{"took":212,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":26,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5705982","_score":28.369518,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This is NOT a duplicate to complaint # XXXX In XX/XX/2015, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and servicer to me since XX/XX/2015, was placed under supervisory restrictions by the XXXX referenced by XXXX # XXXX XXXX # XXXX and # XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX made financial profits at my expense and to my detriment, when they should never had been in business with me ( sppecifically servicing a mortgage ). \n\nReference XXXX  ID # MIN : XXXX Note Date : XX/XX/2015 XXXX  Status : Inactive Servicer : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX, KY Investor : XXXX XXXX XXXX specific restrictions outlined below and a copy of the order from XXXX is attached to this complaint for reference : ( 1 ) no execution of new contracts or the amendment or renewal of existing contracts beyond current loan volume specified in existing contracts for the acquisition, by the Bank, of residential mortgage servicing, residential mortgage servicing rights, residential mortgage loans with servicing, or residential mortgage origination business entities without prior XXXX supervisory non-objection until termination of the Consent Order ( this does not apply to originations or refinancings by the Bank, contracts for new residential mortgage loans through the Banks broker or correspondent channels, or other contractual relationships where the Bank does not ultimately service the loans, and this is not intended to disrupt any of the Banks existing residential mortgage servicing related contracts ) ; ( 2 ) no execution of new contracts for the Bank to perform residential mortgage servicing for other parties without prior XXXX  supervisory non-objection until termination of the Consent Order ; ( 3 ) no residential mortgage servicing related activities may be outsourced or sub-serviced to other parties without prior XXXX  supervisory non-objection until termination of the Consent Order ( this is not intended to disrupt any of the Banks existing residential mortgage servicing related contracts, outsourced activities, or obligations pursuant to legal settlement, nor prohibit new contracts to outsource activities that are currently outsourced ) ; ( 4 ) no new off-shoring of residential mortgage servicing related activities without prior XXXX  supervisory non-objection until termination of the Consent Order ; and ( 5 ) no new appointments of senior officers who have responsibility for residential mortgage servicing, residential mortgage servicing operations, residential mortgage servicing risk management, and residential mortgage servicing compliance without prior XXXX supervisory non-objection until termination of the Consent","date_sent_to_company":"2022-06-24T11:30:50.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Other type of mortgage","zip_code":"323XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5705982","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2022-06-24T11:01:59.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>mortgage</em> <em>servicing</em>, <em>residential</em> <em>mortgage</em> <em>servicing</em> operations, <em>residential</em> <em>mortgage</em> <em>servicing</em> <em>risk</em> management, and <em>residential</em> <em>mortgage</em> <em>servicing</em> <em>compliance</em> without prior XXXX supervisory non-objection until termination of the Consent"],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"sub_product":["Other type of <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[28.369518,"5705982"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13458609","_score":22.990236,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX is a company that manages residential mortgage loans after they are originated by other lenders. It is a non-bank mortgage servicer, meaning they handle the servicing of loans for many different lenders and investors. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX is a residential mortgage servicing company that manages mortgage loans after they have been originated by lenders. Essentially, they act as a third-party administrator on behalf of the loan owner ( lender or investor ). \nHere 's a breakdown of what XXXX XXXX XXXX does : Payment Processing : They collect and process monthly mortgage payments from homeowners, in Customer Service : They provide customer support to homeowners for inquiries related to their mortgage, including payment information, account statements, and other loan-related questions. \n\nLoss Mitigation : If a homeowner faces financial difficulties and is at risk of default, Shellpoint works with them to explore options to avoid foreclosure. These options can include repayment plans, forbearance, loan modifications, short sales, or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. They assign a single point of contact to help homeowners through this process. \nDocument Management : XXXX provides homeowners with access to important mortgage-related documents, such as statements and tax forms ( like the XXXX mortgage interest statement ). \nCompliance : They ensure that their servicing practices comply with relevant federal and state regulations. \nCommunication : XXXX communicates with homeowners regarding important aspects of their loan, such as payment changes, loan transfers, and options for assistance. \nIn simpler terms, if XXXX is servicing your mortgage, they are the company you send your monthly payments to and who you contact if you have any questions about your loan. So our Question is Why Haven't XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX answered our QWR because there is an was major concerns and not addressed before the Forclosure of the sold on XX/XX/year>? When I XXXX XXXX XXXX and spoke to personnel I was told only that they were calling to let Us know that they represented Bank of America.So when we sent out The QWR drafted by the XXXX XXXX XXXX why was it not answered in a timely which was and is Vital to the saving of our Property from an unlawful foreclosure.We so hereby contest and still have need of QWR.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-12T16:09:31.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"302XX","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13458609","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-05-12T15:17:46.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX is a company that manages <em>residential</em> <em>mortgage</em> loans after they are originated by other lenders. It is a non-bank <em>mortgage</em> <em>servicer</em>, meaning they handle the <em>servicing</em> of loans for many different lenders and investors. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX is a <em>residential</em> <em>mortgage</em> <em>servicing</em> company that manages <em>mortgage</em> loans after they have been originated by lenders. Essentially, they act as a third-party administrator on behalf of the loan owner ( lender or investor )."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"issue":["Struggling to pay <em>mortgage</em>"],"sub_product":["VA <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[22.990236,"13458609"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18434104","_score":17.084177,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX in Mortgage Tax Servicing : The CoreLogic-BAC Nexus Executive Summary : Strategic Context and Definitive Findings The structural transformation of the United States mortgage servicing landscape over the past XXXX decades is epitomized by the strategic nexus formed between XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) and CoreLogic. This relationship, fundamentally cemented through a landmark asset divestiture in XX/XX/XXXX, represents a profound shift in the operational philosophy of systemically important financial institutions ( SIFIs ). The identification of \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' unequivocally points to a former operational unit of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, whose common shares trade under the XXXX symbol \" BAC ''. This corporate linkage is the cornerstone for understanding a transactional framework that moved from internal bank management to a highly specialized, scaled third-party processing ( TPP ) model. \nThe relationship is not competitive or transactional on a spot-market basis, but rather an established, long-term outsourcing arrangement born from necessity. This arrangement was formalized when XXXX acquired XXXX property tax processing and flood zone determination assets, along with their corresponding operating platforms. Post-acquisition, XXXX rebranded as Cotality in XXXXassumed the primary responsibility as the operational payer to more than XXXX municipal tax authorities. In this capacity, XXXX functions as a specialized TPP, executing the fiduciary property tax obligations retained by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX for its massive residential loan portfolio. \nThe transaction data reflects the execution of mortgage servicing obligations through XXXX primary capital flows. The most visible flow consists of large, bundled disbursements directed toward specific taxing jurisdictions, such as county treasurers, derived from accumulated homeowner escrow funds. The second, less visible flow involves the internal transfer of fiduciary capital and contractual servicing fees from XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX to XXXX under the specific XXXX services agreement established during the XXXX asset purchase. This strategic outsourcing decision was fundamentally driven by the need to streamline operations, reduce inherent litigation exposure associated with high-volume tasks, and optimize regulatory capital utilization under the XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nCorporate Identity Disambiguation and the XXXX XXXX XXXX The precise nature of the CoreLogic and BAC relationship is anchored in a definitive strategic transaction that occurred in XXXX. To analyze this relationship, it is first necessary to disambiguate the corporate entities involved. The nomenclature \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' strongly correlates with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, as \" BAC '' is the definitive organizational identifier used on the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. This massive financial services unit must be distinguished from smaller, unrelated entities like \" XXXX XXXX XXXX, '' which specializes in individual tax returns. \nThe transactional relationship began with a major strategic divestiture. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX publicly announced the acquisition of flood zone determination and property tax processing services assets from XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. This deal, which closed on XX/XX/XXXX, was funded by cash on hand and accompanied by a long-term services agreement. \nTable XXXX : XXXX Acquisition of XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) | Asset/Function | Seller ( BAC Operational Unit ) | Acquirer ( CoreLogic ) | Resultant Payer Status | | -- -| -- -| -- -| -- -| | Tax Processing Platforms | Internal Servicing Infrastructure | Services Segment Operations | CoreLogic became operational payer to municipalities | | Flood Zone Determination | Internal Compliance Unit | Specialized CoreLogic Unit | CoreLogic became contracted provider for compliance | | Servicing Obligation | Remains with XXXX ( MSRs retained ) | Operational Execution Outsourced | XXXX is the funder ; CoreLogic is the executor | | | Fiduciary Duty | Retained by XXXX | Managed via Agreement | The strategic rationale for Bank of Americas divestiture was rooted in the post-XXXX economic crisis environment. By XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX was grappling with intense regulatory scrutiny concerning its past origination and servicing activities, including extensive litigation related to foreclosure documentation. Divesting complex, high-risk operational business lines was a key component of XXXX 's XXXX to reduce its involvement in non-core functions and mitigate the massive legal fees associated with managing a distressed loan portfolio. \nFor XXXX, the acquisition was a move to achieve scale and expand profitability. XXXX XXXX, then XXXX and XXXX of XXXX, stated the deal aligned with the companys imperative of driving scale and operating leverage in its mortgage origination services segment. The integration of XXXX 's operations was expected to create significant revenue growth and margin expansion, effectively making XXXX the \" utility '' for XXXX 's tax compliance. \nThe Macroeconomic and Regulatory Catalyst : XXXX XXXX and De-Risking The broader strategic implication of this payer relationship serves as a primary case study of the structural changes within the XXXX XXXX services sector following the XXXX crisis. The decision to outsource was not merely operational ; it was a response to the punitive regulatory capital requirements introduced by the XXXX XXXX framework. \nXXXX XXXX and MSR Risk Weighting XXXX XXXX, as implemented by XXXX federal regulators, placed restrictive limits on the amount of Mortgage Servicing Rights ( MSRs ) that could be held by federally regulated financial institutions. Under pre-crisis rules, bank MSR investments were limited to XXXX  % of the common equity component of tier XXXX capital. XXXX XXXX reduced this cap to XXXX %. Furthermore, the