed Chases instructions in good faith from discarding my cards and checks as directed, to maintaining updated contact information in my profile. Each time, Chases own actions resulted in harm, exposure, and blame directed at the customer. \n\nThe incident involving Chases unauthorized use of an old, compromised email address demonstrates that the customer had no control over the banks communications or internal processes, reinforcing that Chase not the customer is responsible for these failures. This sequence of events illustrates a systemic failure in Chases compliance, data protection, and customer communication practices, all of which place consumers at risk and violate federal privacy, banking, and consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-17T07:31:46.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"06614","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16668094","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-10-17T07:09:42.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem accessing account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This sequence of events illustrates a systemic failure in Chases <em>compliance</em>, data protection, and customer communication practices, all of which place consumers at <em>risk</em> and violate federal privacy, banking, and consumer protection laws."]},"sort":[11.836656,"16668094"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8485080","_score":11.192137,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Consumer, Financial Protection Bureau, I am writing to file a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. This letter outlines a series of events that demonstrate the servicers failure to adhere to guidelines set forth in the CARES Act and changes to FHA policies, guidelines, and requirements. These failures have resulted in significant financial distress for me and put my property at imminent risk of foreclosure. I am seeking a thorough investigation into these matters and an appropriate resolution to prevent further harm and ensure compliance with federal regulations designed to protect consumers XX/XX/XXXX : Following a Presidentially Declared Major Disaster, a3-month forbearance period was announced for affected homeowners. Despite this announcement XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX did not inform me about the available forbearance relief, contrary to CARES Act requirements for lenders to provide relief options to borrowers during disaster declarations. \nXX/XX/XXXX : I contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to notify them that I was in imminent default and to inquire about further forbearance or loss mitigation options, referencing HUD 's updated FHA guidelines. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX denied access to disaster-related forbearance due to alleged non-notification by FHA and unawareness of the Mortgagee Letters updates, resulting in the failure to inform me of the new guidelines which could have offered necessary relief, demonstrating a lack of compliance with federal directives to keep servicing staff informed and trained on current loss mitigation options. This action directly contradicts HUD 's guidelines which mandate mortgages to review all borrowers in default or facing imminent default for COVID-19 Recovery Options. Despite the broadened eligibility criteria for COVID-19 forbearance outlined in HUD 's updated guidelines, the lender denied forbearance based on an assertion that we had exhausted our forbearance options in XXXX. This directly contradicts the updated provisions designed to provide relief to borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX : Despite the Presidentially Declared Major Disaster XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX denied knowledge of the disaster-related forbearance due to alleged non-notification by FHA and disregarded directive for lenders to review and provide COVID-19 recovery options to all eligible borrowers, irrespective of previous forbearance history, indicating a systemic failure to adhere to mandated relief programs. Despite my proactive communication with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX about being in imminent default and seeking forbearance relief based on HUD 's updated guidelines, the bank proceeded to modify my mortgage to a XXXX term contrary to my stated financial situation. This action disregarded my rights and failed to comply with HUD guidelines that require clear communication and consent for loan modifications. The guidelines require that any loan modification, especially those extending the loan term and altering monthly payments, should be conducted with the borrower 's knowledge and consent, ensuring that relief options are tailored to genuinely assist the borrower 's financial recovery. This situation not only demonstrates a failure to comply with federal guidelines but also a disregard for our financial wellbeing and autonomy in decision-making regarding our mortgage. The unauthorized modification of my loan by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, despite my explicit communication regarding my financial distress and without my consent, exemplifies a significant failure to adhere to the federally mandated guidelines designed to provide relief to homeowners affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX actions highlight a systemic issue of non-compliance particularly concerning the review and application of COVID-19 Recovery Options for borrowers in imminent default which lead to an increase in our payment without proper notification or consent, exacerbating our financial distress. \nXX/XX/XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX, I received loan modification documents to sign and return by XX/XX/XXXX, which formalized the modification despite not being 90 Days delinquent on my mortgage payment ( a usual prerequisite for loan modification ) and requesting that the loan not be modified at this time. The lender 's request for the loan modification documents to be signed and notarized within 10 business days does not align with the guidelines, which afford borrowers 30 days to review such documents and an additional 30 days to start payments on the new modification. The lenders reference to foreclosure upon not receiving the signed documents within their stipulated timeframe disregards the mandated review and creates a high-pressure situation that encourages quick decisions without giving us time to fully understand the implications of what we are signing or knowing all available options to us XX/XX/XXXX : I was sent a letter notifying me that the modification had been removed due to failing to return the required documents and funds. I also received notification that a default had occurred under the terms of the note and if funds were not paid to cure the default that my account would be \" accelerated '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX placed me in an unemployment forbearance program in three-month increments, sidestepping the protections intended by FHA Mortgagee Letter 2023-03 . This guideline clearly states that lenders must review all borrowers in default or facing imminent default for the COVID-19 Recovery Options through XX/XX/XXXX, without disqualifying them based on the duration of their delinquency or their past participation in COVID-19 related forbearance. Contrary to these directives, the lender 's approach to forbearance not only disregarded the updated guideline 's stipulation that forbearance should not be denied based on being more than 12 months behind at the time of approval but also utilized a loophole to manipulate forbearance in strategic increments that were more favorable to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX denying the long-term assistance by exploiting procedural nuances at our expense during this unprecedented time. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX actions are particularly concerning given that, despite being in imminent default over several months, the guidelines affirm that borrowers like myself should still be considered for comprehensive relief measures. Specifically, FHA Letter 2023-03 mandates that borrowers 90 or more days delinquent at the time the permanent loss mitigation documents are executed, or those meeting the criteria for imminent default, must be evaluated for COVID-19 Recovery Options. This includes borrowers who have previously utilized HAF funds for mortgage reinstatement but attest to their inability to resume monthly payments. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX practices not only undermine the FHA 's intentions to provide necessary relief to borrowers impacted by National Disasters but also compromise the financial security of everyone who is facing challenging circumstances. \nXX/XX/XXXX : Following the termination of my forbearance period, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX requested updated financial information from my spouse, citing a lack of updates since XXXX. The services failed to engage in proactive and ongoing communication with us to reassess our eligibility for loss mitigation options that are required under the CARES Act. This request underscores a critical oversight in the bank 's approach to borrower engagement and loss mitigation efforts. The CARES Act does not stipulate the requirement for borrowers to re-qualify for assistance or to provide updated financial documentation to be considered for loss mitigation options. The Act 's provisions are designed to ensure that borrowers impacted by COVID-19 and or PDMDA have access to relief measures without the precondition of submitting new financial information. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX request not only deviates from this principle but also indicates a broader issue of compliance with the act 's intent to facilitate accessible and efficient relief for borrowers during unprecedented times. This is a significant gap in the bank 's procedures for communicating with borrowers and reassessing their needs for support in alignment with federal regulations designed to protect homeowners during the pandemic and PDMDA 's. \nXX/XX/XXXX : I was informed by a representative from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX team that foreclosure actions were being initiated on my property, despite my active forbearance period. I notified the representative of the proactive steps that I had applied for the Homeowner 's Assistance Fund ( HAF ) to assist me in meeting my past due mortgage obligation, but the representative stated that the bank plans to proceed with foreclosure regardless of my application to the assistance fund. In search of clarification and a resolution, I asked to speak with a supervisor. Unfortunately, the account information provided by the supervisor was inaccurate, stating my account was delinquent with the last payment recorded in XX/XX/XXXX, including two split payments. When I attempted to correct this with the accurate payment dates, it was clear the bank lacked an efficient system for promptly verifying such details. I corrected her, stating my last payment was in XX/XX/XXXX, not XXXX. The supervisor directed me to the customer service department, rather than addressing the inaccurate account information used to justify the foreclosure. To address these discrepancies and avoid further miscommunication, I directly contacted my designated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX. However, instead of receiving a response from XXXX XXXX, I was contacted two weeks later by XXXX XXXX, who introduced herself as XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX assistant. Despite my continuous attempts to engage with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX representatives and seek a resolution through appropriate channels, the bank chose an unconventional approach and sent a representative to our home who approached my son outside our residence, instructing him to relay a message for us to contact the bank. Sending a representative in such an invasive manner, especially after our multiple attempts to resolve the issue, represents not only an invasion of privacy but also amplifies the stress and anxiety linked to the looming threat of foreclosure by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nWe have made proactive attempts to engage with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to resolve inaccuracies in our account and have clearly communicated our intention and efforts to comply with our mortgage obligations. Despite these efforts, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has proceeded with refering our accout to an attorney for foreclosure, showing apparent indifference to the challenges we have faced and the proactive steps we have taken to maintain the home during a Presidentially Declared Major Disaster showing a complete disregard for the federal guidelines and assistance programs that are designed to offer additional protections and support to homeowners facing financial hardships to ensure housing stability XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX continued to mismanagement of the mortgage assistance programs that are intended to aid financially distressed homeowners has compromised our ability to recover from financial setbacks and maintain housing stability by obstructing the recovery process for individuals in dire need by undermining the purpose of these assistance programs to ensure homeowners can retain their properties during a time of crises. \n\nThese measures are meant to offer a safety net for a broad spectrum of borrowers that are recovering from the impact of the pandemic and other economic challenges. The ineffective implementation of these measures by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and the barriers that they have created for us when we sought assistance have directly undermines the purpose of HUD 's programs and has herded us like cattle into an outcomes that will ultimately favor Lakeview Loan Services and the servicer of our loan XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I request that the CFPB thoroughly investigate these violations by Lakeview Loan Services and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I believe that our experiences highlights systemic issues within XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX management of mortgage assistance programs during an unprecedented global pandemic and national disasters, necessitating immediate and decisive action to protect not only my rights but those of other affected borrowers","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-06T19:14:31.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"91915","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8485080","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC","date_received":"2024-03-06T18:44:33.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"An existing modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or other loss mitigation relief"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["These failures have resulted in significant financial distress for me and put my property at imminent <em>risk</em> of foreclosure. I am seeking a thorough investigation into these matters and an appropriate resolution to prevent further harm and ensure <em>compliance</em> with federal regulations designed to protect consumers XX/XX/XXXX : Following a Presidentially Declared Major Disaster, a3-month forbearance period was announced for affected homeowners."]},"sort":[11.192137,"8485080"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17827045","_score":10.660421,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Complaint Regarding Improper Identity-Based Denial Synchrony Bank / CareCredit\n\nI am filing this formal complaint regarding Synchrony Banks improper denial of my CareCredit application based on an unable to verify identity determination. I was never offered any opportunity to cure or validate identity information a right clearly afforded under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), and Regulation B, which require creditors to allow consumers to provide documentation to resolve identity-verification issues before rendering an adverse decision.