implementation significantly increased the risk-weighting of MSRs from XXXX % to XXXX %. \nThis regulatory environment transformed MSRs into an exceptionally costly asset class. The \" gold plating '' of XXXX risk weights in the XXXX added XXXX percentage points across the board, further incentivizing banks to sell MSRs or, at the very least, outsource the operational mechanics to reduce the overhead and potential for regulatory failure. By transferring the property tax processing function to a non-bank entity like XXXX, Bank XXXX XXXX effectively shifted the operational and compliance burden, paying XXXX to manage the risk while optimizing its own balance sheet. \nXXXX XXXX and Structural Simplification Simultaneously, Title I of the Dodd-Frank Act required large financial institutions to develop resolution plans, or \" living wills ''. These plans are intended to ensure that a large bank can be resolved in a rapid and orderly fashion without a taxpayer bailout. Part of this process involves rationalizing and simplifying the company 's legal entity structure by eliminating non-essential internal units. Divesting the tax servicing operations into a contractual XXXX relationship with XXXX supported XXXX 's goal of \" Responsible Growth '' by reducing internal complexity and aligning with their risk framework. \nOperational Framework of Mortgage Escrow and Third-Party Processing To interpret the transactional data between BAC and CoreLogic, one must understand the technical mechanism of property tax escrow, commonly known as XXXX ( Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance ). For most residential mortgages, the servicerXXXX XXXX XXXXcollects a portion of the annual property taxes and insurance premiums each month, holding them in a segregated, fiduciary escrow account. \nThe Mechanism of Property Tax Escrow The mortgage servicer accepts a fiduciary duty to accurately collect, hold, and disburse these funds to governmental tax authorities and insurance carriers. This duty involves three key components : * Duty of Loyalty : Managing assets solely in the interests of the beneficiaries ( the homeowners and investors ).\n\n* Duty of Care : Exercising a high degree of skill to ensure timely and accurate payments. \n* Duty of Disclosure : Providing complete and accurate information about escrow balances and transactions.\n\nBecause property taxes are managed by thousands of highly fragmented local jurisdictions, the process of disbursement is exceptionally complex and prone to error. CoreLogic fills this gap as a specialized TPP, providing a centralized data infrastructure that tracks jurisdictional tax rates, payment dates, and parcel-level property data.\n\nOperational Payer Hierarchy in the Outsourced Model In this outsourced model, the operational hierarchy dictates the nature of the observed payments. Each year, typically around XXXX, the servicer ( BofA ) provides CoreLogic with a list of properties for which taxes are due. The servicer then remits the accumulated escrow capital to CoreLogic. CoreLogic then assumes the role of the physical disburser, sending bulk payments to municipal tax authorities. \nA local government office, such as the XXXX XXXX XXXX, receives the tax payment from CoreLogic, not directly from XXXX XXXX XXXX This transfer of operational liability ensures continuity of service for the bank while achieving risk isolation. XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX retains the regulatory oversight of the service contract but offloads the manual, error-prone task of tracking thousands of individual tax bills. \nDetailed Analysis of Transactional Flow and Payer Dynamics The payment history data reflects a sophisticated two-way flow of capital governed by the XXXX services agreement. Dissecting this flow clarifies the distinct financial responsibilities of XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. \nObserved Payments ( CoreLogic as Payer ) When CoreLogic is the originating Payer, the transaction represents a XXXX XXXX XXXX aimed at satisfying local government obligations. These are the final payments in the escrow cycle. CoreLogic aggregates funds for thousands of properties and sends consolidated payments to taxing jurisdictions. The timing of these disbursements is critical, aligning with local due dates and \" Economic Loss Dates '' ( ELDs ). CoreLogics proprietary data systems track these localized variances to ensure accuracy. \nUnseen Transactional Flow ( BAC as Payer ) While CoreLogic is the visible payer to the municipality, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX acts as the payer in the internal XXXX transactions necessary to fund the operation. This flow has XXXX components : * Escrow Fund Remittance : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX transfers the accumulated homeowner escrow capital ( the XXXX & I portion of XXXX ) to CoreLogic. This is a transfer of trust funds, where XXXX takes temporary custody of the funds needed for the tax bill. \n* Servicing Fee Payments : XXXX XXXX  XXXX pays contractual service fees to CoreLogic. This payment stream is CoreLogics compensation for operational administration, compliance management, and platform usage. This component generates the actual revenue and margin expansion anticipated during the XXXX acquisition. \nXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX The asset transfer introduced considerable accounting complexity, particularly in managing fiduciary capital. For CoreLogic, the acquisition necessitated adjustments to its cash flow reporting, as its operating activities became linked to managing high-volume escrow accounts. While escrow funds are not revenue, their management requires meticulous reconciliation. \nA key financial mechanism in this model is optimizing the \" velocity of money '' or \" float ''. Escrow accounts represent a massive, short-term pool of liquid capital. If CoreLogic receives funds from XXXX XXXX XXXX well in advance of the municipal due dates, it gains control over significant working capital for the intervening period. CoreLogics ability to achieve \" margin expansion '' is tied to managing this float efficiently, ensuring capital is deployed advantageously before final disbursement.\n\nTechnology and Integration : The Digital Tax Portal The relationships sustainability is driven by CoreLogics significant investment in compliance technology. Traditionally, property tax processing relied on manual data handling and XXXX databases. CoreLogic transformed this process by building a Digital Tax Portal delivered to local municipalities.\n\nFeatures of the Digital Tax Portal The portal centralizes loan and property tax data, providing real-time visibility into tax deadlines and payment status. It allows for : * Near Real-time Agency Connections : Access to data from XXXX agencies, including collector details and payment instructions. \n* Delinquency Risk Tracking : Tracking cut-off dates and collections to ensure correct payments.\n\n* Self-Serve Features : Allowing servicers to update contracts, tax IDs, and legal documents in a few clicks.\n\n* Automated Verification : Tools like Digital tax Connect provide instant access to property tax data through APIs, reducing manual processes and improving customer satisfaction. \nBy XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX % of client decisions were being performed through the portal rather than traditional methods. This digital transformation provides a layer of operational assurance and risk mitigation that XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX could not achieve with its fragmented legacy internal systems. \nTable 2 : Digital Tax Portal Capabilities and Impact | Feature | Functionality | Strategic Benefit | | -- -| -- -| -- -| | Collector Portal | Electronic viewing and download of payment packages | Transparency and speed of reconciliation | | Tru-Pay Certification | Identifies shortages, overages, and duplicate payments | Mitigation of refund requests and errors | | API Integration | Seamless connection to servicer websites and apps | Reduced call center volume and cost | | Delinquency Monitoring | Real-time tracking of unpaid taxes and tax sales | Protection of the bank 's first-lien position | Operational and Consumer Impact of the Servicing Transition The corporate restructuring between CoreLogic and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX had tangible operational consequences, particularly during the transition period of XXXX. Moving massive volumes of data from legacy XXXX systems to XXXX platforms introduced friction points in data fidelity. \nImpact on Escrow Analysis Mortgage servicers are legally required to conduct an annual escrow analysis to ensure sufficient funds are collected. Discrepancies arising from data migrationsuch as inaccurate tracking of local property valuations or delayed recognition of tax increasescan lead directly to flawed analyses. \nConsequences for Homeowners ( XXXX ) A common consequence of operational friction during a servicing overhaul is the occurrence of an escrow shortage. A shortage occurs when the amount collected in the homeowners account is insufficient to cover the actual tax bill paid by CoreLogic. In XXXX and XXXX, former XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX customers reported significant increases in their monthly payments as the servicer attempted to \" catch up '' on these shortages. \nIn some cases, homeowners discovered that funds intended for escrow were being incorrectly applied to the mortgage principal, creating a shortage in the tax account. These issues highlight the critical need for high-accuracy processing and the forensic accounting oversight that specialized entities like CoreLogic provide.\n\nRisk and Litigation Context : The Post-Crisis Clean-Up The divestiture of tax servicing was part of a larger effort by Bank of XXXX to resolve the legal overhang of the financial crisis. In XXXX, the bank agreed to a record {$16.00} billion settlement with the Department of Justice to resolve claims related to the packaging and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities ( RMBS ). \nLitigation Pressures and Regulatory Settlements XXXX XXXX XXXX faced numerous lawsuits from state attorneys general and federal agencies like the XXXX. These settlements addressed systemic failures in mortgage origination and servicing, including misrepresentations made to investors and government entities like XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX. \nBy outsourcing tax servicing to CoreLogic, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX reduced its exposure to future litigation related to property tax errors, which had become a significant source of liability for the bank. This shift allowed XXXX to focus on its \" Responsible Growth '' tenets, growing within its risk framework and driving operational excellence. \nTable 3 : Major XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Regulatory Settlements ( XXXX ) | Date | Settlement Entity | Amount | Focus Area | | -- -| -- -| -- -| -- -| | XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX$11.00} XXXX XXXX Repurchase and servicing claims | | XX/XX/XXXX | XXXX | {$6.00} XXXX | XXXX litigation and contract claims | | XX/XX/XXXX | DOJ / SEC | {$16.00} XXXX | XXXX fraud and disclosure failures | | XX/XX/XXXX | CFPB | {$720.00} XXXX | Deceptive marketing of add-on products | The Rebranding of CoreLogic to Cotality ( XXXX ) The evolution of the relationship reached a new stage in XX/XX/XXXX when CoreLogic announced its global rebrand to Cotality. This transformation reflects the companys progression from a financial services support provider to a leader in property information and data-enabled solutions. \nStrategic Reasons for the Rebrand The transition from CoreLogic to Cotality was described by XXXX XXXX XXXX as a \" transformation with purpose ''. The new name embodies XXXX pillars : * Collaboration and Connectivity : Uniting property professionals and fostering industry relationships. \n* Totality : Delivering comprehensive data and technology across the entire property ecosystem. \n* Vitality : Human-centric innovation and a focus on helping people thrive. \nFor mortgage lenders, the rebrand signifies a partner focused on delivering enhanced, AI-driven insights to make home lending as efficient and effective as possible. \nXXXX XXXX for Mortgage XXXX XXXX vision for the future of mortgage servicing involves utilizing billions of real-time data signals to unearth hidden risks and opportunities. This includes : * XXXX XXXX Platforms : Helping institutions consolidate multiple vendor services into a single provider to cut costs and streamline workflows. \n* AI and Automation : Leveraging \" CoreAI '' to evolve with the property ecosystem and drive smarter lending decisions.