\n\nI was initially pre-approved for a {$6500.00} cr\nedit line and voluntarily completed Synchronys ID verification process, including submission of identifying information that precisely matches my TransUnion and XXXX  consumer reports. I provided : My full legal name Social Security Number Active phone number Current California address Employment as a private-duty travel nurse Excellent credit history Despite the accuracy and consistency of this data, I received a denial with no representative contact, no request for supporting documents, and no method to cure any alleged discrepancy. This constitutes a failure of due process in consumer credit adjudication. \n\nI am a licensed New York nurse temporarily living and working in California, which is normal for travel-healthcare professionals. Any resulting address update or verification question is simple to resolve and routinely accepted by other institutions. Synchronys automated denial appears both arbitrary and unsupported by any actual identity-risk indicators. \nThis denial has caused direct financial harm as I am seeking access to CareCredit for urgent and ongoing veterinary medical care for my service dog, who is facing surgical removal of her XXXX. CareCredit exists specifically to support essential care needs like this, and denying access without lawful procedure is deeply harmful and unfair. \nSynchronys conduct appears to violate : ECOA / Regulation B refusal to allow a reasonable opportunity to verify identification FCRA failure to properly reconcile accurate and consistent consumer-report data UDAAP ( Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts and Practices ) arbitrary and harmful denial of needed medical financing Requested Resolution : I request CFPB assistance to ensure Synchrony : Immediately reinstates and approves my CareCredit account with the originally quoted {$6500.00} credit limit, contingent on routine document verification Removes any negative decision or internal flag arising from this denial Contacts me directly to complete the process swiftly and in compliance with federal law I can provide supporting documents including driver license, California nursing license, bank statements, and proof of current assignment all available upon request.\n\nI respectfully request the Bureaus intervention to facilitate a prompt and fair resolution so that I can secure needed medical financing for my service animals care. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX Complainant XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-08T13:46:58.000Z","issue":"Getting a credit card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"908XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17827045","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2025-12-08T13:43:59.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Application denied"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Any resulting address <em>update</em> or verification question is simple to resolve and routinely accepted by other institutions. Synchronys automated denial appears both arbitrary and unsupported by any actual identity-<em>risk</em> indicators. \nThis denial has caused direct financial harm as I am seeking access to CareCredit for urgent and ongoing veterinary medical care for my service dog, who is facing surgical removal of her XXXX."]},"sort":[10.660421,"17827045"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15745185","_score":10.228407,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"Summary of Complaint : On XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX MoneyLion / XXXX XXXX engaged in a series of company-designed practices that obstructed the complainants and likely other consumers ability to resolve charged-off accounts in full. \n\nDespite available funds, an active mortgage underwriting process, and multiple documented good-faith payment attempts, MoneyLions internal repayment protocols created unreasonable and avoidable barriers to resolution. \n\nThis is not a technical failure ; it is intentional system design. \n\nThe result is material, high-stakes financial harm : The delayed payoff directly threatens the complainants ability to secure a 5.26 % mortgage interest rate. \n\nIf this account can not be resolved immediately, there is a real and urgent risk that mortgage loan approval will be denied entirely. \n\nMoneyLions obstruction jeopardizes the complainants home purchase and long-term financial stability a life-changing consequence tied directly to these company-created policies.\n\nMoneyLions practices are not federally mandated. They are internally engineered barriers, applied at scale, and they raise significant concerns under : UDAAP for unfair and abusive practices FCRA 623 for furnishing accuracy and reporting consistency CFPB supervisory expectations requiring creditors to provide reasonable repayment pathways Timeline and Evidence of Events 1. Payment Obstruction Immediate Barriers to Payoff Created The complainant initially called MoneyLion on XX/XX/XXXX, to rectify a charged-off account reported on her credit file in preparation for a XX/XX/XXXX mortgage closing. \n\nIntent to settle first : The complainant first attempted to negotiate a settlement, but the representative stated that MoneyLions policy prohibits settlements.\n\nPivot to pay-in-full : The complainant immediately offered to pay the balance in full on the call instead. \nPayment plan pushed : Despite multiple refusals, the representative attempted to enroll the complainant in a payment plan three separate times.\n\nDebit card issue introduced : After agreeing to pay in full, the rep requested only the last four digits of a debit card, which the complainant no longer had due to the age of the account. \nCharged-off contradiction surfaced : The complainant stated, Im looking at my credit report, and it says this account is charged off. How is this active? No explanation was provided. \nRequest for escalation denied : The complainant asked if she could speak to the department handling charged-off accounts and was told there was no escalations department. She then requested a supervisor and was transferred. \n\n2. ACH Rejection Blocked Payments From an FDIC-Insured Bank Once transferred, the supervisor offered ACH transfer as the solution. The complainant agreed, but this attempt failed without valid cause.\n\nACH attempted twice : The complainant provided her XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX account, an FDIC-insured, nationally chartered bank, and was told both attempts failed security clearance. \nNo explanation for security clearance : The supervisor could not explain why an FDIC-insured bank failed internal MoneyLion security.\n\nNo alternative provided : When the complainant asked what account would pass, the supervisor could not answer and suggested using a different checking account, despite knowing she only maintains one active account.\n\nComplainant attempted to comply at every step but was repeatedly blocked. \n\n3. Payment Obstruction Forced Into Inactive Platform After ACH rejection, the supervisor stated the only way to proceed was to log into the original MoneyLion platform tied to the loan.\n\nInactive platform issue : The complainant explained she no longer had access to the associated email account to log in. \nRequested email update : The complainant asked for her email to be updated. The supervisor agreed but required a one-business-day review before access could be restored. \nSupervisor repeatedly slipped, stating, We need to investigate your file I mean review, multiple times on a recorded line.\n\nSupervisor promised to manually expedite the review process so access could be granted sooner.\n\nAfter review completion, the supervisor revealed that adding a new debit card to the platform would trigger a mandatory five-business-day verification before payment could be processed. \nComplainant again attempted to comply but faced yet another delay. \n\n4. Payment Obstruction Roar Money Account Requirement The supervisor later called back and stated that in order to make payment, the complainant must open a new MoneyLion XXXX XXXX account and wait up to 710 business days for activation. \n\nComplainant refused initially, stating : I do not want another account. I want to pay this balance in full, close it, and be done. \nFacing no alternatives, the complainant reluctantly agreed to open the account solely to resolve the debt. \nBefore proceeding, the complainant requested written confirmation that she had called in good faith to pay the account in full and that MoneyLions policies and systems were blocking her from doing so.\n\nSupervisor sent an email but minimized the urgency, omitting critical facts like the complainants pending mortgage closing and repeated attempts to comply.\n\n5. Escalation to Customer Advocacy No Contact Provided After sending the email, the supervisor informed the complainant she was escalated to Customer Advocacy and would be contacted within one business day.\n\nThe complainant waited the full day and received no call, no email, and no outreach of any kind. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the complainant called back and requested to speak directly with Customer Advocacy, even offering to provide the case reference number. \nAfter three separate holds totaling over 45 minutes, the representative stated there is no direct line to Customer Advocacy and that she would just have to wait.\n\nThe complainant reminded them of the time-sensitive mortgage closing and warned that she would escalate the matter to the CFPB if unresolved. \nRepresentative acknowledged the warning but provided no further options or timeline for resolution. \n\n6. Contradictory Account Classification MoneyLions internal designation of the account conflicted directly with its credit bureau reporting.\n\nMoneyLion referred to the account as active while reporting it as charged-off to all three credit bureaus.\n\nWhen the complainant disputed this inconsistency during the call, no explanation was provided. \nFurnishing an account as charged-off while treating it as active to the consumer raises potential FCRA 623 violations.\n\n7. Failure to Verify Power of Attorney MoneyLion deviated from standard industry practices by bypassing power of attorney ( POA ) verification.\n\nPOA in effect since XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  : The complainants credit file has been under active management by authorized representatives for nearly a year. \nEvery other creditor verified POA status before proceeding ; MoneyLion bypassed this step entirely. \nThis inconsistency further delayed resolution and introduced additional compliance concerns. \n\n8. Recorded Admission of Internal Investigation Supervisory statements on recorded calls suggest undisclosed internal review activity tied to the account.\n\nSupervisor repeatedly referred to an investigation into the complainants file before self-correcting to review multiple times.\n\nThese statements were made on a recorded line and indicate possible undisclosed actions relevant to the account status. \n\nRegulatory Implications UDAAP ( Dodd-Frank 5531 ) : Creating avoidable, policy-driven barriers to repayment constitutes an unfair and abusive practice resulting in material consumer harm.\n\nFCRA 623 : Reporting an account as charged-off while treating it as active/open to the consumer introduces potential furnishing violations.\n\nCFPB Supervisory Standards : CFPB expects creditors to provide clear, reasonable, and timely repayment pathways. MoneyLions policies fail this standard at every level.\n\nImportant Note : As of XXXX XXXX - Customer Advocacy has still not reached out or responded in ANY way.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-05T19:24:19.000Z","issue":"Problem with the payoff process at the end of the loan","sub_product":"Installment loan","zip_code":"782XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15745185","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"MoneyLion Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-05T18:35:42.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company believes the complaint provided an opportunity to answer consumer's questions","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The result is material, high-stakes financial harm : The delayed payoff <em>directly</em> threatens the complainants ability to secure a 5.26 % mortgage interest rate. \n\nIf this account can not be resolved immediately, there is a real and urgent <em>risk</em> that mortgage loan approval will be denied entirely. \n\nMoneyLions obstruction jeopardizes the complainants home purchase and long-term financial stability a life-changing consequence tied <em>directly</em> to these company-created policies."]},"sort":[10.228407,"15745185"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17074381","_score":10.076604,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"My XXXX mortgage is serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX and I am experiencing extreme and unreasonable delays in the release of insurance loss draft funds after a covered home damage claim. The delays have created health and safety hazards for my family and may violate FHA servicing guidelines. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, our home at XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX suffered a Category XXXX sewage backup, which caused extensive damage to walls, floors, and subflooring. Our insurer, XXXX XXXX, approved a claim for {$21000.00} on XX/XX/year>. The endorsed insurance check was delivered to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/year>. \n\nDespite confirming receipt, XXXX XXXX  has not released the full funds necessary to begin mitigation and repair work. We have endured over a month of delays, during which our family has been forced to live with exposed sewage-contaminated flooring and mold growth. \n\nXXXX of Events : XX/XX/year> : Category XXXX sewage backup occurred. \nXX/XX/year> : XXXX XXXX  report and meter reading as well as Insurance Adjustor came to assess damage for Adjustors report to insurance XX/XX/year> : XXXX XXXX approved the full claim amount of {$21000.00}. \nXX/XX/year> : Check delivered to XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXX/XX/year> : I emailed XXXX ( XXXX ) and senior contacts ( XXXX, XXXX ) expressing concern for family health and safety, requesting full release per HUD Handbook 4000.1, Section III.A.1.f.iii ( page 640 ). \n\nXX/XX/year> : My husband was informed by phone only 25 % of the {$4600.00} mitigation line item ( {$1100.00} ) would be released, pending inspection and an XXXX business day hold for further funds an unnecessary delay under FHA rules. \n\nXX/XX/year> : After escalating and attaching supporting evidence, I still received no tracking for the reportedly released check. I was told additional funds would only be reimbursed after submitting paid receipts, meaning I must personally front all repair costs. \n\nDuring this entire time, I received no proactive communication from XXXX. When I asked about alternate processes due to the emergency nature of our situation, one representative stated : If you dont want to deal with us, just pay off your loan. This response was dismissive, unprofessional, and demonstrated disregard for FHA compliance and borrower safety.\n\nRegulatory and Compliance Concerns : FHA Handbook 4000.1, Section III.A.1.f.iii requires that mortgagees disburse insurance proceeds for health and safety repairs without delay and may not require inspection if the claim is under {$35000.00} and supported by an adjusters report. My claim meets these criteria and should have been released immediately.