\n\n* End-to-End Solutions : Providing predictive knowledge throughout the loan journey, from marketing and origination to servicing and monitoring. \nAs of XXXX, Cotality manages property tax payments for XXXX % of XXXX homes with first liens and serves XXXX of the top XXXX mortgage servicers. Its stable financial outlook is supported by XXXX growth, cost savings, and interest income on cash deposits held in its tax business. \nXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX of Cotality Despite the challenges of high interest rates, Cotality has maintained a stable financial trajectory. In the XXXX months ended XX/XX/XXXX, the company reported revenue of {$980.00} XXXX, a modest year-over-year increase. Its revenue and XXXX growth are driven by market share gains and improving efficiency through cost-cutting, including a XXXX % reduction in global office space over the past XXXX years. \nXXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX Cotality faces significant debt maturities in XXXX and will likely need to refinance its {$5.00} XXXX of debt in early XXXX. XXXX & XXXX XXXX economists forecast that mortgage rates will improve in XXXX and XXXX, which would provide a favorable environment for this refinancing. The companys liquidity remains ample, and it expects to use future cash flow to repay its revolver. \nTable XXXX : Cotality XXXX XXXX and Projections | Indicator | XXXX XXXX Actual | XXXX XXXX Actual | XXXX Projection | | -- -| -- -| -- -| -- -| | Revenue | {$980.00} XXXX | {$980.00} XXXX | Growth via non-mortgage biz | | Debt to XXXX | N/A | XXXX | XXXX ( Improving ) | | Free Operating Cash Flow | Negative | Improving | Positive | | Mortgage Origination Volume | Baseline | XXXX % ( Expected ) | XXXX % ( XXXX XXXX Unknown","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-03T00:05:49.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"30331","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18434104","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CORELOGIC INC","date_received":"2026-01-02T23:32:55.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["For most <em>residential</em> <em>mortgages</em>, the <em>servicer</em>XXXX XXXX XXXXcollects a portion of the annual property taxes and insurance premiums each month, holding them in a segregated, fiduciary escrow account. \nThe Mechanism of Property Tax Escrow The <em>mortgage</em> <em>servicer</em> accepts a fiduciary duty to accurately collect, hold, and disburse these funds to governmental tax authorities and insurance carriers."],"sub_product":["<em>Mortgage</em> debt"]},"sort":[17.084177,"18434104"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2628044","_score":16.969604,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Specialized Loan Servicing did not follow the appropriate rules and regulations governing approving the Deed-In-Lieu of Foreclosure requested and denied the request and forcding a foreclosure on the property. We previously had to request assistance from the CFPB to assist us with SLS and the original Loan Modification. We are requesting assistance to have SLS approve the Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure request. Referenced regulations : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX issued an Announcement ( XXXX ) requiring servicers to protect the priority of the mortgage lien and to clear all liens for delinquent homeowners association ( HOA ) dues and condo assessments, on properties acquired through foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. The Policy changes specified in this Announcement are effective XX/XX/XXXX but servicers are encourages to implement them as soon as possible. Servicers must follow the policies outlined on this announcement for all conventional mortgage loans held in, or purchased from XXXX XXXX portfolio but securitized in XXXX pools, or have special or regular servicing option, or a shared-risk XXXX pool with XXXX XXXX or Servicer marketing the acquired property, or other loans sold to XXXX XXXX under recourse or other credit enhancement arrangements. XXXX XXXX XXXX are required to advance funds when notified by an HOA for a PUD or condo project that borrower is 60 days delinquent in the payments, or charges levied by association inorder to protect the priority of XXXX XXXX  mortgage lien. Reimbursements for such advances may be provided to the servicer for up to 6 months in certain states. In addition, Servicers are currently required to ensure any priority liens for delinquent HOA dues and assessments on acquired properties are cleared immediately, but no later than 30 days after the foreclosure sale or acceptance of a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. Servicers must take steps to protect the priority of the mortgage lien for properties located in states providing priority for assessment liens over a previously-recorded mortgage document. Servicer must determine the amount to be paid in order to clear the associations claim of lien when pursuing foreclosure. The amount is generally the lowest of : The actual delinquent assessment balance and allowed costs The maximum amount due from the foreclosing first mortgage entity based on the provisions in the projects declaration, or under the relevant state statute. The servicer must pay this amount immediately following, but no later than 30 days after, the foreclosure sale date or acceptance of a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. Clearing the priority lien within this time frame ensures XXXX XXXX lien position is preserved and costly delays are avoided when selling the property. XXXX XXXX is revising the reimbursement policy to servicers for the advances made. If an association refuses to release its claim of lien against a property for the amount determined to be the obligated amount after reasonable efforts to reach agreement, the servicer or its foreclosure attorney must contact the XXXX XXXX legal department for further guidance. All other requirements provided in the associated sections of the Servicing Guide remain unchanged. Servicer responsibilities in regards to acquired properties are outlined on the Servicing Guide and as required by applicable state law. Non-compliance with XXXX XXXX policy regarding delinquent HOA dues and assessments may result to repurchase, make whole or indemnification. Servicers should contact their Servicing Consultant, XXXX  XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX ( XXXX ) with any questions regarding this Announcement. As per New York Department Financial Services XX/XX/XXXX Letter, DILs are well-accepted loss mitigation alternatives to foreclosure and have been incorporated into most servicing standards. XXXX XXXX and HUD both recognize that DILs may be beneficial for borrowers in default who do not qualify for other loss mitigation options. The federal Home Affordable Mortgage Program ( HAMP ) requires participating lenders and mortgage servicers to consider a borrower determined to be eligible for a HAMP modification or other home retention option for other foreclosure alternatives, including short sales and DILs. Likewise, as part of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of XXXX, Congress established a safe harbor for certain qualified loss mitigation plans, including short sales and deeds in lieu offered under the Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives ( HAFA ) program. Nothing in this letter affects the responsibilities of a mortgage loan servicer, including one that is an Exempt Organization, with respect to residential mortgage loan delinquencies and loss mitigation efforts under Part 419 of the Superintendents Regulations ( Business Conduct Rules for Servicing Mortgage Loans ).","date_sent_to_company":"2017-08-14T19:49:02.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"06830","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2628044","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","date_received":"2017-08-14T19:03:24.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Nothing in this letter affects the responsibilities of a <em>mortgage</em> loan <em>servicer</em>, including one that is an Exempt Organization, with respect to <em>residential</em> <em>mortgage</em> loan delinquencies and loss mitigation efforts under Part 419 of the Superintendents Regulations ( Business Conduct Rules for <em>Servicing</em> <em>Mortgage</em> Loans )."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"issue":["Struggling to pay <em>mortgage</em>"],"company":["Specialized Loan <em>Servicing</em> Holdings LLC"],"sub_product":["FHA <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[16.969604,"2628044"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21901699","_score":16.430462,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is NOT a duplicate of Complaint ID XXXX. It is based on NEW violations and conduct occurring after that complaint. \n\nMy subsequent complaint ( ID XXXX ) was incorrectly closed as a duplicate. That classification is inaccurate and prevented review of ongoing violations. \n\nThis complaint addresses new federal servicing violations, including failure to respond to a Qualified Written Request under RESPA and continued improper servicing conduct. \n\n\n\nNEW VIOLATIONS 1. Failure to Respond to Qualified Written Request ( RESPA Violation ) A Qualified Written Request was sent via certified mail and RECEIVED on XX/XX/year>. \n\nAs of today, Shellpoint has : * Provided NO acknowledgment of receipt * Provided NO response * Failed to comply with RESPA timelines This is a direct violation of federal law. \n\n\n\n2. Improper Loan Classification / Regulatory Avoidance Shellpoint is attempting to classify this loan as commercial, while simultaneously : * Reporting the account on my personal consumer credit * Communicating with me as an individual borrower * Handling the file through standard residential mortgage representatives for months From XXXX through XX/XX/year>, I was handled by representatives including XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, none of whom identified the loan as commercial or transferred me to a commercial servicing department. \n\nThis inconsistent position appears designed to avoid compliance obligations. \n\n\n\n3. Servicing Mismanagement / Misrouting For several months, my file was handled by multiple non-commercial representatives without proper routing. \n\nOnly after escalation did the servicer attempt to claim the loan is commercial, despite prior handling as a consumer mortgage. \n\nThis reflects : * Improper account handling * Internal mismanagement * Failure to assign appropriate servicing 4. Loss Mitigation Failures and Foreclosure Pressure A complete loan modification package was RECEIVED on XX/XX/year>. \n\nSince that time : * No clear or consistent evaluation has been provided * Representatives have given conflicting information * I have been pressured toward reinstatement or sale * Foreclosure activity continues while review remains unresolved 5. Failure to Provide Payoff and Critical Information Shellpoint has failed to provide clear, timely payoff figures and account documentation necessary to sell or refinance the property. \n\nThis has directly interfered with my ability to resolve the loan. \n\n\n\nDAMAGES * Negative impact to personal credit * Accruing fees and financial harm * Delayed resolution of loan * Increased foreclosure risk REQUESTED RESOLUTION 1. Full response to the XX/XX/year> Qualified Written Request 2. Complete servicing file, including call logs and internal notes 3. Written clarification of loan classification 4. Immediate pause of foreclosure activity pending proper review 5. Correction of inaccurate credit reporting 6. Assignment to a consistent and competent servicing representative FINAL STATEMENT This complaint includes NEW violations and ongoing conduct that were not part of the prior complaint. \n\nIt must NOT be categorized as a duplicate. \n\nFailure to properly review this complaint will result in escalation through regulatory and legal channels.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-05T18:38:45.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"33064","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21901699","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2026-05-05T18:20:05.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This inconsistent position appears designed to avoid <em>compliance</em> obligations. \n\n\n\n3. <em>Servicing</em> Mismanagement / Misrouting For several months, my file was handled by multiple non-commercial representatives without proper routing. \n\nOnly after escalation did the <em>servicer</em> attempt to claim the loan is commercial, despite prior handling as a consumer <em>mortgage</em>. \n\nThis reflects : * Improper account handling * Internal mismanagement * Failure to assign appropriate <em>servicing</em> 4."