\n\n24 CFR 203.379 requires action to prevent further damage to an FHA-insured property. XXXX delay directly contradicts this regulation by allowing mold and structural decay to worsen. \n\nFailure of Servicer Communication : XXXX XXXX  failed to provide timely updates, tracking information, or clear instructions consistent with FHA and HUD policy. \n\nImpact on Borrower : The delay has forced me to consider credit card financing or a 401 ( k ) loan just to begin repairs. These are unnecessary financial burdens resulting from the servicers failure to act in a timely manner. The unsanitary conditions ( exposed raw sewage and mold ) pose ongoing health risks to my children and family.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-06T17:04:45.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"30115","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17074381","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Data Mortgage Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-06T16:55:18.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["When I asked about alternate processes due to the emergency nature of our situation, one <em>representative</em> stated : If you dont want to deal with us, just pay off your loan. This response was dismissive, unprofessional, and demonstrated disregard for FHA <em>compliance</em> and borrower safety."]},"sort":[10.076604,"17074381"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13382832","_score":9.987584,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint because LCI also known as G2 Bankruptcy Risk Solutions has violated my rights to privacy and is furnishing inaccurate and unverifiable public record information ( bankruptcy ) to the credit bureaus, which is damaging my credit profile and violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nI have disputed this information multiple times directly with LCI/G2 via certified mail (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX In my disputes, I requested lawful verification of the bankruptcy record, proof of their right to access and furnish my PACER records, and deletion of the inaccurate/unverifiable information. They only responded twice ( XXXX and XXXX  ), falsely claiming that they verified the bankruptcy using PACER and stating that they are \" unable to delete or correct '' the reporting which violates FCRA requirements for furnishers.\n\nBoth XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  letters say : \" G2BRS is unable to remove from or change any of this information in your TransUnion report, '' which is a false and misleading statement. As a furnisher, FCRA requires them to update/delete inaccurate information after disputes, so them saying they can't delete is a direct violation of FCRA 623. \n\nIn the XX/XX/XXXX letter, this company attempts to use the \" public records '' defense which is irrelevant under FCRA for furnishing. Being public does NOT eliminate the requirement for accuracy, permissible purpose, and privacy under FCRA. In addition, PACER is not used for verification or validation. Furthermore, in the XX/XX/XXXX letter, they attached a PACER printout, proving that they accessed my file without my consent. PACER Privacy Policy prohibits access and use of PACER records for resale/redistribution without lawful purpose nor can LCI/G2 use it to profit via furshing information to the credit bureaus such as TransUnion. \n\nA representative with PACER confirmed to me via a company recorded phone call on XXXX that PACER does NOT verify or validate information and prohibits third parties from using court records for credit reporting or verification purposes. Additionally, PACERs Privacy Policy clearly states this, and I have attached the policy as evidence. I never authorized LCI/G2 to access or use my PACER records, yet they accessed, printed, and furnished them, which constitutes unauthorized access and a privacy violation. Then, they presented the PACER information to me as if PACER directly validated and verified this information. \n\nLCI/G2 has admitted they are a furnisher in writing, but they have refused to fulfill their obligations to properly investigate, correct, or delete the disputed information as required under FCRA 623. Instead, they continue to report inaccurate and unverifiable public record information to the credit bureaus, causing me credit harm by hurting my ability to purchase a home and receive access to a mortgage and favorable terms. In addition, it violates my consumer privacy rights. \n\nAccessing public information does NOT equate to having a permissible purpose under the FCRA to report that data to a credit bureau. Under FCRA 604, a data furnisher may only provide data to consumer reporting agencies for specifically authorized purposes, which does NOT include raw PACER records, especially when PACER prohibits using its data to \" verify or validate '' court records. Once again, I NEVER gave LCI/G2 permission to access my PACER records.\n\nAs the PACER representative stated on the phone, PACERs Privacy Policy makes it clear that PACER is NOT a verification service and does NOT validate information. Therefore, LCI/G2 claiming they \" verified '' my bankruptcy via PACER is not only factually false, but also illegal and deceptive, as they are utilizing a prohibited source to furnish negative credit data. Use of PACER records in this way is expressly forbidden by PACERs own policy and constitutes unauthorized access and misrepresentation.\n\nAccessing public records, even if lawful, does not give LCI/G2 the right to act as a furnisher of that information to consumer reporting agencies. The act of furnishing is regulated separately under the FCRA. By reporting this information, they took on the role of data furnisher, subject to strict FCRA requirements, which they have failed to meet. \n\nFurnishing information requires : Permissible purpose ( FCRA 604 ), but none exists here, compliance with FCRA furnisher responsibilities of whic LCI/G2 has failed, and truthful representation of data to which LCI/G2 has lied, claiming PACER validated this record.\n\nIn closing, LCI Acquisition / G2 Bankruptcy Risk Solutions has admitted in writing that they act as a furnisher of information to TransUnion. However, despite this, they have openly and falsely stated to me that they are \" unable to remove or change any of this information, '' which is a blatant violation of FCRA 623. Additionally, they have accessed my PACER bankruptcy records without my permission, used those records for verification and furnishing purposes despite PACERs Privacy Policy strictly prohibiting such use and then attached my personal records in correspondence to me as part of a commercial furnishing operation. Further, LCI/G2 misrepresents PACER as a validation service, when PACERs policy explicitly states that it DOES NOT VERIFY OR VALIDATE information and confirmed to me directly that such use is illegal. \nThese acts amount to deceptive, illegal, and abusive conduct, which are not isolated but represent a pattern and practice of misconduct, as evidenced by public CFPB complaint history. \n\nGiven this pattern of abusive conduct, misrepresentation, and systemic refusal to correct or delete inaccurate public record data which appears consistent with other CFPB complaints filed against them I am requesting : Deletion of the disputed public record from my credit report, Cessation of unauthorized furnishing of PACER-derived data, and Regulatory oversight and enforcement regarding LCI/G2 's abusive dispute and reporting practices.\n\nLCI/G2 Bankruptcy Risk Solutions has clearly violated my rights to privacy. The laws they are violating are provided below as well as the civil liability law under which I can and will sue are provided below : 15 U.S. Code 1681 ( a ) ( 4 ) - Congressional findings and statement of purpose ( Consumer Right to Privacy ) ( a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress make the following findings : ( 4 ) There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and respect for the consumers right to privacy. \n\nFailure to Comply or delete these items- 15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance- ( a ) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( 1 ) ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; 15 U.S. Code 1681o Civil liability for negligent noncompliance- ( a ) In general Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( 1 ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure ; and ( 2 ) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the court.\n\nUnder 15 US Code 1681a ( 4 ) as a consumer, I have the right to privacy and this bankruptcy must be deleted from my consumer report or I will seek monetary damages in small claims court in my city and state. Also, I'd like for LCI/G2 to be aware that I am ready and willing to escalate this issue to theAttorney Generals Office, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX and Federal Trade Commission XXXX \n\nAttachments : I have attached certified mail receipts, LCI/G2s responses, copies of my disputes, and PACERs privacy policy as referenced by PACER 's representative during our phone call.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-08T01:42:45.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"21220","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13382832","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LCI Acquisition Inc.","date_received":"2025-05-08T00:12:46.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Public record information inaccurate"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Furnishing information requires : Permissible purpose ( FCRA 604 ), but none exists here, <em>compliance</em> with FCRA furnisher responsibilities of whic LCI/G2 has failed, and truthful representation of data to which LCI/G2 has lied, claiming PACER validated this record.\n\nIn closing, LCI Acquisition / G2 Bankruptcy <em>Risk</em> Solutions has admitted in writing that they act as a furnisher of information to TransUnion."]},"sort":[9.987584,"13382832"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15206178","_score":9.934668,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Follow-Up to CFPB Complaints XXXX and XXXX Re : Mischaracterization and Mishandling of Dispute by Chase Bank ( Acct Ending in XXXX XXXX Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am writing to provide an urgent and detailed update regarding my open CFPB complaints ( XXXX and XXXX ) involving JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . and their handling of my credit card account ending in XXXX. \n\nKey Issue : Mischaracterization of My Case as Fraud Let me be absolutely clear : The matter Chase is investigating and the matter I have raised in both CFPB complaints has nothing to do with fraud. I have never claimed the account was fraudulent or that I am not responsible for the debt. \n\nThis dispute involves : Ongoing credit card debt, Chases refusal to honor my Limited Power of Attorney ( LPOA ) with XXXX XXXX  Failure to accommodate my documented medical condition ( XXXX ) by honoring written-only communication, and Misleading or non-substantive form letters sent in response to serious and specific concerns. \n\nDespite this, Chase continues to mischaracterize my correspondence as a fraud claim most recently in a letter dated XX/XX/year>, which I received on XX/XX/year>. The letter was titled : Update : You are responsible for this Credit Card account and appears to close the matter with a blanket statement completely ignoring the real issues. \n\nContradictory Behavior Even more troubling : Chase mailed this letter on XX/XX/year>, and then, on XX/XX/year>, updated the CFPB stating they are still working on my case. \n\nThis creates a serious contradiction : Either Chase had already made a decision and failed to disclose it to the CFPB, or They continue to send misleading form responses to consumers while giving regulators the impression that a real investigation is ongoing.\n\nEither way, it demonstrates bad faith, lack of transparency, and potential regulatory non-compliance.\n\nOngoing Failures : Failure to Honor Valid Power of Attorney : My signed and previously accepted XXXX with XXXX XXXX is being ignored. Chase refuses to work with my authorized representative. \n\nViolation of Communication Agreement : On XX/XX/year>, Chase agreed to communicate with me in writing only due to my documented XXXX diagnosis. Despite this, they continue to urge phone contact. \n\nUse of Generic, Dismissive Letters : The XX/XX/XXXX letter is yet another non-substantive, misleading form letter that does not acknowledge or respond to the actual dispute. \n\nRisk of Inaccurate Reporting : I am deeply concerned that these mischaracterizations may lead to false or misleading credit reporting, further harming me. \n\nCompensation Demand The letter from JPMorgan Chase dated XX/XX/year>, which I received on XX/XX/year>, states : You are responsible for this Credit Card account. \n\nHowever, only two days later, on XX/XX/year>, Chase informed the CFPB that they were still investigating my dispute. \n\nThis contradiction demonstrates a pattern of misleading communication and bad faith handling of my case, contributing directly to : Emotional distress and worsening of my medical condition ( XXXX ), due to confusing, contradictory, and dismissive communications ; Failure to honor my Limited Power of Attorney and written-only communication accommodations ; Mischaracterization of my dispute as a fraud issue, despite no such claim ; Continued improper collection and communication tactics. \n\nGiven the above, I am renewing my compensation demand in the amount of {$37000.00} to cover : Statutory damages under the FDCPA and FCRA for improper handling and investigation failures ; Emotional distress and mental anguish caused by Chases misconduct ; Damage to my credit reputation and financial standing ; Harassment and violation of my communication preferences and legal rights. \n\nI expect this compensation to be paid promptly as part of any fair resolution of my dispute. \n\nThank you for your continued attention. I am prepared to provide all supporting documentation including copies of Chases letters, the signed Limited Power of Attorney, and a complete communication timeline. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-11T23:21:31.000Z","issue":"Communication tactics","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"530XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15206178","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-08-11T23:09:00.000Z","state":"WI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"You told them to stop contacting you, but they keep trying"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Either way, it demonstrates bad faith, lack of transparency, and potential regulatory non-<em>compliance</em>.\n\nOngoing Failures : Failure to Honor Valid Power of Attorney : My signed and previously accepted XXXX with XXXX XXXX is being ignored. Chase refuses to work with my authorized <em>representative</em>. \n\nViolation of Communication Agreement : On XX/XX/year>, Chase agreed to communicate with me in writing only due to my documented XXXX diagnosis. Despite this, they continue to urge phone contact."]},"sort":[9.934668,"15206178"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13431313","_score":9.780618,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Urgent Complaint Inaccurate Credit Reporting, Metro 2 Violations, and FCRA/FDCPA Violations Facing Homelessness Complainant : Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Email : XXXX To Whom It May Concern, I am filing this urgent complaint against TransUnion, XXXX Funding, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and The XXXX XXXX for XXXX continued reporting of inaccurate and misleading information on my credit report, in clear violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and XXXX XXXX XXXX standards. \n\nImmediate Issue : I Am Facing Homelessness Due to False Reporting On XX/XX/year>, I was denied housing by XXXX XXXX XXXX directly due to the false and misleading information reported on my TransUnion credit report. Despite providing clear evidence of these inaccuracies, TransUnion continues to report these accounts as verified, while XXXX  has deleted these same accounts due to inaccuracies. \n\nThis false reporting has directly placed me in an emergency situation. As a result of the denial, I am now facing the immediate threat of homelessness. This is a severe, urgent harm directly caused by the respondents negligent and deceptive practices. \n\nAccounts in Dispute : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX Bank ) {$720.00} Reported as Open with a past due balance. \nDeleted by XXXX  for inaccuracies, yet verified by TransUnion. \nClear Metro 2 violation : Reporting payment history on a debt buyer account, which is unlawful. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Total XXXX XXXX Missouri XXXX {$460.00} Reported as Open with a past due balance. \nDeleted by XXXX  for inaccuracies, yet verified by TransUnion. \nClear Metro 2 violation : Misleading status and false payment history. \n\nXXXX Credit Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX CBA ) {$520.00} Reported as XXXX with a collection status, creating a false impression of a credit relationship. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX violation : A collection account can not be reported as XXXX. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) {$760.00} Reported with a past due balance and payment history, falsely implying a credit relationship. \nDeleted by XXXX  for inaccuracies, yet reported as verified by TransUnion. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) {$940.00} Reported with a past due balance and misleading status. \nDeleted by XXXX for inaccuracies, yet reported as verified by TransUnion. \n\nXXXX. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) {$290.00} Reported as XXXX with a collection status, creating a false impression of a credit relationship. \n\nDocumented Evidence : TransUnion Dispute Results ( XX/XX/year> ) : Showing false verification of accounts that were deleted by XXXX  for the same violations. \nXXXX Dispute Results ( XX/XX/year> ) : Confirming deletion of these accounts due to inaccuracies. \nChat with TransUnion Representative : Confirming that false phone numbers were removed, yet some were still cited in my housing denial. \nDenial Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/year> ) : Direct evidence of housing denial due to these inaccurate reports, placing me at risk of homelessness.\n\nMetro 2 Compliance Violations : These accounts are being reported with false Open statuses, past due balances, and payment histories, which violate Metro 2 standards.\n\nMetro 2 standards mandate that once violations are identified, they can not be updated or corrected they must be deleted. \n\nImmediate Request for Resolution : Immediate Deletion : I demand the immediate deletion of all disputed accounts ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, The XXXX XXXX ) from my TransUnion credit report. \nConfirmation of Deletion : Written confirmation that these accounts have been permanently deleted. \nInvestigation : A full investigation into why TransUnion verified these accounts despite clear evidence of Metro 2 violations and deletion by XXXX.\n\nCompensation : Due to the direct harm caused by these false reports ( denial of housing and the threat of homelessness ), I request compensation for damages.\n\nLegal Violations : Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ) : Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy in reporting.\n\nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 807 ) : False representation of the character, amount, or status of a debt.\n\nMetro 2 Compliance Violations : Falsely reporting debt buyer accounts with payment histories, past due balances, and Open statuses.\n\nI am requesting that this complaint be prioritized due to the urgent threat of homelessness I am facing. \n\nI look forward to your immediate response and resolution of this matter. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-09T12:14:20.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30281","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13431313","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-09T11:58:26.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Chat with TransUnion <em>Representative</em> : Confirming that false phone numbers were removed, yet some were still cited in my housing denial. \nDenial Letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/year> ) : Direct evidence of housing denial due to these inaccurate reports, placing me at <em>risk</em> of homelessness.\n\nMetro 2 <em>Compliance</em> Violations : These accounts are being reported with false Open statuses, past due balances, and payment histories, which violate Metro 2 standards."]},"sort":[9.780618,"13431313"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9446257","_score":9.73658,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to request your assistance in resolving an issue with my payment and a 30-day late payment on my account with Credit Acceptance . Despite my efforts to resolve this matter directly with Credit Acceptance and through goodwill letters to all three credit bureaus ( XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ), Credit Acceptance has refused to rectify this situation. Please see attached files, previously filed conplaint also included. \n\n**Background** : Before my departure to XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/2024, I communicated with a representative from Credit Acceptance regarding my upcoming military service and the potential difficulty I would have in making timely payments due to limited access to phone and banking services. The representative suggested setting up a payment arrangement of {$50.00} per month to help manage my payments during this period. \n\nDespite this arrangement, Credit Acceptance reported a late payment on my credit report for XXXX which has adversely affected my credit score and financial well-being. As a service member, I am entitled to protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ), which should have prevented this negative reporting. \n\n**Violations of Rights** : 1. **Servicemembers Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ) ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ** : - The SCRA is designed to provide financial and legal protections to XXXX XXXX servicemembers, including protections against negative credit reporting for obligations entered into before XXXXXXXX XXXX. Credit Acceptance 's failure to honor the agreed payment arrangement and report the payment as \" on time '' constitutes a violation of the SCRA, specifically under Section 3937, which provides for the reduction of interest rates and other relief on obligations incurred prior to military service. By reporting a late payment despite an agreed-upon arrangement, Credit Acceptance is not providing the protections mandated under the SCRA. \n\n2. **Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ) ** : - The FCRA requires that information reported to credit bureaus be accurate. Given the agreement with Credit Acceptance 's representative, the reported late payment is inaccurate and misleading. This misreporting is a clear violation of the FCRA, particularly Section 1681s-2, which mandates the accurate reporting of information by furnishers of credit data. The late payment reporting undermines the accuracy of my credit report and fails to reflect the agreed payment arrangement. \n\nXXXX. **Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1601-1667f ) ** : - TILA requires clear and accurate disclosure of the terms and conditions of credit agreements. The representative 's failure to provide accurate information regarding the impact of the payment arrangement on my credit report is a violation of XXXX, which aims to ensure consumers are fully informed about the terms of their credit arrangements. \n\nXXXX. **Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p ) ** : - The FDCPA prohibits deceptive and unfair practices in debt collection. By failing to honor the agreed-upon payment arrangement and reporting a late payment, Credit Acceptance engaged in practices that are misleading and unfair, thus violating the FDCPA.\n\n5. **Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1691-1691f ) ** : - The ECOA prohibits discrimination in credit transactions. While this primarily addresses issues of credit discrimination, the act also ensures fair treatment in credit practices. The failure to honor the payment arrangement and the resultant negative impact on my credit score can be construed as a violation of the ECOA 's principles of fair treatment.\n\n6. **Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) ( 12 U.S.C . 5481-5603 ) ** : - The CFPA established the CFPB and grants it the authority to prevent unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in the financial industry. Credit Acceptance 's actions could be considered unfair and deceptive, falling under the purview of the CFPA.\n\n7. **Military Lending Act ( MLA ) ( 10 U.S.C . 987 ) ** : - The MLA provides additional protections to servicemembers in financial transactions, including capping interest rates and prohibiting certain lending practices. While primarily addressing predatory lending, the MLA reinforces the need for fair treatment of servicemembers in all financial dealings. Credit Acceptances actions could be seen as contrary to the intent of the MLA, which aims to provide comprehensive financial protections for servicemembers.\n\n**Rebuttal to Credit Acceptance 's Statement** : Credit Acceptance has stateXXXX that payment arrangements are offered as a courtesy to assist with past due balances without the risk of repossession but do not alter the terms of the contract. This stance fails to recognize several critical points : 1. **Implications of Payment Arrangements** : - The payment arrangement was intended to address the unique challenges of military service, which the SCRA explicitly aims to mitigate. The representative suggested the {$50.00} payment arrangement to manage my payments during my service period, implicitly acknowledging the need for special considerations due to my active duty status.\n\n2. **Contractual Terms and SCRA Compliance** : - The SCRA requires creditors to provide certain accommodations to servicemembers. While the payment arrangement may not alter the original contract terms, the SCRA mandates adjustments to protect servicemembers from undue financial hardship. Reporting a late payment despite an agreed arrangement violates these protections and fails to account for the special considerations required by the SCRA.\n\n3. **Promissory Estoppel** : - Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, a promise made that the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee, and which does induce such action or forbearance, is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The representative 's suggestion constituted such a promise, and I relied on it to my detriment.\n\n**Demands** : 1. **Immediate Rectification** : - I demand that Credit Acceptance update my credit report to reflect the payments as \" ON TIME PAID AS AGREED. '' 2. **Review of Call Records** : - I request a thorough review of the recorded calls between myself and Credit Acceptance representatives to verify the details of the payment arrangement and its intended impact on my payments during active duty.\n\n3. **Compliance with SCRA and Other Applicable Laws** : - I urge Credit Acceptance to comply with the protections afforded to servicemembers under the SCRA, FCRA, TILA, FDCPA, ECOA, CFPA, and MLA.\n\n**Consequences of Non-Compliance** : If Credit Acceptance does not rectify this matter immediately, after 14 days I will take the following actions : - File a formal complaint with the Judge Advocate General 's Corps ( JAG ) to seek legal remedies for this violation of my SCRA rights.\n\n- Submit a detailed complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) to investigate Credit Acceptance 's practices.\n\n- Explore all available legal options to ensure that my rights are protected and that Credit Acceptance is held accountable for its actions.\n\nCredit Acceptances disregard for the protections afforded to servicemembers is unacceptable. I expect a prompt and favorable resolution to this matter. Failure to do so will result in immediate legal action.\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-06T20:01:04.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"60004","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9446257","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","date_received":"2024-07-06T19:48:50.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>representative</em> 's suggestion constituted such a promise, and I relied on it to my detriment.\n\n**Demands** : 1. **Immediate Rectification** : - I demand that Credit Acceptance <em>update</em> my credit report to reflect the payments as \" ON TIME PAID AS AGREED. '' 2."]},"sort":[9.73658,"9446257"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20400886","_score":9.661948,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"My PayPal business account, which has been active and in good standing for approximately 6 years, was suddenly permanently restricted. The stated reason was that \" based on the information we have today, there was information used to create this account that we can not not verify. '' It's important to note, that I have successfully verified and re-verified my identity and business information multiple times over the years, the information used to create the account 6 years ago had not changed beyond routine address updates as I've moved periodically, as well as added a 2nd business phone number at some phone ( which means I included more, not less, information to help maintain perfect compliance with PayPal, as well as transparency & reachability with my customers. My account has been in one of the higher tier statuses as a direct benefit of having had no issues ever. But despite routinely updating my info by my own initiative when relevant as well as every time PayPal has asked me to do so, I have immediately with no limitations or issues ever being placed/noted on my account. \n\nDuring this most recent instance in which I was prompted to submit a variety of verification documents, I was asked for several new things such as proof of purchase from my supplier, proof of business activities, ID verification, as well as proof of order fulfillment. All of which I had ( because my business is legit ), and provided immediately all that was requested with the greatest amount of detail and transparency possible. I even talked to a representative on the phone afterwards who apologized for the inconvenience, acknowledged that my account is in one of the best tiers a business can be in with PayPal because my account has been in perfect standing since it was created 6 years ago, and then offered me a credit as a thank you and curtesy for the delay in being able to access my funds as well as to make up for the fact PayPal already took their fees of $ XXXX, while not allowing me to access my legitimate, essential business income. She also helped me link a business bank account which I was told would also help verify my identity and thereby expedite the process of releasing the hold. \n\nShortly thereafter, I opened the PayPal app on my phone to see a red notification bar at the top, stating my account had been permanently closed, and that I would be unable to withdraw my funds due to the aforementioned inability on their part to verify the information used to create the account 6 years ago. Assuming this to be a gross mistake that was the result of an Ai generated decision & response, I called to request a manual human review, where I was told for the first time by a PayPal representatives that my account would be reviewed & I'd get a response within within XXXX hours. But, I did not receive any follow-up or communication. Then after following up multiple times, I was eventually told by a PayPal representative that the reason nothing has been updated nor have I received any communication is because the restriction was not placed on the account by PayPal but rather XXXX, and that I would need to contact them. \n\nAfter