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"issue":["Struggling to pay <em>mortgage</em>"],"sub_product":["Conventional home <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[16.430462,"21901699"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2417778","_score":16.116005,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : My mortgage servicer, 360 Mortgage Group, based in XXXX, TX, has failed to honor my valid request to have my PMI cancelled under the Homeowners Protection Act. They are attempting to overlap a separate XXXX \" two-year seasoning '' rule to deny the cancellation. I can meet all the requirements under the HPA, however. \n\nSee a portion of the second e-mail request ( awaiting an official response ) I submitted on XX/XX/XXXX below : \" Attention : Escrow Department and XXXX ( Customer-Service Manager ) After consulting with an agent from the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau ( \" CFPB '' ), my original loan officer, and an independent mortgage broker, it is evident that your company has violated federal law under the Homeowners Protection Act of XX/XX/XXXX ( \" HPA '' ). Upon requesting my Private Mortgage Insurance ( \" PMI '' ) be cancelled in accordance with this law on XX/XX/XXXX, I received a follow-up notice dated XX/XX/XXXX from your offices denying the cancellation on the grounds that my mortgage is not seasoned. This is in direct opposition to the law which supersedes any additional guidelines created by a mortgage lender. Please find attached a complete copy of the HPA in addition to the latest CFPB Bulletin dated XX/XX/XXXX concerning PMI and HPA requirements for your convenience. \n\nIn the bulletin on page six, it clearly states the following regarding the seasoning of a loan : 'The HPA does not contain any requirements for a loan 's tenure before a borrower may request cancellation or be eligible for automatic PMI termination. Nonetheless, in at least one examination, CFPB examiners noted that a servicer imposed a two-year seasoning requirement to automatically terminate PMI, when the HPA does not provide for such a requirement. The CFPB expects mortgage servicers, among others subject to the HPA, to incorporate into their compliance management systems adequate measures to ensure compliance with HPA requirements. ' The above assertion of the CFPB as it pertains to my identical circumstantial denial for PMI removal justifies that you have wrongly rejected my request by overlapping a separate rule of XXXX with the requirements found under the HPA. \n\nThe HPA outlines the requirements as follows under the section titled Cancellation and Termination of PMI : Non-High-Risk Residential Mortgage Transactions. \n\n( 1 ) I have submitted to you a written request to cancel my PMI. \n\n( 2 ) The principal balance of my loan ( {$110000.00} ) has reached 80 % of the \" original value '' ( {$130000.00} ) based on actual payments. \n\n( 3 ) I have a good payment history seeing as I have not made a payment that was sixty or more days past due within the first 12 months of the last two years ( only two months approximately to consider in my case ) prior to the cancellation date, which is, per the CFPB, at my option, the date the principal balance actually reached 80 % ( i.e. XX/XX/XXXX ), nor have I made a payment that was thirty days or more past due within twelve months of this cancellation date. By these two criteria, my payment history is considered \" good '' despite my loan being approximately 14 months old. Again, there is no seasoning requirement under the HPA. \n\n( 4 ) I can evidence that the property has not declined below the \" original value '' ( XXXX ) upon request by 360 Mortgage Group to obtain a Brokers Price Opinion ( \" BPO '' ), a Certification of Value, or appraisal. Any XXXX of the XXXX would be considered valid for XXXX purposes per their guidelines. A couple of homes along my street have recently sold for over {$150000.00}, and I have also made improvements to my pool and the surrounding area along with my sidewalk in front of the house that has likely boosted the property value since the last appraisal was performed in XX/XX/XXXX. \n\n( 5 ) I can also certify that my equity in the property is not subject to any subordinate liens. ''","date_sent_to_company":"2017-04-06T11:32:59.000Z","issue":"Loan servicing, payments, escrow account","sub_product":"Conventional fixed mortgage","zip_code":"75052","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2417778","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"360 MORTGAGE GROUP LLC","date_received":"2017-04-04T14:45:50.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The HPA outlines the requirements as follows under the section titled Cancellation and Termination of PMI : Non-High-<em>Risk</em> <em>Residential</em> <em>Mortgage</em> Transactions. \n\n( 1 ) I have submitted to you a written request to cancel my PMI. \n\n( 2 ) The principal balance of my loan ( {$110000.00} ) has reached 80 % of the \" original value '' ( {$130000.00} ) based on actual payments."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"issue":["Loan <em>servicing</em>, payments, escrow account"],"company":["360 <em>MORTGAGE</em> GROUP LLC"],"sub_product":["Conventional fixed <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[16.116005,"2417778"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6392190","_score":15.100166,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"SEE BELOW ***Part XXXX cancel my pmi premiums immediately. \" XXXX percent of the original value '',... \nXXXX XXXX XXXX formally requests the CFPB to immediately move to enforce the XXXX... \n... \nSTART HERE!!! \n.... \n***Part XXXX Previous Guild Mortgage response to complaint # XXXX was inappropriate. \nFiled XX/XX/XXXX, Guild Mortgage in a generic ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ), reckless, irresponsible process in dozens of direct protocol violation of Federal and State law regarding my MI premium cancellation requests and automatic termination law. \nGuild failed to return XXXX unearned. \nGuild failed to provide any copies of properly formatted response letters to each request. Now listed below.\n\nGuild is stalling forcing further legal action.\n\nGuild is consisten with court filings ; ***SUMMARY*** \" This was not an oversight, the complaint contends : This action stems from an unjust scheme undertaken by [ Guild ] to maximize profit by failing to notify [ XXXX and XXXX ] about their option to cancel As a result, [ Guild ] collected monthly PMI fees that were unearned, fraudulent, illegal, excessive, repetitive, unfair, deceptive, false, and fictitious by charging them to unsuspecting borrowers accounts. \n\n\n***Part XXXX cancel my pmi premiums immediately. \" XXXX percent of the original value '', \" The automatic termination provisions make no reference to good payment history ( as prescribed in the borrower-requested provisions ), but state only that the borrower must be current on mortgage payments ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) ). '' I formally request under XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX automatic termination of XXXX for my loan at no cost to the consumer as required in federal, state law XXXX XXXX XXXX instructions under Major disaster declaration ( XXXX ) & Emergency declaration ( XXXX ). \n\n***Return of XXXX XXXX \" The servicer must return all unearned PMI premiums to the borrower within 45 days after cancellation or termination of PMI coverage. Within 30 days after notification by the servicer of cancellation or termination of PMI coverage, a mortgage insurer must return to the servicer any amount of unearned premiums it is holding to permit the servicer to return such premiums to the borrower ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( f ) ). '' ***XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Homeowners Protection Act of XXXX ( HPA or PMI Cancellation Act, or Act ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX OF XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ***Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX formally requests the CFPB to immediately move to enforce the HPA \" XXXX also directs the federal banking agencies to XXXX the XXXX under 12 U.S.C. 1818 or any other authority conferred upon the agencies by law. Under HOPA the agencies shall : Notify applicable lenders or servicers of any failure to comply with the Act ; Require the lender or servicer, as applicable, to correct the borrowers account to reflect the date on which PMI should have been canceled or terminated under the Act ; and Require the lender or servicer, as applicable, to return unearned PMI premiums to a borrower who paid premiums after the date on which the borrowers obligation to pay PMI premiums ceased under the Act ( 12 U.S.C. 4909 ). '' XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to provide proof of compliance with laws for each formal request, and the penalties/ return of mips unearned/ and penalties under USC 12 section 8 . \n\nI request proof copies of original denial letters ( what was sent XX/XX/XXXX and dated XX/XX/XXXX are inconsistent with the state and federal law, innapropriate, and unacceptable ) in accordance with the same codes be scanned and emailed to me, faxed to XXXX, or printed, Copied and mailed to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, WA XXXX for request dates. Emails previously provided to Guild directly and/ or GUILD XXXX this puts Guild on Notice. \n\n***Basic Disclosure and Notice Requirements Applicable to Residential Mortgage Transactions and Residential Mortgages*** The Act requires the lender in a residential mortgage transaction to provide to the borrower, at the time of consummation, certain disclosures that describe the borrowers rights for PMI cancellation and termination. A borrower XXXX not be charged for any disclosure required by the XXXX. Initial disclosures vary, based upon whether the transaction is a fixed rate mortgage, adjustable rate mortgage or high-risk loan. The XXXX also requires that the borrower be provided with certain annual and other notices concerning PMI cancellation and termination. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/XXXX, ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ) ) XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XX/XX/XXXX - current XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  - current XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX not XXXX any payment that is XXXX or more days past due in the last 12 months, or XXXX or more days past due in the last 24 months that is attributable to the disaster event. '' XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, same as above XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, same as above XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, same as above XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, same as above XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, same as above XXXX qualified automatic termination of PMI per federal law, \" XXXX percent of the original value '', ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) ), ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) ), ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) ), see part XXXX request XXXX qualified automatic termination of PMI per federal law, see part XXXX request XXXX qualified automatic termination of PMI per federal law, see part XXXX request XXXX qualified automatic termination of PMI per federal law, see part XXXX request XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX qualified automatic termination of PMI per federal law, see part XXXX request ***PART XXXX request a copy of your \" written statement '' source material of state or XXXX XXXX stating XXXX emergency declaration ended XX/XX/XXXX, and why that would be cause for denial of Automatic Termination of PMI : \" ... XXXX percent of the original value '' XXXX orders of XXXX is currently in effect which directly contradicts your emailed dates and illegal statements. \n\nXXXX Disaster Declaration in effect XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX - and continuing Major Disaster Declaration declared on XX/XX/XXXX ***Emergency Declaration in effect XX/XX/XXXX to current*XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Incident Period : XX/XX/XXXX - and continuing Emergency Declaration declared on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-01-03T06:55:04.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"991XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6392190","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Guild Holdings Company","date_received":"2023-01-03T06:37:53.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["***Basic Disclosure and Notice Requirements Applicable to <em>Residential</em> <em>Mortgage</em> Transactions and <em>Residential</em> <em>Mortgages</em>*** The Act requires the lender in a <em>residential</em> <em>mortgage</em> transaction to provide to the borrower, at the time of consummation, certain disclosures that describe the borrowers rights for PMI cancellation and termination. A borrower XXXX not be charged for any disclosure required by the XXXX."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"sub_product":["Conventional home <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[15.100166,"6392190"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3476973","_score":13.646843,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper and real estate licensed transactional brokers failed to perform an audit of their compliance with the VA Home Loan Guaranty VALERI system of record and have violated multiple provisions of the Servicemember Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ). The SCRA was designed to protect XXXX  XXXX  servicemembers and families, like mine, during times of service. \n\nFinancial institutions and transactional mortgage brokers that violate the law repeatedly and substantially are not making serious enough efforts to report accurate information or enforce the provisions under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ). Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper compliance systems are flawed, and generated VA backed mortgage lending account data with significant, preventable errors. Nationstar also failed to maintain detailed SCRA and VA Home Loan Guaranty data collection and validation procedures, and failed to implement adequate compliance procedures since the mortgage servicer account dispute began in XXXX. \n\n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX closed on the purchase of a residential property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OK XXXX. The loan was a Department of Veteran Affairs Home Loan Guaranty ( VA ) backed loan. XXXX and XXXX XXXX were married and both were military veterans at the time of closing on the property. The primary borrower was pre-selected as XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX co-signed as a VA Rider status on a residential mortgage originated by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, serviced by MERS, also known as XXXX XXXX XXXX   XXXX, XXXX  f/k/a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( C.D. Cal. ). Shortly after closing XXXX services mortgage loans became a wholly owned subsidiary of XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX- XXXX, Oklahoma licensed realtor and transactional broker XXXX XXXX , also doing business as XXXX XXXX failed to close on a contracted agreement ( or collect good faith funds from a no-show buyer ) on the residential property. On the same day, XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX XXXX/XXXX  XXXX offered contingency options to quit claim deed the property on the sport or have at least one owner of the property sign a 3-year rental management agreement while under financial duress. \n\nXXXX- XXXX, XXXX County , Oklahoma , a court issued divorce decree awarded the VA backed mortgaged property and its interest in the free and clear of any title or mortgage to XXXX XXXX ( ex-wife/plaintiff in court records ). The court order included a clause to which the divorce decree could be used as a conveyance tool for enforcement purposes. Notice of the awarded property interest to XXXX XXXX and a copy of the divorce decree were submitted to the mortgage servicer ( XXXX  XXXX XXXX ) as required for a major event update to the VA home loan guaranty VALERI system of record, and the property manager XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX operating as the mortgage servicer, required the divorce decree be submitted to the XXXX County Clerks office in order to have the awarded property equity, and successor in interest status recorded for the purposes of the deed, title, and transfer of ownership. \n\nXXXX- XXXX, XXXX XXXX re-married and provided notice with forwarding address and copies of the official legal documentation to transfer financial accounts, government identification, and property interests into the legally changed name XXXX XXXX . \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX was contacted by the residential occupants ( also known as the only other tenants or renters besides the owner ) of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The occupants disclosed XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX  was in possession of several months of mail and delivery notifications sent from mortgage servicer XXXX  XXXX XXXX and the addressed financial and legal enclosures were explicitly sent to XXXX XXXX. \n\nFollow up with XXXX XXXX/XXXX  XXXX  confirmed the transactional broker XXXX XXXX had withheld mail and also disclosed a Lis Pendens petition had been filed with the XXXX County court clerk in XX/XX/XXXX. Both XXXX  XXXX XXXX and Nationstar Mortgage LLC mailed notifications enclosed with time sensitive information and privileged letters. Months of withheld notifications and mail delivery concealed the intent of the new lender/owner to foreclose on the VA backed property, which would also proceed without a successful confirmed delivery notification to either the primary borrower ( XXXX XXXX ) or the successor in interest, XXXX XXXX in violation of Service member Civil Relief Act ( SCRA ). \n\nBy withholding of the security deposit, several months of collected rents, attempts to charge additional late rent and allegations of property damage by XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX  amounted to early termination charges in violation of the SCRA. The Fair Housing Act law concludes a complaint must also state a cause of action against both the individual property manager XXXX XXXX, and his business entity doing business as XXXX XXXX. \n\n\nNationstar Mortgage LLC is a servicer of federally related mortgage loans, and at some unknown point and time, represented itself to the primary borrower ( XXXX XXXX ) as the new mortgage servicer of the VA backed home loan. As the successor in interest, I ( XXXX XXXX ) did not receive letters in XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, or XX/XX/XXXX informing me the servicing rights for the loan had been transferred to Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and received no advance notice of the transfer nor an opportunity to discuss the prior ACH electronic payment arrangement with the mortgage servicer or the bank since the issuance of the divorce decree in XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAs the Department of Veteran Affairs has previously published and warned ; In some parts of the country, veterans who are not familiar with real estate transactions have been \" taken in '' by shady deals usually called \" milking '' or equity skimming. In one form of this racket, the veteran/primary borrower, who is behind in VA loan payments, is approached by unknown persons who offer to pay the delinquent installments if the veteran will \" sign on the dotted line. '' The veteran later learns that he or she has signed a deed and can get the property back only by signing another contract at a much higher price. \n\n\nNationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper and XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX  violated both the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) by making unauthorized changes to the previously established ACH electronic payment transfers without providing proper notice to the VA home loan guaranty VALERI system of record, or directly to primary borrower, or myself ( as the awarded successor in interest ). 15 U.S.C. 1693e ( b ) provides that in the case of preauthorized transfers from a consumers account to the same person which may vary in amount, the financial institution or designated payee shall, prior to each transfer, provide reasonable advance notice to the consumer, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, of the amount to be transferred and the scheduled date of the transfer. \n\n\nFrom XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, other than payment delinquencies, no other unrestricted transfer reports or major event updates were filed with Department of Veterans Affairs Home Loan Guaranty division through the required VALERI ( VA Loan Electronic Reporting Interface ). The fiduciary responsibility to report a Significant Loan Event through the VALERI system falls on the mortgage servicer ( Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper ). The VA loan guaranty division can not accept a security instrument or a divorce decree from a successor in interest, therefore can not update my associated VA loan case number without the mortgage servicer disclosures and legally verified support documentation. The failure of the mortgage servicer to file the lis pendens action and non-judicial foreclosure notices with the Department of Veteran Affairs Home Loan Guaranty division in a timely manner perpetuated false information from Nationstar customer service representatives about the mitigation options available to myself ( as both successor in interest and as a Veteran who also served in the military ), the loss of equity, increased liabilities and risks associated with the disputed property. \n\nThe main Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper and transactional broker violations pertain to RESPA and TILA provisions and official interpretations, which can be found in 12 CFR 1024, Regulation X, and 12 CFR 1026, Regulation Z, specifically found within : 1024.17, Escrow accounts and 1024.37, Forced placed insurance 1024.35, Error resolution procedures and 1024.36, Requests for information 1024.38, General servicing policies, procedures and requirements 1024.39, Early intervention and 1024.41, Loss mitigation procedures 1026.20, Disclosure requirements regarding post-consummation events 1026.36, Payment processing and 1026.41 Periodic statements 1026.40, Continuity of Contact Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper, XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX   also conducted an unauthorized credit inquiry that violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). It remains unclear if the mortgage was transferred, sold, or solicited by Nationstar as a high-risk loan modification offer to the primary borrower or to an undisclosed third party private investor. One of several notices withheld by the transactional broker XXXX XXXX, was titled Credit Score Disclosure, which would have shown Nationstar Mortgage LLC performed a credit check and fallen outside any use permitted under the FCRA. The credit check, previous lender ACH electronic transfers, and bank account balances along with protected personal information were shared with unauthorized 3rd parties ( specifically, the terminated property manager XXXX XXXX, the evicted occupants, and other real estate associated transactional brokers in the same office ). \n\nXXXX -Eviction of the unverified occupants and property management agreement termination were sent via certified return receipt. XXXX XXXX  transactional broker/property manager XXXX XXXX contested the transfer of ownership to XXXX XXXX and refused a broker trust account audit. XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX  is in breach of contract after repeatedly refusing a broker trust account audit which denied and concealed any review of 5 years ( XXXX-XXXX  ) worth of itemized lists for repairs, receipts, occupant/renter background checks, proof of identity, or income statements. XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX  and Nationstar Mortgage LLC also failed to produce any material evidence of signed lease contracts or notarized agreements between the owner or with any known verifiable renter occupants as Oklahoma state law and the real estate commission required. \n\nDuring this time, Nationstar Mortgage LLC became a designated payee as used in the EFTA, 15 U.S.C. 1693e ( b ), in that Nationstar initiated and received electronic fund transfers from a joint account opened prior to the divorce decree, that were preauthorized or purportedly preauthorized. \n\nXXXX- I, ( XXXX XXXX ) continued the legal eviction process of the unverified John Doe occupants and made qualified written demands for origination paperwork, requested identification of any known investors, and inquired about any alternatively sourced agreements with the primary borrower ( ex-husband, XXXX XXXX ) who resided and worked within the same area as the property from XXXX through XXXX. As the successor in interest of the property, I was denied refinancing, denied loss mitigation options, and denied a loan modification because the primary borrower ( XXXX XXXX ) refused to consent, acknowledge, or participate in any VA unrestricted transfer process, in direct contempt of the divorce decree. As the mortgage servicer, Nationstar/Mr. Cooper repeatedly dismissed and ignored the divorce decree as a legal conveyance tool and failed to report a VA Unrestricted Transfer, major loan event and declined to file a partial Release of Liability. \n\nNationstar asserted ONLY the VA backed primary borrower ( XXXX XXXX ) could apply or be approved for loss mitigation or loan modification services. Without the primary borrowers cooperation or written consent, my successor in-interest equity along with my current husbands ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) good name, credit, and security clearances as an XXXX XXXX service member were maliciously defamed and penalized after the property ownership was contested and driven back into delinquency due to willful negligence of Nationstar Mortgage LLC and XXXX XXXX doing business as transactional brokers. \n\nXXXX- A second lis pendens was filed against XXXX XXXX and not the primary VA loan backed borrower, XXXX XXXX . Contrary to the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act ( RESPA ), codified at 12 U.S.C. 2605, which governs the duty of loan servicers to respond to borrower inquiries it categorizes as Qualified Written Requests ( QWRs ), since XXXX, Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper customer service representatives and XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX have denied knowledge of any private investor contracts or secondary lien agreements, yet both business entities have failed to provide a complete and accurate explanation of the transfer paperwork, refused the disclosure of contact logs documenting the primary borrowers recorded statements, and remain silent on the absence of any tenant signed and notarized rental agreements from XXXX-XXXX. More concerning are the missing major loan event update reports to the VA home loan guaranty VALERI system of record, and the advanced lender expenses paid out to undisclosed property management vendors and then charged to the escrow account. \n\nXXXX - Nationstar Mortgage, LLC/dba Mr. Cooper, violated 533 when it maintained certain fees related to a rescinded Notice of Default on the disputed account while ( XXXX XXXX, also a veteran ) is the successor in interest and military spouse of a service member ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who is still currently ) serving on XXXX XXXX and protected by the provisions under thee SCRA. \n\nCongress passed the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ) in 1974 to protect homeowners by assisting them in becoming better educated while shopping for real estate services, and eliminating kickbacks and referral fees, which add unnecessary costs to settlement services. RESPA requires lenders and others involved in mortgage lending to provide borrowers with pertinent and timely disclosures regarding the nature and costs of a real estate settlement process. Congress has also authorized the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) to promulgate RESPAs implementing rules and regulations, including the rules codified in 12 C.F.R. 1024 ( Regulation X ).