numerous calls and promises made that I would be receiving manual review and prompt updates accordingly, weeks went by and I never got any information as my only source of income was still on hold. As a direct consequence of that, my business, personal finances, and life have imploded over night to unconscionable degree. Only after I ended up homeless, without food, or life saving essential medication as a direct consequence of this unconscionable hold by PayPal, I finally talked to a representative at XXXX who empathized with the severity and the reality of the situation and spent a few hours going back and forth helping to get my account unlocked. At that time though, he informed me that no reviews had been done and that they were still waiting on me to submit documentation that I did in fact provide that first day, as well as other items that I was given no information about, there was no notifications within the app indicating I needed to update/provide any further documentation, I received no emails, and was never once up until that point, informed I needed to submit more documentation, nor given an opportunity to do so ( which if I had known or been prompted to submit more documentation, I would have done so immediately and potentially could have resolved this a month ago ) ... Furthermore, the information that is displayed within the app vs desktop site vs business app is wildly inconsistent. For example, on the website it appears my account is in good standing with no notifications or indicators that there is still a hold, but when I login on the app, I see the hold. I've also received several push notifications saying my account was verified successfully and I could now transfer money to my account, only to go into the app/website, and not actually be able to do anything. \n\nJust to reiterate, as a direct consequence/impact of this hold, I have not been able to pay my essential bills in over a month, including rent, food, medication, my phone bill, or anything else. Everyday this drags on, my life & my health is being put in danger, while my finances are is being pushed to the brink of insurmountable collapse. The day I talked to a representative at XXXX while sitting homeless in a park, he assured me I had went above and beyond to provide everything needed to a more than satisfactory level for getting the account limitations lifted and my funds released. And then told me to wait XXXX hours for an update. Which AGAIN, never came. No follow up, no hey are you still alive, no anything and these criminals continue to hold my ONLY income hostage and if any small business or average person did what PayPal is doing to me and similarly to countless other people according to the reddit thread astutely called \" PayPal, '' they would be indicted and imprisoned, and barred from ever doing business again. This is insanity. \nAnd only after I called AGAIN a week later, demanding answers and the immediate release of my money, did I get a message within the PayPal app saying that my money would be held for 180 day to hedge against change back but would be reviewed every 30 days for early release. \n\nWhich I then had to call AGAIN to request ANOTHER review, because I have never once had a chargeback or had to issue a refund in 6 years. The risk is ZERO, and the only money that is currently being held, is from a single transaction of which I provided photos proving the order was fulfilled satisfactorily. Furthermore, the account restriction claims that it's due to an identity verification issue, meanwhile I have received confirmations that my identity has been successfully verified. Thus, the continued withholding of my funds is illegal and unconscionable and the FTC should file a criminal class action lawsuit agains these corporate CARTEL extortionate sociopaths. \n\nThe withdrawable funds currently being held equate to {$950.00}, and there is an additional {$34.00} courtesy credit that I can use for online shopping. All money currently being held had been now for over a month, is associated with one transaction that I provided proof was fulfilled satisfactorily for skateboard decks and skate lessons. There have been no disputes, chargebacks, or refund requests associated with this transaction or any other in the 6 years I've had this business account. \n\nPayPal has provided inconsistent explanations, stating both that my account could not be verified and that the funds are being held to mitigate potential chargeback risk. I have yet to get a clear explanation of what specific information could not be verified, nor given any meaningful opportunity to resolve this issue directly with them. \n\nAdditionally, after my account was restricted, I was instructed to link a bank account. After doing so, PayPal attempted to debit approximately {$990.00} ( and a separate {$1.00} charge ) from this newly linked account, which was not used in the original transaction and was not at all authorized by me. Similarly, I received no notifications about this and only found out when I went to link my business bank account to an unrelated platform that I saw I had a pending negative/overdrawn balance of {$990.00}. This occurred without clear authorization or notice, and I had to block the transaction through my bank. \n\nI have made multiple good-faith attempts to resolve this issue, I have been patient and diligent while navigating weekly crises due to my inability to access this essential income. I have submitted all requested documents and contacted every support channel publicly listed ( numerous times ) seeking a resolution. Yet, I have received nothing that would provide a clear path to resolution, nor any expiation that would satisfy and justify the continued withholding of my ONLY income. \n\nThe continued withholding of my funds without a clear explanation or resolution process has caused significant financial harm, is unconscionable, and arguably violates Colorado & Federal consumer protection laws. I am requesting a full release of my funds and courtesy shopping credit, as well as an investigation into PayPal & XXXX by the appropriate government financial and consumer protection oversight bodies. \nOne glance at the XXXX PayPal page, reveals a pattern of similar conduct by PayPal that is causing widespread harm in one of the most difficult economic moments in world history and this type of corporate cartel behavior needs to be stopped.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-19T05:50:10.000Z","issue":"Trouble accessing funds in your mobile or digital wallet","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"82009","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20400886","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-03-19T03:46:29.000Z","state":"WY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["more, not less, information to help maintain perfect <em>compliance</em> with PayPal, as well as transparency & reachability with my customers."]},"sort":[9.661948,"20400886"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6317629","_score":8.577068,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Ive written to all three major credit reporting agencies and I have notified them that theyve violated 15 USC 1681 a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 1 ) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system.\n\n( 2 ) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers.\n\n( 3 ) Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers.\n\n( 4 ) There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy.\n\n( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.\n\nMy report has numerous inaccuracies and none of which ANY agency had permission to furnish, nor did they offer an opt out form ; or receive such form from me the consumer per 15 USC 6802 ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.\n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.\n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.\n\nAll accounts that have been inconsistently reported need to be updated to paid as agreed All","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-13T12:30:37.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6317629","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2022-12-13T12:30:30.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["All accounts that have been inconsistently reported need to be <em>updated</em> to paid as agreed All"]},"sort":[8.577068,"6317629"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"23078873","_score":8.447258,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On Friday, XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX  I deposited a check for {$430.00} into my newly opened checking account ending in XXXX at Ally Bank under Deposit Reference number XXXX. That evening the check officially posted to my account but the funds were completely restricted due to an extended hold, claiming this money is subject to an extended hold because they have confidential information indicates that the check may not be paid. \n\nAlly Bank placed an illegal hold on these funds until Friday, XX/XX/year> ( 5-business days after deposit ) and sent a noncompliant electronic notice via email. \n\nOn Wednesday, XX/XX/year>, Allys Corporate team extended this timeline by an additional 5 to 7 business days resulting in an unlawful 12 business day total delay to access the next day state government payroll check. Ally Bank has strictly violated Regulation CC and its own Disclosures in the following ways : 1. Violation of Next- day rules for government checks ( 12 CFR 229.13 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( i ) ) : under Federal law even during a 30 day new account period, checks drawn on a state government must be made available on the next business day for the first {$5500.00}. Because this check was issued directly by the California State Controller and paid from the States Treasurers General Fund, 100 % of my {$430.00} was legally required to be fully available on Monday XX/XX/year> and there is XXXX risk of the check not being paid. \n\n2. Breach of Stated Bank Policy ( section IV.C.6 ) : The hold email sent by Ally Bank Provided a link to their deposit agreement, specifically Referencing Section IV.C.6 ( Special Rules for New Checking Accounts ). Their policy states that for checks Payable to the account holder, Up to {$5500.00} is Available two business days after deposit ( Which would have been Tuesday XX/XX/year> ). Because my check was only {$430.00}, Ally Bank is Directly violating its own customer terms by forcing me to wait five business days until Friday, XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n3. Violation of maximum hold duration ( 12 CFR 229.13 ( h ) ) : under federal law even when a valid exception hold is applied a bank can not extend the hold beyond a reasonable period strictly defined as a total of 7 business days for deposit accounts. By adding a 5 to 7 business day administrative review timeline on top of an existing five business day hold, Ally Bank Is unlawfully restricting a government payroll check up to 12 business days.\n\n4. Strict Content Omission ( 12 CFR 229.13 ( g ) ( 1 ) ( i ) ( E ) ) : The electronic notification sent via email on XX/XX/XXXX completely omitted a specific funds availability date leaving the hold timeline open ended. I was only verbally given the Friday, XX/XX/XXXX date after escalating to a supervisor. \n\n5. Refusal of Manual Review and Lack of Internal Controls : When I Escalated this issue, A supervisor informed me that she could not do a manual review, that there is No button to push to release funds early or to override the automated system flag And that I had to just wait until XX/XX/XXXX for a check i deposited XX/XX/XXXX. A Financial institution can not use rigid automated System limitations to bypass federal funds availability timelines.\n\nMisinformation via support chat, phone Escalation, And severe consumer harm : On Monday, XX/XX/year>, I Attempted to resolve this through multiple channels : Support Chat : Prior to calling, I chatted with Ally Customer service. The Representative gave false compliance excuses, Claiming that this illegal hold was completely Standard banking. I have fully screenshotted this conversation as proof of corporate misinformation. \n\nPhone Escalation ( XXXX ) : Immediately following the chat, I called customer service. I was on the line for 33 minutes, spending most of that time on hold. When I finally reached a supervisor she acknowledged the call was recorded and showed great Indifference when I declared that the severe emotional and financial distress this illegal hold is causing me and she acted as if it was no concern of theirs.\n\nAs an XXXX  provider, This check is my primary livelihood. By locking away my money, Ally Bank left me unable to purchase basic survival necessities like food and toilet paper and put my beginning of the month bills in past due status, causing late fees to incur and putting me at risk of disconnection of services such as utilities ( Water, Cell phone etc ). This has caused me Intense emotional XXXX  and immediate financial panic, which the supervisor just didn't care about. \n\nCorporate stalling and bad faith resolution timelines : On Wednesday, XX/XX/year> I received an email response from Ally Banks Corporate escalation team. Instead of addressing the active federal banking violation, the bank issued a generic apology and stated that a case had been created but that a back end review would take an additional 5 to 7 business days to get back to me.\n\nI immediately replied to their email and initiated an urgent in app chat, Explicitly informing them that a 5 to 7 business day stall tactic on top of an illegal hold leaves me actively deprived of funds to purchase food today. Ally Banks Corporate team was explicitly notified that their automated systems left a consumer facing a severe household crisis, Yet they deliberately chose to enforce an administrative delay rather than executing a manual system override to address this urgent matter promptly.\n\nCritical preventative action required : My wages are normally paid via direct deposit. However due to a delay in processing my updated banking details with my state of California my next 1-2 paychecks will also be Issued as physical paper checks from the California state controller. Because Ally Banks Animated system is broken, I face an immediate threat of my next payroll checks being illegally frozen as well. Ally Bank must Place a permanent compliance note and Automated override flag on my account profile to recognize the state payroll checks immediately upon deposit.\n\nRequested Resolution : I request that the CFPB compel Ally Bank to : 1. Immediately released the full {$430.00} to my Available balance.\n\n2. Provide financial restitution by refunding any fees stemming from this hold.\n\n3. Issue a {$1000.00} customer remediation credit Directly to my account to compensate for the severe hardship, XXXX  and total disruption to my opening banking experience. \n\n4. Review the live chat transcript from Monday, XX/XX/year> and pull the recorded supervisor call from XXXX XXXX  to address the systematic misinformation and indifference behavior.\n\n5. Apply a permanent system flag to my profile ensuring all future physical payroll checks from the California state controller are granted immediately next day availability under regulation cc.\n\n6. Compel immediate restitution for bad faith delays : My request that the CFPB Penalize Ally Bank For utilizing a 5 to 7 business day automated tracking delay to stall an active, High priority Regulation cc emergency than involved a total deprivation of a consumers basic livelihood.\n\n7. Correct or automatic algorithm so that state government checks under {$5500.00} are not erroneously subjected to extended new account holds.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-06-10T17:58:33.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"947XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"23078873","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","date_received":"2026-06-10T17:17:31.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The <em>Representative</em> gave false <em>compliance</em> excuses, Claiming that this illegal hold was completely Standard banking. I have fully screenshotted this conversation as proof of corporate misinformation. \n\nPhone Escalation ( XXXX ) : Immediately following the chat, I called customer service. I was on the line for 33 minutes, spending most of that time on hold."]},"sort":[8.447258,"23078873"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13355480","_score":8.333933,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Im filing this follow-up complaint because the situation with my previous case has become much more serious, and I now believe the bank deliberately avoided its responsibilities. After the CFPB forwarded my original complaint to Bank of America, I was contacted by a representative named XXXX XXXX, who told me she had been assigned to my case as my point of contact. She gave me her direct number : XXXX. At first, she was polite and seemed helpful. I believed she had more access or authority to help resolve the issue, especially regarding my request for a provisional credit and a hardship review. \n\nHowever, nothing meaningful ever came from her involvement. When we attempted to file the hardship request, she told me over a week later that she still hadnt received any internal response. I had to suggest she escalate the matter to her supervisor. Eventually, she got back to me and said that based on the original investigation, the bank would not issue any credit. I asked her directly if there was anything else that could be done. She told me nothat I just had to wait. At the time, I was still trying to stay calm and understand the process. \n\nThen, on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from the bank claiming that my dispute had been resolved and showing only a new claim for {$48.00}. The letter was misleading and inaccurate. It stated that some money had been returned from the merchants, but when I checked, the amount was inaccurate and most of the chargebacks were still missing. I recognized this as a major red flag. From that moment, I tried to contact XXXX multiple timescalling her direct number and leaving voicemails. As of today, XX/XX/XXXX, I have not received a single response. She has not called back once since I received that misleading letter. \n\nBecause of this, I called the bank through the regular customer service number and explained the situation again. The representative confirmed that the letter was incorrect and that my original claims were still open. I asked if I could be transferred to XXXX. They told me that was not possible. So once again, I was left on my own, repeating my case from the beginning. I submitted another escalation request to have the bank send me a corrected letter showing which claims are still being investigated. I was told that since the request was submitted on a Friday, Id need to wait at least two business days, but that it could take up to a full week to receive the updated documentation. Meanwhile, I still have no accurate written update about the status of my claim. \n\nSince Ive had no way to get accurate answers from Bank of America, Ive taken it upon myself and Ive started researching and contacting some of the merchants listed in the disputed transactions. Ive spent time trying to figure out who these companies are, where they operate from, and whether theyre even legitimate. Some of the company names Ive looked into include : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. These are just a few examples. Ive attempted to reach out to the ones I was able to find online or through business directories. Many of them dont appear in any credible public listings, and several have no valid contact information at all. \n\nEach time Ive followed up with Bank of America to ask about the status of the investigation, the only answer I receive is that the case is still under review. But when I ask directly whether any of the merchants have submitted documentation, the answer is always no. Not a single company has provided any evidence, even though many days have passed since the dispute was opened. On top of that, Bank of America can clearly see that some of these merchants have already issued refunds directlydespite the fact that the original chargebacks were never even sent to them when the case was first closed. That alone shows that the investigation was closed too early, before all necessary steps were taken. The bank could have easily seen that this case involved multiple international merchants and required further review, but they chose not to pursue it at that time, claiming they were not required to. \n\nNow, with more time and perspective, I see this situation more clearly. At the time I filed the first complaint, I was overwhelmed and confused. I didnt fully understand what had happened or why. But now that Ive gone through all of this, the pattern is obvious. I believe Bank of America intentionally closed my case just before the XXXX deadline in order to avoid issuing the provisional credit I was entitled to under federal regulations. Once a case is marked closedeven if done in errorthey can claim theyre no longer obligated to provide that credit. This loophole leaves consumers completely vulnerable. In my case, it meant the bank could walk away from its responsibility without ever completing a full investigation or offering me any protection. Thats not just unfairits dangerous. \n\nWhat this shows is a system that allows a financial institution to prioritize its own liability over its duty to its customers. It allows them to manipulate deadlines and avoid compliance with federal rules by simply shutting the door before it ever fully opens. I trusted that there were consumer protections in place for situations exactly like this. But now I realize that if the bank decides not to follow through, and no one holds them accountable, those protections mean nothing. By failing to conduct a proper investigation, refusing to issue a provisional credit, and then going silent after issuing a misleading letter, Bank of America left me financially stranded. I had no way to stop the damage. I was forced out of my apartment, fell behind on child support, and lost my real estate licensemy only source of income. In my state, when you fall behind on child support, they begin suspending your licenses. Thats exactly what happened to me. First, they suspended my real estate license, and now Im at risk of losing my drivers license as well. These arent just inconveniencestheyre severe, compounding consequences caused directly by the banks failure to act.\n\nAt this point, its clear the system was never designed to protect me in a situation like this unless the bank chose to do the right thing. And they didnt. Thats why Im turning to the CFPBnot just for help in my individual case, but because this situation exposes a serious flaw in how consumer protections are enforced. If a bank can close a case right before the deadline and use that as a way to sidestep their obligation under Regulation E, then those regulations mean nothing. Im asking the CFPB to recognize this as more than a complaint. This is a call for accountability. I want my full case re-opened and reviewed properly, with transparency and oversight. I want to see action taken to correct the wrongs done herenot only for me but to ensure banks cant continue using these tactics to avoid their legal responsibilities and to prevent the breach of critical thinking that occurs when institutions prioritize procedures over people.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-06T14:33:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"33016","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13355480","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-05-06T14:14:12.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["First, they suspended my real estate license, and now Im at <em>risk</em> of losing my drivers license as well. These arent just inconveniencestheyre severe, compounding consequences caused <em>directly</em> by the banks failure to act.\n\nAt this point, its clear the system was never designed to protect me in a situation like this unless the bank chose to do the right thing. And they didnt."]},"sort":[8.333933,"13355480"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17247881","_score":7.96632,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this urgent complaint against The Bank of New York Mellon ( XXXX ), as trustee for my mortgage ( loan originating in XXXX, current balance ~ {$1.00} XXXX on a property valued at ~ {$4.00} XXXX ), for their blatant and ongoing violations of federal consumer protection laws, including the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 2605 and 12 CFR 1024.35 ), the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ), and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ). XXXX has repeatedly provided identical, non-substantive, copy-paste responses to my inquiries and prior CFPB complaints, deflecting responsibility without addressing core issues such as the identity of the true master servicer, chain of title defects, unapplied payments, improper fees, and escalating reinstatement quotes. Most egregiously, despite my explicit demand in feedback to prior CFPB Complaint ID XXXX closed on, XX/XX/XXXX ] ) for a substantive, non-repetitive response within 5 business daysincluding the exact name, title, direct phone number, and email of a responsible party at the alleged master servicer ( whether XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) or otherwise ) XXXX has failed to comply, continuing their pattern of evasion and bad faith.\n\nThis failure constitutes a direct violation of RESPA 's error resolution requirements ( 12 CFR 1024.35 ), which mandate that servicers ( or trustees like BNYM ) investigate and provide a substantive response to notices of error within 30 days, or sooner if escalated. My demand for a 5-business-day response was reasonable given the repetitive nature of their prior replies and the imminent threat of wrongful foreclosure on my home at XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX . Instead, XXXXXXXX XXXX latest response ( dated XX/XX/XXXX, attached as \" Complaint Detail ank of new your mellon response XXXX '' ) is verbatim identical to previous ones, falsely claiming XXXX  as the master servicer without evidence or contact details. When I followed their directive and contacted XXXX  ( call logs attached, e.g., on [ insert dates ] ), XXXX representatives explicitly denied any current involvement, stating they have not touched my file since XXXX and have no updated information. This contradiction suggests XXXX is knowingly providing misleading information, potentially amounting to fraud under FDCPA 1692e ( false or deceptive representations ) and TILA 's disclosure requirements. \n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX  conduct is part of a systemic pattern of abuse : They have ignored my qualified written requests ( QWRs ) under RESPA for a full payment history, chain of title, and proof of authority, leading to inaccurate accounting ( e.g., unapplied payments totaling ~ {$1.00} XXXX over 19 years and fees inflated without justification ). \n\nAffiliated servicers like XXXX XXXX XXXX ( formerly XXXX ) and prior ones ( e.g., XXXX  ) have engaged in dual trackingpursuing foreclosure while my loan modification applications are under reviewin violation of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights ( HBOR, Cal. Civ. Code 2923.52924.20 ) and federal rules.\n\nDespite my substantial equity and good-faith efforts to modify ( e.g., applications submitted [ insert dates ] ), XXXX has enabled predatory practices, including void assignments of deed of trust ( as alleged in my ongoing lawsuit, XXXX XXXX XXXX Case No. XXXX, where I oppose Peak Foreclosure Services ' non-monetary status due to similar authority defects ).\n\nPrevious CFPB complaints ( IDs :, e.g., XXXX, others ] ) were closed prematurely after XXXX 's recycled responses, allowing violations to persist and escalating my risk of losing my home.\n\nThis is not mere negligence ; it is willful non-compliance that exploits consumers like me, potentially constituting elder financial abuse and unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts under Dodd-Frank ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 ). XXXXXXXX XXXX refusal to provide basic contact information for the master servicer prevents me from resolving these issues directly, violating RESPA 's single point of contact mandate ( 12 CFR 1024.40 ) and hindering my ability to avoid foreclosure.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-14T22:11:17.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"92882","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17247881","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","date_received":"2025-11-14T21:57:44.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Previous CFPB complaints ( IDs :, e.g., XXXX, others ] ) were closed prematurely after XXXX 's recycled responses, allowing violations to persist and escalating my <em>risk</em> of losing my home.\n\nThis is not mere negligence ; it is willful non-<em>compliance</em> that exploits consumers like me, potentially constituting elder financial abuse and unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts under Dodd-Frank ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 )."]},"sort":[7.96632,"17247881"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2706269","_score":7.8995137,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Hello, It needs to be noted with importance that weve asked multiple times for our concerns to be heard, fully investigated and acknowledged by ditech. This is a very serious matter and the severe emotional distress we are continuing to suffer as a result of gross misconduct by XXXX XXXX XXXX the Company ) and ditech as well as any other affiliates, non affiliates and any additional subsidiaries, Board of Directors and Elective Officers, respectively are very troubling. \n\nIn addition, we have and continue to dispute any and all debt referenced directly or indirectly, with the XXXX. \n\nFurther, we filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Attorney XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX over the Company and Ditech 's business practices concerning our account. As of date of this letter, Ditech has not responded to settle this matter. \n\nFirst, my family has been nothing more than collateral damage when it comes to the XXXX and its own financial uncertainty. Our original note was with XXXX with an origination date of XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Our starting balance was {$270000.00}. It was received and recorded in the XXXX of Massachusetts, XXXX XXXX XXXX of Deeds on XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \n\nSubsequently, our loan was sold to Green Tree XXXX Green Tree an affiliate of Ditech and both subsidiaries of the XXXX XXXX. \nNext, Green Tree posted our initial balance short and after repeated attempts by us to rectify our account and specifically our starting balance our concerns went unanswered. Our balance after our XXXX XXXX payment is {$82000.00}. \n\nThen, Green Tree would indicate our account was late and our scheduled payment was not received. Green Tree then required us to make immediate payments that resulted in additional fees and charges. After these payments with associated fees were made, our initial payments would post and it would often be applied to unapplied funds. \nTherefore, we asked for statements and an updated account history that reflected dates of our payments, when our payments were processed and precisely how our funds were actually being applied to our loan. \nXXXX, Ditech listed all transactions as payments. Simply, there was no delineation as to when, where or how our money was posted and how these payments affected our loan balance. \nFurther, once our payments were put in unapplied funds we were assessed more unrecognized charges and fees. Once these