\n\nCongress has authorized a private right of action for violations of RESPA, including violations of Regulation X. 12 U.S.C. 2605 ( f ) ; 2605 ( k ) ( E ) ; 2614.\n\n12 U.S.C. 2605 ( k ) ( C ) states that a servicer of a federally related mortgage shall not fail to take timely action to respond to a borrowers requests to correct errors relating to allocation of payments, final balances for purposes of paying off the loan, or avoiding foreclosure, or other standard servicers duties. \n\n12 C.F.R. 1024.33 states : ( b ) Notices of transfer of loan servicing ( 1 ) Requirement for notice. Except as provided in paragraph ( b ) ( 2 ) of this section, each transferor servicer and transferee servicer of any mortgage loan shall provide to the borrower a notice of transfer for any assignment, sale, or transfer of the servicing of the mortgage loan. The notice must contain the information described in paragraph ( b ) ( 4 ) of this section. Appendix MS-2 of this part contains a model form for the disclosures required under this paragraph ( b ).\n\n( 2 ) Certain transfers excluded. \n( i ) The following transfers are not assignments, sales, or transfers of mortgage loan servicing for purposes of this section if there is no change in the payee, address to which payment must be delivered, account number, or amount of payment due : ( 3 ) Time of notice ( i ) In general. Except as provided in paragraphs ( b ) ( 3 ) ( ii ) and ( iii ) of this section, the transferor servicer shall provide the notice of transfer to the borrower not less than 15 days before the effective date of the transfer of the servicing of the mortgage loan. The transferee servicer shall provide the notice of transfer to the borrower not more than 15 days after the effective date of the transfer. The transferor and transferee servicers may provide a single notice, in which case the notice shall be provided not less than 15 days before the effective date of the transfer of the servicing of the mortgage loan. \n\n\nXXXX The 2nd lis pendens foreclosure petition is withdrawn, only to have a 3rd lis  pendens petition filed with the XXXX County Court Clerk, listing a John Doe Occupant, along with the original primary borrower ( XXXX XXXX ), and lists the successor in interest as a defendant under the former name XXXX XXXX and not legal name XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX FTC complaint filed by XXXX XXXX, regarding the disputed property, suspected identity theft, mail fraud, forgery, violations of SCRA and Privacy Act. Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper failed to check consistently for the military status of mortgagors prior to filing lis pendens petition with the clear intent to foreclose on the VA backed mortgaged property. Noted in my complaint, specific to the continued unauthorized use of my former name ( XXXX XXXX ) ; It is unlawful for any person ( s ) to use a fictitious name, give a false or fictitious address, or make any false statement in any application or affidavit required under the provisions of a stated regulatory chapter or in a bill of sale or sworn statement of ownership or otherwise commit a fraud in any application. '' As of XX/XX/XXXX, the VA Home Loan Guaranty VALERI system of records showed no major event updates on the assigned VA loan case number, no unrestricted transfers, and none of the ( 3 ) previously filed lis pendens foreclosure petitions have been reported. However, the most recent entries by a mortgage servicer reported over 50 delinquent monthly payments associated with the VA loan case number, my legal name XXXX XXXX and my social security number. Credit bureaus continue to post negative monthly credit reports to my identity as XXXX XXXX, whilst listing the unauthorized former name XXXX XXXX as seriously delinquent ( not as successor-in-interest who is not responsible for the mortgage ), as I continue to be denied a VA unrestricted transfer of ownership per the XXXX divorce decree. \n\nNationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper has failed to release a communication history, ignored written requests for a contact log with the primary borrower ( XXXX XXXX ), and representatives have refused verbal and written demands to disclose the private investor information after listing the investor status on the most recent XXXX payoff quote. \n\nThrough the mortgage servicers relaunched website and consumer login portal, Nationstar Mortgage LLC /dba Mr. Cooper shows changed legal names and mailing addresses of the primary borrower ( XXXX XXXX ) and myself, altered at least 12 times in the past 18 months. Representatives have recklessly conflated protected information and delivered official mail to the wrong persons. Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper has shown no intention to properly disclose and explain the significant accounting discrepancies between XXXX-XXXX in third party property management vendor billable activities, or the additional thousands of dollars paid out and charged to the escrow account over the past 24 months. \n\nOn approximately XX/XX/XXXX, without my knowledge or written consent, property inspectors working on behalf of Nationstar Mortgage LLC/Mr. Cooper changed the locks on the disputed vacant property ( for at least a 3rd time  since XX/XX/XXXX ). Additional repairs for damages and maintenance were requested by the vendor due to the discovery of personal effects and hazardous cleaning materials belonging to an unknown trespasser. To date, no law enforcement report has been filed by the mortgage servicer, nor its property management or its vendor by extension. \n\nAs of present, there are no procedures or protocols made available to me on how Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper or its property management vendors by extension will communicate who is in legal possession of the VA backed property or if and how criminal breaking and entering activities by unknown trespassers will be recorded, documented, and reported to local law enforcement, or to the successor-in-interest if it happens ( yet again ) in the near future. Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper has failed to disclose any conflict of interest with third party property management vendors servicing the disputed property, nor has there been any disclosures regarding the previously evicted freeloading occupants and if any claims were submitted or paid ( without a police report or authenticated receipts ) against the insurance under-writer. \n\nAs of XX/XX/XXXX, Nationstar/dba Mr. Cooper has failed to respond to my qualified written requests ( sent via certified mail, fax, and email ) for communication logs, the identity of private investor ( if any ), and an itemized breakdown and sourced identities of the XXXX erroneously Unapplied Funds transactions listed in the most recently made available Escrow Analysis, produced by Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper. \n\nUnder principles of equity and good conscience, Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper and XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX  should not be permitted to retain revenue that it acquired by virtue of its unlawful conduct. \n\nNationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper has acted unlawfully, unfairly, and deceptively. As a result of their unlawful, unfair, and deceptive conduct both my XXXX XXXX husband and I ( XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX ) have been faulted for unauthorized amounts of claims and denied access to the evidence of criminal trespassing on the disputed property. The privacy and the safety of our children is paramount and as a military family all of our rights have been repeatedly violated by the criminal misconduct of transactional brokers. We have been denied backed rents, legal fees, property possession, and our due process rights. Without any reasonable due diligence by the mortgage servicers, our ability as military family to protect and defend our legally vested financial interests, good name, and credit scores within a reasonable amount of time has been denied. By erroneously switching names and addresses on statements and legal notices with our duty assignments on federal military installations, Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper and XXXX XXXX/dba XXXX XXXX  have violated the fundamental principles of the Privacy Act and the SCRA. \n\nIn addition to the unknown activities of the lis pendens listed John Doe occupant ( s ) and the unknown private investor noted on the XXXX payoff quote, Nationstar Mortgage LLC/dba Mr. Cooper has delayed time-sensitive written disclosures on the unlawful activities of the dual hatted property manager/licensed realtor at the core of the transaction dispute. \n\nTransactional Brokers and business entities acting or doing business as property managers unlawfully are required to be reported under the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 or any other law, rule or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2019-12-24T23:46:39.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"086XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3476973","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","date_received":"2019-12-24T22:50:39.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Nationstar also failed to maintain detailed SCRA and VA Home Loan Guaranty data collection and validation procedures, and failed to implement adequate <em>compliance</em> procedures since the <em>mortgage</em> <em>servicer</em> account dispute began in XXXX. \n\n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX closed on the purchase of a <em>residential</em> property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OK XXXX. The loan was a Department of Veteran Affairs Home Loan Guaranty ( VA ) backed loan."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"issue":["Closing on a <em>mortgage</em>"],"sub_product":["VA <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[13.646843,"3476973"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8109793","_score":12.957336,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I purchased my home 17 years ago with a first and second mortgage. The original lender, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( owned in turn by XXXX XXXX XXXX ), was known for making subprime mortgages and engaging in predatory servicing of its loans whereby it would, for example, fail to provide borrowers with timely or clear information about payment due dates and amounts owed. \n\nThe second mortgage had an original loan amount of {$19000.00}, but only {$2700.00} of that amount was scheduled to be paid over the XXXX loan term, with a remaining a balloon payment of {$17000.00} due at the end of the loan. Thus, if I was unable to refinance 15 years after the loan was made, the loan was built to maximize the risk of foreclosure. \n\nIn XXXX, during the economic downturn, I experienced financial hardship and became XXXX, rendering me unable to work. I entered XXXX XXXX bankruptcy. When I received a discharge in my bankruptcy later that year later, I mistakenly understood that the second mortgage debt had been eliminated as a lien on my home. \n\nAfter my exit from bankruptcy in XXXX, I did not receive any mortgage statements or other correspondence from the servicer, Specialized Loan Servicing ( SLS ), or any other source about the second mortgage until I received a debt verification notice from a law firm, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), in XX/XX/XXXX. ( During the same time period, I continued to receive payment invoices for the first mortgage on my home and am current on the payments. ) The lack of any correspondence about the second mortgage from XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX reinforced my mistaken understanding that the second mortgage was no longer a valid lien on my home following my bankruptcy discharge. \n\nI disputed this second mortgage and requested verification of the debt from XXXX on or about XX/XX/XXXX, but I did not receive any response until XX/XX/XXXX, when I received notice from XXXX that my home would be sold in foreclosure on XX/XX/XXXX. At this time I retained XXXX Legal Aid as counsel for help. \n\nIn early XX/XX/XXXX, I communicated telephonically with SLS to ask if loss mitigation was available. I was chastised by a representative who told me that although I thought [ I ] would get away with not paying [ my ] debts, now I would lose my home. The representative eventually agreed to submit a request for loss mitigation and told me that this would pause the foreclosure process. XXXX subsequently confirmed to my counsel that the XX/XX/XXXX foreclosure sale had been canceled. \n\nA XX/XX/XXXX payoff statement from XXXX states that, in addition to a principal balance of {$19000.00}, SLS and the owner of the debt, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ), are also demanding payment of more than {$33000.00} in interest and fees, with interest accruing at the rate of 11.6 % for the past 12 years, most of which time I was not receiving any correspondence at all about the loan. I have attached a copy of the payoff statement as Exhibit A. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, my counsel sent a Qualified Written Request ( \" QWR '' ) under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( \" RESPA '' ) to SLS ( attached as Exhibit B ), and a demand letter to MRLP ( Exhibit C ). \n\nSpecific deficiencies identified in the QWR include : **Improper charging of interest for time periods when no periodic mortgage statements or other required notices were being sent concerning the loan. ** SLS and XXXX are not entitled to retroactively demand strict compliance on the payment terms for periods of time when no lender or servicer was communicating with me about the loan. Under Georgia law, O.C.G.A. 13-4-23, where, as here, the nonperformance of a party to a contract is caused by the conduct of the opposite party, such conduct shall excuse the other party from performance. Because no correspondence was being provided to me to notify me as to where payments should be sent or the amount of the payment, this conduct caused me not to be able to make payments on the loan, or pursue other options I might have had with regard to the loan, and excuses me from performance on the loan during such time period. Following a mutual departure from the contract such as this, SLS and XXXX may now demand payments going forward, but are not entitled to interest and fees retroactively during the extended period when no statements or correspondence were being sent. \n\nFurthermore, the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), and RESPA impose requirements and standards that investors and servicers must follow in providing required notices to mortgage borrowers. These requirements were not met in the handling of my account. \n\nTILA places an affirmative duty on the creditor, assignee, or servicer of a residential mortgage loan to provide periodic statements to the borrower, for each billing cycle, containing specified, detailed information regarding amounts owing under the mortgage loan. There is an exemption from the periodic statement requirement for loans that have been charged off, provided that no additional fees or interest will be charged on the account. I did not receive a periodic statement for my second mortgage loan from either the creditor, assignee, or servicer of the loan, for an approximately XXXX time period, and it was impermissible for any interest or fees to be charged during that time. \n\nWhen a loan is sold, assigned, or transferred, TILA also requires that the new owner of the loan provide notice to the borrower within 30 days of the assignment. Similarly, when the servicing of a mortgage loan is transferred, RESPA requires that the transferor and transferee servicers must each send notice at least 15 days before and no more than 15 days after the servicing transfer, respectively. I never received any such transfer of ownership notices concerning the second mortgage. I did not know where the loan had gone or where I should be sending payments. \n\nFor violations of TILA and RESPA a borrower is entitled to recover actual damages, statutory damages, and attorneys fees. My actual damages include the accrued interest and fees I am now being charged for the extended time period when neither the lender ( s ) nor the servicer ( s ) of my second mortgage loan sent statements or notices despite being required to do so under federal law. My damages also include significant emotional distress from suddenly receiving a notice and payoff demand for over {$33000.00} in retroactive interest and fees, after having received no correspondence about the loan for such an extended period of time, and then being scheduled for foreclosure of my home and loss of my equity in order to collect on the over-inflated balance being claimed. \n\n**False, deceptive, and misleading representations in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act** The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) prohibits a debt collector from using any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of a debt. To the extent that SLS is a debt collector under the FDCPA, asserting that accrued interest is owed for a 12 year time period when neither the servicer ( s ) nor lender ( s ) were sending statements or notices to me, in violation of the express requirements of TILA and RESPA, is an inherently deceptive and misleading representation that violates both the general standard of FDCPA and also a specific provision prohibiting the use of deceptive means to attempt to collect a debt. SLS may be liable to me for actual and statutory damages, as well as attorneys fees, for these violations of the FDCPA. \n\nI disputed this second mortgage and requested verification of the debt from MRLP on or about XX/XX/XXXX, but I did not receive any response other than a foreclosure notice. The FDCPA requires that SLS cease all collection activity until written verification of the debt has been provided to me. A foreclosure sale can not proceed prior to sufficient written verification being provided ( including the documents requested in the QWR ). \n\n**Violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act** The conduct by SLS and XXXX described above is both unfair and deceptive. Attempting to collect interest and fees for a period of at least 12 years when I did not receive any periodic mortgage statement from either the servicer or lender for my second mortgage loan, nor any other communication from the servicer or lender of my loan, is inherently both unfair and deceptive. Had I been provided with periodic statements and notices for my second mortgage loan during that XXXX timeframe, I could have made monthly payments on my second mortgage loan as those payments came due, pursued loss mitigation, or otherwise pursued legal rights concerning the account, and I would not now be faced with an asserted total payoff of over {$53000.00} on an actual principal balance of {$19000.00}. SLS and GHICs unfair and deceptive conduct entitles me to seek actual damages, treble damages, and attorneys fees under the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-04T17:09:56.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"30127","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8109793","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","date_received":"2024-01-04T16:28:55.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["TILA places an affirmative duty on the creditor, assignee, or <em>servicer</em> of a <em>residential</em> <em>mortgage</em> loan to provide periodic statements to the borrower, for each billing cycle, containing specified, detailed information regarding amounts owing under the <em>mortgage</em> loan. There is an exemption from the periodic statement requirement for loans that have been charged off, provided that no additional fees or interest will be charged on the account."],"company":["Specialized Loan <em>Servicing</em> Holdings LLC"],"sub_product":["<em>Mortgage</em> debt"]},"sort":[12.957336,"8109793"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19876262","_score":12.803949,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I, XXXX XXXX, am the consumer as defined under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( c ) whose credit file is the subject of this dispute. I have never resided at, received mail at, or had any residential connection to the XXXX XXXX XXXX I am disputing. \n\npursuant to the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ), XXXX U.S.C. XXXX et seq., and FCRA XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( H ), XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( H ), which grants the CFPB exclusive enforcement authority over FCRA violations by covered persons including mortgage companies, credit reporting XXXX, and any entity offering or providing consumer financial products or services. \nRespondents as Covered Persons : Each respondent XXXX ( acting as a tri-merge mortgage credit reporting intermediary for XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Mortgage operates in the mortgage XXXX XXXX XXXX and is a 'covered person ' under XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( XXXX ), subject to CFPB supervision and enforcement for FCRA violations. \nXXXX XXXX : Under XXXX XXXX, XXXX U.S.C. XXXX, the CFPB may act against covered persons engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The pattern of redundant, unauthorized hard inquiries within a XXXX window pulling the same consumer 's credit file 6 times constitutes an unfair practice causing substantial consumer harm that could not reasonably be avoided, with no countervailing consumer benefit. \nA. FCRA XXXX ( b ) Respondents Are 'Persons ' Bound by All FCRA Duties Statutory Text : \" The term 'person ' means any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, government or governmental subdivision or agency, or other entity. '' XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ). \nEach respondent is a corporation or business entity and therefore a 'person ' under XXXX ( b ), subject to all FCRA obligations governing permissible purposes for accessing consumer reports. This definitional provision, read in conjunction with XXXX ( a ) 's mandate that these definitions apply to the entire FCRA subchapter, establishes that there are no carve-outs or exceptions for mortgage credit reporting XXXX or tri-merge report requestors. \nXXXX FCRA XXXX The Permissible Purpose Requirement Statutory Text : A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other ... [ including ] in response to ... a person [ with ] a legitimate business need for the information in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer. XXXX U.S.C. section XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( F ). \nThe Legal Standard : Access to a consumer 's credit report requires a specific, current, and non-redundant permissible purpose at the time of each pull. The key phrase is 'initiated by the consumer ' a single mortgage application by the consumer initiates a single permissible purpose event. That event does not multiply simply because multiple XXXX, brokers, or lenders are involved in processing the same application. \nThe XXXX / Rate Shopping Window : Under FCRA XXXX and the XXXX scoring model 's rate-shopping provisions ( codified in practice through FCRA 's XXXX framework ), multiple mortgage inquiries within a XXXX window may be deduplicated for scoring purposes. However, this rate-shopping provision is a scoring deduplication rule it does NOT grant independent permissible purpose to each redundant pull. Each inquiry must still have its own distinct permissible purpose under XXXX. The fact that inquiries are deduplicated for scoring does not mean they are authorized ; it means the credit bureaus attempt to minimize score damage from inquiries that XXXX or XXXX not have been lawfully obtained. \nThe Critical Distinction : The permissible purpose belongs to the consumer 's single credit transaction XXXX mortgage application. It does NOT renew or replicate for each party downstream who chooses to pull the report. As the FTC has stated in its FCRA XXXX, a permissible purpose is specific to a particular transaction ; once that transaction is evaluated, subsequent pulls by different XXXX require independent justification. XXXX hard inquiries for what appears to be a single mortgage application process in XXXX XXXX can not all independently satisfy XXXX. \nXXXX FCRA XXXX and XXXX Civil Liability for Impermissible Access XXXX ( Willful Violations ) : Any person who willfully fails to comply with the FCRA is liable for : ( XXXX ) actual damages or statutory damages of {$100.00} {$1000.00} per violation ; ( XXXX ) punitive damages ; and ( XXXX ) attorney fees and costs. XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ). \nXXXX ( Negligent Violations ) : Any person who negligently fails to comply is liable for actual damages and attorney fees. XXXX U.S.C. XXXX. With XXXX impermissible inquiries, willful violation exposure alone is {$6000.00} in statutory damages minimum, with punitive damages and fees on top. \nXXXX. THE DISPUTED INQUIRIES FACTS AND PATTERN OF VIOLATION A. Complete List of Disputed Inquiries # Inquiring Entity Date of Inquiry Business Type Expiration XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Mortgage Reporters XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ADVANTAGE CREDIT XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Mortgage Reporters XX/XX/XXXX XXXX EQUIFAX/EMS XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Mortgage Reporters XX/XX/XXXX XXXX CREDCO/UWM XX/XX/XXXX Mortgage XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX CREDCO/UWM XX/XX/XXXX Mortgage XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XACTUS-AVANTUS/ROCKET XX/XX/XXXX Mortgage Companies XX/XX/XXXX B. The Clustering Pattern Evidence of Impermissible Redundancy XXXX Cluster : XXXX of the XXXX inquiries occurred within a XXXX window between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. This is not coincidental it is the direct result of multiple mortgage XXXX, credit reporting vendors, and lenders each pulling a separate hard inquiry for what was, from the consumer 's perspective, a single mortgage transaction. \nDuplicate Entities XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This entity pulled Complainant 's Experian report TWICE on XX/XX/XXXX and again on XX/XX/XXXX, just 6 days apart. A single loan application does not require the same credit reporting intermediary to pull the same consumer 's credit twice within XXXX week. The second pull by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX independent permissible purpose distinct from the first the consumer had not initiated a new credit transaction in the 6 days between pulls. This second pull is facially impermissible under FCRA XXXX. \nDuplicate Entities CREDCO/UWM : XXXX ( acting on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage XXXX also pulled Complainant 's report TWICE on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, just