fees and charges were assessed our money would continue to be parked in unapplied funds. Our monthly payment was not applied and our money would just sit in unapplied funds for \" unreasonable '' amounts of time. There was no running balance or history of the money put into UAFs account. In addition our monthly statements did not reflect the total amount we actually paid. Our total payment would often be higher than the previous month 's statement had indicated. \nEventually, our payments would be grouped and posted to our account as a reconciliation. This would result in large principal payments but would not identify why our payment made and the transaction did not reconcile. \nWe repeatedly asked for updated account statements and a full detailed transaction history, but we never received anything. Likewise, there was no accurate or running record of our principal mortgage balance and we questioned how our balanced varied and to the degree that it did. \nNext, Ditech did not adhere to the terms of our loan or the escrow waiver and in XXXX XXXX Ditech added an escrow account to our loan. We indicated to Ditech we did not have an escrow account and our loan reflected as such with a mortgage escrow waiver. Now, in addition to our concerns with our payment history and varying loan balance, we also now had to deal with the grave mishandling of the escrow funds. The constant mismanagement caused our family to suffer severe emotional distress and angst. \nInstead of helping us Ditech chose intimidation, in lieu of researching our account to address the unethical business practices and not adhering to the purpose of their XXXX XXXX. \nOur repeated calls to XXXX Customer Service Department resulted in representatives placing us on hold for significant periods of time, simply disconnecting the call, or representatives never returning to the line. We made repeated attempts to speak with the Ditech but they still continued with the same immoral, unethical and unprofessional business practices. \nTherefore, in XXXX XXXX we filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Attorney XXXX XXXX. We were assured that Ditech would stop these wrongdoings and would remove all escrow accounts, return all money, as well as any late charges and fees posted to our account. Additionally, our account would be updated to reflect an accurate payment history and account balance and any negative information would be removed immediately from any and all credit reporting agencies from the Company and any and all affiliates and subsidiaries. But, its very disheartening that as of the date of this letter, the AGs office has not been able to get Ditech to respond to their attempts to settle the matter. \n\nWe are well educated responsible Americans that are very concerned about what more the Company and their affiliates and subsidiaries can do with these deceitful practices of harassment and intimidation. We should be celebrating with our children on our financial responsibility to homeownership but because of the unacceptable wrongdoings caused by the Company and its subsidiaries, we cant. \n\nOur most recent correspondence from Ditech dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX and received by us via regular mail on XXXX XXXX, XXXX indicated that Ditech is going to foreclose on our property as of XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \n\nIn the same mailing it also included a congratulations letter indicating weve been approved for a modification Trial Period Plan that would modify our existing loan for an additional 40 years. But, not before we made XXXX additional payments of {$720.00} for a Specific Trial Period. \n\nXXXX provided supporting evidence documenting these transgressions and the Company, its affiliates and subsidiaries ignore our requests and instead use intimidation and fear to disregard these business practices and us, their customer. \n\nAccording to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, posted on its website and amended as of XXXX XXXX, XXXX their purpose is : The Company values its reputation for honesty, fairness and integrity. The Company holds its officers, directors, and employees to these standards and expects them to adhere to these values and demonstrate professionalism and respect in dealings with our customers, suppliers, business partners, shareholders and each other. \nThe purpose of the XXXX shall be to assist the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Company with oversight of The Companys compliance management system, including its program for compliance with state and Federal consumer financial protection laws, rules and regulations and other laws, rules, regulations, guidance and standards governing its consumer-oriented businesses, including those governing its dealings with government sponsored enterprises ( the Consumer Business Regulations ) The Companys regulatory relations and its handling of key regulatory matters, The Companys management of risks relating to ethical, reputational and regulatory matters ; and The performance of the Companys compliance function. \n\nHow does the Company adhere to their XXXX XXXX XXXX and its specific purpose when theyre exhibiting inappropriate business practices as grossly demonstrated with the evidence weve provided? \n\nFinally, we built a house in XXXX, Massachusetts and turned that house into a beautiful home for our family. Also, in less than 15 years we have paid off a mortgage balance of {$270000.00} on a XXXX note that had a maturity date of XXXX and instead of congratulating us on our success, the Company has continued to intimidate, harasses and threatened foreclose on our home unless we agree to an unjust modification. This modification would result in us paying Ditech {$36000.00} over 40 years. This is insane when we do not owe Ditech any more money. \n\nThe Company, its affiliates and subsidiaries have caused such wrongdoings to our family over their unethical, immoral and incompetent business practices that it resulted in the mishandling of our account. These practices resulted in a continuous incorrect loan balance, inaccurate posting of payments in a timely manner, and finally the mishandling of our complaints to rectify our concerns in a timely manner so we do not have to file complaints that they 're threatening to take our home that we have paid on continously. \n\nIn conclusion, we hope you can help us, and stop the financial and emotional carnage this Company and its affiliates and subsidiaries have ensued due to their gross incompetence, neglect of duties, immoral and unethical business practices and the unprofessional behavior of its employees that fosters such a deceitful and fraudulent environment. \n\nThank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-10-19T06:09:19.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"023XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2706269","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ditech Financial LLC","date_received":"2017-10-19T05:30:02.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["relations and its handling of key regulatory matters, The Companys management of <em>risks</em> relating to ethical, reputational and regulatory matters ; and The performance of the Companys <em>compliance</em> function."]},"sort":[7.8995137,"2706269"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9120824","_score":7.699781,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX, XXXX, & Equifax continue to report incorrect information on my consumer report listed as XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX there are several late payments that are not accurate and they have not proven I was indeed late with these payments. This is my final attempt to get you to update this account or forward me with the evidence you used during your investigation because you are required to prove this information. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Equifax XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( a ) Time to make payments A creditor XXXX not treat a payment on a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan as late for any purpose, unless the creditor has adopted reasonable procedures designed to ensure that each periodic statement including the information required by section 1637 ( b ) of this title is mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the payment due date. \n\n( b ) Grace period If an open end consumer credit plan provides a time period within which an obligor may repay any portion of the credit extended without incurring an additional finance charge, such additional finance charge may not be imposed with respect to such portion of the credit extended for the billing cycle of which such period is a part, unless a statement which includes the amount upon which the finance charge for the period is based was mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the date specified in the statement by which payment must be made in order to avoid imposition of that finance charge. \n\n( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title. \n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. \n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information. \n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution. \n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-28T04:29:19.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33647","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9120824","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-05-28T04:29:18.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is my final attempt to get you to <em>update</em> this account or forward me with the evidence you used during your investigation because you are required to prove this information."]},"sort":[7.699781,"9120824"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9120822","_score":7.699781,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX, Experian, & XXXX continue to report incorrect information on my consumer report listed as XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX there are several late payments that are not accurate and they have not proven I was indeed late with these payments. This is my final attempt to get you to update this account or forward me with the evidence you used during your investigation because you are required to prove this information. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Experian XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( a ) Time to make payments A creditor may not treat a payment on a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan as late for any purpose, unless the creditor has adopted reasonable procedures designed to ensure that each periodic statement including the information required by section 1637 ( b ) of this title is mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the payment due date. \n\n( b ) Grace period If an open end consumer credit plan provides a time period within which an obligor may repay any portion of the credit extended without incurring an additional finance charge, such additional finance charge may not be imposed with respect to such portion of the credit extended for the billing cycle of which such period is a part, unless a statement which includes the amount upon which the finance charge for the period is based was mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the date specified in the statement by which payment must be made in order to avoid imposition of that finance charge.\n\n( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.\n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.\n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-28T04:29:19.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33647","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9120822","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-05-28T04:29:18.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is my final attempt to get you to <em>update</em> this account or forward me with the evidence you used during your investigation because you are required to prove this information."]},"sort":[7.699781,"9120822"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9117895","_score":7.6771655,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Transunion, XXXX, & XXXX continue to report incorrect information on my consumer report listed as XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX there are several late payments that are not accurate and they have not proven I was indeed late with these payments. This is my final attempt to get you to update this account or forward me with the evidence you used during your investigation because you are required to prove this information. \n\nTransunion XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ( a ) Time to make payments A creditor may not treat a payment on a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan as late for any purpose, unless the creditor has adopted reasonable procedures designed to ensure that each periodic statement including the information required by section 1637 ( b ) of this title is mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the payment due date. \n\n( b ) Grace period If an open end consumer credit plan provides a time period within which an obligor may repay any portion of the credit extended without incurring an additional finance charge, such additional finance charge may not be imposed with respect to such portion of the credit extended for the billing cycle of which such period is a part, unless a statement which includes the amount upon which the finance charge for the period is based was mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the date specified in the statement by which payment must be made in order to avoid imposition of that finance charge. \n\n( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title. \n\n( b ) Opt out ( XXXX ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. \n( XXXX ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information. \n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution. \n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer. \n\n( XXXX ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( XXXX ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-28T04:29:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33647","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9117895","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-05-28T04:21:39.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is my final attempt to get you to <em>update</em> this account or forward me with the evidence you used during your investigation because you are required to prove this information."]},"sort":[7.6771655,"9117895"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15124916","_score":7.487934,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"My original CFPB complaint number is XXXX Cash App responded to my original complaint with a delay tactic ( 60-day review ) and has locked out my ability to submit additional evidence or reply. They still have not allowed me to upload documents, and the core issue remains unresolved. \n\nI understand they have their legal allowed time to respond and I have my legal allowed complaint to ask for my time to stop being wasted. Just pay me what Im fairly asking for, please!! \n\n\n\n\n\n\nCorrection : My name was mistyped in the original complaint. The correct legal name is XXXX XXXX This does not change the facts or supporting evidence. \n\n\nI want to make it explicitly clear that any settlement finalization, including delivery of agreement documents, signature requests, or confirmation of terms, must be conducted exclusively through this CFPB portal. \n\nThis is non-negotiable. No communication or binding agreement outside this channel will be recognized. This ensures compliance, oversight, and full transparency. \n\n\n\nCash app case numbers : Complainers case number XXXX escalated case number XXXX cash app support case number XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) This issue has now been mishandled through XXXX ( XXXX ) separate internal case IDs, dozens of emails, verified documentation, and an ongoing refusal to engage through the CFPB portal as requested. I am submitting this full settlement request, which reflects updated emotional damages and new evidence. All supporting screenshots and email confirmations are available upon request. \n\n\nCompany Abandonment of Internal Resolution and Improper Referral to Law Enforcement On XX/XX/XXXX, after repeated attempts to resolve the issue directly with Cash App support and through the formal CFPB complaint portal, the complainant received a written response from a Cash App representative instructing : You may be able to contact your local law enforcement, give the details of this transaction to them, and file a report Law enforcement can contact us using the resources at XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nThis response followed more than a dozen documented communications from the complainant, each clearly seeking a peaceful and structured resolution through proper support channels. \n\nThe redirection to law enforcementdespite Cash Apps own internal acknowledgment of the name discrepancy and its connection to a broader systemic issuerepresents a formal abandonment of the companys duty to resolve a known issue using its own support infrastructure. \n\nDespite receiving an auto-response stating my support thread was closed, Cash App reopened my case the very next day a move that confirms someone read and acted upon my message. That message explicitly stated that all future communication should go through the CFPB portal. Their decision to reopen the case, while simultaneously ignoring my request and failing to follow up, confirms that my message was not only received but intentionally disregard This instruction to pursue a criminal or civil investigation over a clerical error that originated within Cash Apps own systemwithout any indication of fraud, theft, or wrongdoing on the part of the complainantconstitutes : A breach of good faith and fair dealing, Emotional negligence toward a vulnerable consumer with medically documented anxiety and active public assistance claims, And an unnecessary escalation that places undue burden on government resources for a mistake internally caused by the company. \n\nMoreover, Cash Apps refusal to respond via the CFPB complaint portal, as requested in writing, coupled with this referral to law enforcement, may be interpreted as a willful effort to avoid regulatory transparency and formal accountability. \n\nConclusion This communication, now part of the official settlement record, is being used to demonstrate not only the complainants continued good-faith effort to seek resolution, but also Cash Apps escalating pattern of evasion, emotional disregard, and public risk transfer. This is now an added factor in the total claim for damages and reputational harm. \n\nSupplemental Statement to CFPB Complaint : Formal Resolution Proposal This message serves as an official supplement and clarification to my previously filed complaint against Cash App regarding a serious identity verification failure that occurred during a loan transaction on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nSummary of Issue : I was able to borrow money through Cash App with a typo in my name. \nImmediately after borrowing, I received an email from Cash App stating : Your legal name now matches your profile name. \nThis update occurred without submission of a photo ID, selfie, or any legal name change documentation. \nWhen I later attempted to correct the typo, I was blocked and required to submit photo ID, a selfie, and government documents ( e.g., court order ), despite not needing any of these to take out the loan or trigger a legal name change. \nThis contradiction in identity verification protocols constitutes a major security failure and violates basic KYC ( Know Your Customer ) and BSA ( Bank Secrecy Act ) standards. \n\nI have contacted Cash App support multiple times ( XXXX emails and several phone calls ) and provided consistent information throughout. I also have documentation of the emails, screenshots, and timestamps showing : When the loan was initiated When the legal name update was confirmed via email When funds were transferred to my bank account My repeated attempts to correct the error Formal Resolution Request : To Whom It May Concern, As part of any final settlement, Cash App agrees to identify, provide, and pay for an independent third-party attorney to review the final NDA and contract on my behalf before signature. This is in addition to the net-after-tax compensation requested below and does not affect the final figure. In the event I do not retain legal representation, I am willing to return any allocated legal funds upon formal invoice request. \n\n\nWhile your delay in response falls within your lawful right under CFPB guidelines, it ultimately served only to strengthen my position. This additional time allowed me to further investigate, organize evidence, and uncover critical patterns that reinforce the scope and seriousness of this issue. \n\nAs a result, my formal settlement demand is set at {$50.00} XXXX net, after taxes and any acquiable fees you may incur reflecting not only the original damages, but also the compounded negligence, delayed accountability, and expanded regulatory implications now supported by additional documentation. \n\nI remain open to a timely and discreet resolution. However, I must emphasize that time of continued inaction increases potential exposure and reputational risk on your end. \n\nWhile I am not currently aware of any confirmed impact to my government benefits, I would like to clarify that I am presently unemployed, experiencing medically documented anxiety, and have submitted applications for government food assistance and unemployment benefits all of which require legal name accuracy. \n\nThe unauthorized change to my legal name triggered a severe panic response, including physical symptoms such as XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX all of which aggravated my pre-existing XXXX XXXX. I have a documented history of XXXX  prior to this event, and the incident directly worsened my condition. \n\nAt the time, I was already facing significant financial and emotional hardship. This unconsented identity change, involving a financial institution and lending product, created serious mental harm, not just distress. The fear, confusion, and instability it caused impacted my ability to function and contributed to a measurable decline in my mental health. \n\n\nI have documentation supporting all of the above, including : Medical records showing diagnosed XXXX  Government filings for benefits and unemployment Extensive written correspondence with Cash App Evidence that my legal name remains incorrect in the system An email stating the typo is now being treated as my legal identity The requested {$50.00} XXXX is the net amount I expect to receive in full. It is the responsibility of Cash App/Block Inc. to determine and cover any taxes, fees, or obligations required to fulfill this net payment. \n\nI am not pursuing this matter out of malice or greed. I am doing so because the situation has deeply affected my emotional and mental state and because I believe it is time that platforms take accountability when their systems fail real people at real moments. \n\nI am willing to resolve this quietly and respectfully. If no resolution is provided within one ( 1 ) business day, I will escalate to all legal and public channels necessary.\n\nJust so Im clear, this net-after-tax condition applies to any and all future settlement offers, discussions, or agreements now and moving forward unless explicitly renegotiated in writing. \n\nAs part of the settlement, I request full forgiveness and closure of the outstanding loan balance ( approximately {$100.00} ), which was issued under an invalid and improperly verified legal name. This loan, while minor in amount, became a central catalyst to significant systemic failures. It should be extinguished in full as part of this resolution. \n\nUpon acceptance of this settlement agreement and full payment of the agreed net amount, the matter shall be considered fully resolved. \n\nThe undersigned shall not be subject to any further inquiry, retaliation, account restrictions, service limitations, or interference of any kind by Cash App ( Block, Inc. ), its affiliates, representatives, or agents. \n\nFurthermore, no internal or external actions shall be taken against the undersigned in response to this complaint, communication history, or settlement terms. \n\nThis clause is binding and shall survive the settlement in perpetuity. \n\nI had every reason to go higher, but I wont because Im a man of my word. I gave you a number I believed was fair, and Im sticking to it. That was the deal before the fallout, and its still the deal now. But if we go to court or keep stalling that offer is gone.\n\nPs As of XXXX this is still ongoing, nor has a cash app rep called me personally to say lets get this fixed its important I feel like Im the only one taking it as a serious matter!!\n\nHeres a summarized timeline : XX/XX/XXXX : I borrow money via Cash App Same day : I receive an email confirming a legal name change Following days : Repeated attempts to correct the issue blocked Present : Still unresolved typo still shown on my account Ive submitted ID, a selfie, and written declarations. Nothing has been fixed. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-13T17:56:35.000Z","issue":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"851XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15124916","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-08-06T15:11:04.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This ensures <em>compliance</em>, oversight, and full transparency. \n\n\n\nCash app case numbers : Complainers case number XXXX escalated case number XXXX cash app support case number XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) This issue has now been mishandled through XXXX ( XXXX ) separate internal case IDs, dozens of emails, verified documentation, and an ongoing refusal to engage through the CFPB portal as requested. I am submitting this full settlement request, which reflects <em>updated</em> emotional damages and new evidence."]},"sort":[7.487934,"15124916"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":95,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":95}]}},"product":{"doc_count":95,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":53,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":52},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":15,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":15}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":3},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":4},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":2},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rental debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":3},{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":95,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":27,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":17},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":4},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":4},{"key":"Information is incorrect","doc_count":1},{"key":"Public record information inaccurate","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":18,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":17},{"key":"Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":15,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":11},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":2},{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":6}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":2},{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem accessing account","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Escrow, taxes, or insurance","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":3,"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":"Applying for or obtaining a modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or deed-in-lieu","doc_count":1},{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing dispute for services","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Trouble accessing funds in your mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Funds not received from closed account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Communication tactics","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"You told them to stop contacting you, but they keep trying","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Received bad information about your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Getting a credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Application denied","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with the payoff process at the end of the loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Unable to receive car title or other problem after the loan is paid off","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Contacted you after you asked them to stop","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Collected or attempted to collect exempt funds","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":95,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":95}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":95,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":61},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":31},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":3}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":95,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":95}]}},"company":{"doc_count":95,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":21},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":19},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":18},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"CBC Companies, Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":2},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":2},{"key":"AES/PHEAA","doc_count":1},{"key":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CORELOGIC INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit International Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Data Mortgage Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ditech Financial LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA","doc_count":1},{"key":"LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"LCI Acquisition Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"MIDFIRST BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"MoneyLion Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"National Account Systems of Omaha, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"OPTUM BANK, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Upstart Holdings, Inc.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":95,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"GA","doc_count":21},{"key":"CA","doc_count":15},{"key":"FL","doc_count":13},{"key":"TX","doc_count":8},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":5},{"key":"NC","doc_count":5},{"key":"NE","doc_count":4},{"key":"OH","doc_count":4},{"key":"MD","doc_count":3},{"key":"MO","doc_count":3},{"key":"TN","doc_count":3},{"key":"IL","doc_count":2},{"key":"NY","doc_count":2},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"MA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MN","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"WI","doc_count":1},{"key":"WY","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":95,"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":52},{"key":"Company believes the complaint provided an opportunity to answer consumer's questions","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":95,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":6},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":3}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[7.4873114,"15124916"],"3":[4.799324,"21712294"],"4":[3.8551264,"6317449"]}}}