XXXX DAY APART. No legitimate credit evaluation purpose requires pulling the same consumer 's file on consecutive days. A credit report is valid for XXXX to 120 days in mortgage underwriting pulling again the very next day demonstrates either a process failure or a deliberate disregard for the consumer 's rights under FCRA XXXX. \nThe Legal Effect of Same-Entity Duplicate Pulls : Under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), a permissible purpose must exist at the exact time of each credit report access. It does not carry forward or authorize a second pull by the same entity on a separate date, absent a new consumer-initiated transaction. Both XXXX 's XXXX pulls and XXXX 's XXXX repeat XXXX XXXX this standard. \nThe XXXX XXXX : XXXX hard inquiries for a single mortgage transaction process is excessive and harmful by any standard. Each hard inquiry can reduce a consumer 's FICO score by XXXX points ; with XXXX inquiries, the cumulative impact to XXXX 's score and creditworthiness is material, ongoing, and entirely avoidable. Complainant did not authorize XXXX separate credit pulls she initiated a mortgage process that was exploited by downstream XXXX each seeking their own independent data access. \nIV. SPECIFIC LEGAL VIOLATIONS A. FCRA XXXX No Independent Permissible Purpose for Each Pull Violation : Each of the XXXX inquiries must independently satisfy XXXX 's permissible purpose requirement. A single mortgage application by XXXX created XXXX permissible purpose event. That event did not create XXXX separate authorization tokens XXXX for each entity that chose to access the file independently. Respondents CREDCO/UWM ( XXXX ), Equifax/EMS XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Advantage Credit XXXX, and XXXX Mortgage can not each claim XXXX same consumer transaction as independent permissible purpose for separate hard inquiries. \nImpermissible Same-Entity Duplicate Pulls : The duplicate pulls by CREDCO/UWM ( XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX ) and Equifax/EMS XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) are per XXXX impermissible no new consumer transaction was initiated between those dates. Under XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ), accessing a consumer 's credit report without a permissible purpose is an actionable FCRA violation regardless of whether actual damages are proven. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), reckless disregard of permissible purpose requirements satisfies the willfulness standard, triggering statutory damages. \nXXXX FCRA XXXX ( b ) CRA Duty to Prevent Impermissible Furnishing Experian 's Independent Obligation : Experian , as a consumer reporting agency, has an independent duty under FCRA XXXX ( b ) to 'maintain reasonable procedures designed to ... limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section XXXX. ' Experian 's furnishing of XXXX 's report XXXX times to mortgage entities within 13 days including twice to the same entities within days of each prior pull demonstrates that Experian failed to maintain reasonable procedures to prevent impermissible access. Experian is therefore independently liable for each furnishing that lacked a valid permissible purpose. \nXXXX XXXX : XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( CRA liable under XXXX ( b ) for failing to maintain procedures that prevent impermissible report furnishing ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( CRA must verify existence of permissible purpose before furnishing report ). \nXXXX FCRA XXXX Willful Violation by Each Respondent Willfulness Standard : XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( willfulness encompasses reckless disregard of known legal requirements ). Each respondent operates in the mortgage credit reporting industry and is or should be fully aware of FCRA XXXX 's permissible purpose requirements. Pulling a consumer 's credit report twice in XXXX day ( CREDCO/UWM ) or twice within 6 days ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX new consumer-initiated transaction demonstrates reckless disregard of XXXX 's clear requirements. \nStatutory Damages Exposure : At {$100.00} {$1000.00} per willful violation, XXXX impermissible inquiries creates statutory exposure of {$600.00} {$6000.00} per respondent entity, plus punitive damages and attorney fees under XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) - ( XXXX ). This does not include actual damages from XXXX XXXX suppression affecting XXXX 's mortgage rate and terms. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unfairness Three-Prong UDAAP Unfairness Analysis : An act or practice is unfair under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( c ) if it : ( XXXX ) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury ; ( XXXX ) the injury is not reasonably avoidable; and ( XXXX ) the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. \nProng XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX hard inquiries suppress XXXX 's XXXX score by an estimated XXXX points cumulatively. In the mortgage lending context, even a XXXX score reduction can increase the interest rate offered by 0.25 % to 0.50 %, costing Complainant thousands of dollars over the life of a loan. This is substantial, quantifiable, ongoing injury. \nProng XXXX Not Reasonably Avoidable : Complainant did not separately authorize XXXX distinct credit pulls. She initiated a mortgage application process. The proliferation of downstream XXXX each pulling independent hard inquiries is entirely outside the consumer 's control she had no opportunity to prevent or limit these pulls once the process began. \nProng XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : There is no consumer benefit to having the same credit report pulled 6 times by XXXX entities within 13 days. A single comprehensive tri-merge report serves the purpose of mortgage underwriting. The additional pulls benefit only the intermediary entities seeking current data for their internal processes, not the consumer. \nXXXX Additional Case XXXX XXXX Impermissible Purpose Cases : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( permissible purpose must exist at the exact moment of access ; can not be assumed from prior authorization ) ; XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX. Ky. XXXX ) ( accessing credit report without clear permissible purpose violates XXXX regardless of industry practice ) ; XXXX XXXX Attorney XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Md. XXXX ) ( FCRA permissible purpose provisions are strictly construed ; good faith belief is insufficient if the legal standard is not met ) ; XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( FCRA provisions protecting consumers from unauthorized access are strictly enforced ). \nV. HARM TO COMPLAINANT XXXX XXXX Suppression : XXXX hard inquiries XXXX within 13 days have artificially depressed Complainant 's XXXX score. Complainant 's current score of XXXX ( Very Good ) could have been at XXXX ( Exceptional ) without these impermissible inquiries, qualifying her for better mortgage rates and terms. \nXXXX XXXX from XXXX Mortgage XXXX : A suppressed XXXX XXXX in the mortgage application process directly results in higher interest rates. On a {$420000.00} mortgage ( as appears on XXXX 's Experian report ), even a 0.25 % rate increase resulting from score suppression adds approximately {$20000.00} {$25000.00} in interest over a XXXX loan term. This is real, quantifiable monetary harm caused by these impermissible inquiries. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Damage : All XXXX inquiries remain scheduled on XXXX 's credit report through XXXX XXXX continuing to suppress her score and misrepresent her credit-seeking activity to future creditors for over a year. \nPrivacy Violation : Each impermissible inquiry constitutes an unauthorized access to XXXX 's private financial data. The FCRA was specifically enacted to protect consumers from exactly this type of unauthorized disclosure of their credit information. See FCRA XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( Congressional findings on privacy rights in consumer credit data ). \nInability to Reasonably Avoid Harm : XXXX had no mechanism to prevent downstream mortgage XXXX from independently pulling her credit file once the application process was initiated. The harm is systemic, consumer-unfair, and directly traceable to the respondents ' disregard for XXXX 's permissible purpose requirements. \n\nActive Fraud Alert on File : My Experian credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX, confirms that an active Identity Security Alert has been placed on my file since XX/XX/XXXX ( Reference No. XXXX ), which states : 'FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS XXXX BE SUBMITTED IN MY NAME OR MY IDENTITY XXXX HAVE BEEN USED WITHOUT MY CONSENT TO FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN GOODS OR SERVICES. ' The presence of XXXX Illinois addresses neither of which I have ever occupied is directly consistent with identity theft activity and must be treated with heightened urgency in light of this active fraud alert. \n\nFCRA XXXX ( XXXX ) Experian Is a 'Person ' Bound by All FCRA Duties : Experian Information Solutions XXXX XXXX XXXX a corporation and therefore a 'person ' as defined under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ), which provides that 'the term person means any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, government or governmental subdivision or agency, or other entity. ' Under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ), this definition applies to the entire FCRA subchapter, making Experian subject to the maximum accuracy requirements of XXXX ( b ), the reinvestigation obligations of XXXX, and the civil liability provisions of XXXX and XXXX. \nDisputed Address PO BOX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, IL XXXX Nature of Entry : This is a Post Office XXXX not XXXX residential address. A P.O. Box can not be and has never been a place of residence for any individual. No human being lives at a Post Office Box. Its presence on a consumer credit report as a residential address entry is facially inaccurate as a matter of fact and law. No residential lease, mortgage, utility account, or government record in XXXX 's name has ever been associated with this P.O. Box.\n\nIdentity Theft Indicator : P.O. Boxes listed on consumer credit files as residential addresses are a well-documented hallmark of identity theft. They are used by fraudsters to receive mail, credit cards, and financial documents obtained through fraudulent applications in a victim 's name, while ensuring the victim never receives notice of the fraud at their actual address. Given Complainant 's active fraud alert, this address is consistent with ongoing identity theft activity and warrants immediate deletion and investigation. \n\nFCRA Violation : Experian 's reporting of a P.O. Box as XXXX 's residential address violates the maximum possible accuracy standard of XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ). A P.O. XXXX entry where a residential address is expected is not merely inaccurate it is a categorical impossibility as a residential address. No reasonable procedure for assuring accuracy would permit a P.O. Box to be listed as a consumer 's residential address. \nA. FCRA XXXX ( b ) Failure to Maintain Maximum Possible Accuracy Statutory Text : XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ) requires that 'whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. ' Violation : Experian has failed this standard in XXXX independent respects. First, a P.O. XXXX can not be a residential address any procedure that does not automatically flag and reject P.O. Box entries as residential addresses lacks the minimum reasonableness required by XXXX ( b ). Second, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has never been associated with Complainant through any document she has ever executed. Experian 's procedures failed to verify the source and authenticity of these address entries before including them in her consumer file. \nXXXX XXXX : XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( CRA that fails to detect obvious inaccuracies violates XXXX ( b ) and can not escape liability by claiming the data came from a furnisher ). XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( maximum accuracy standard imposes independent affirmative obligation on CRAs ; satisfaction of furnisher-supplied data does not discharge XXXX ( b ) duty ). XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( CRA 's accuracy obligation is not extinguished by the fact that the incorrect data was reported by a creditor the CRA must independently verify ). XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( CRA violated XXXX ( b ) by maintaining inaccurate information on consumer 's report that was clearly inconsistent with other data in the file ). \nXXXX FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Prohibition on Obsolete and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : FCRA XXXX broadly governs the types of information consumer reporting agencies XXXX include in consumer reports. The underlying principle reinforced by XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) 's prohibition on XXXX other adverse item of information ' that antedates the report by more than XXXX years reflects XXXX XXXX intent that consumer reports contain only verified, accurate, and current information directly attributable to the consumer. Address information not associated with the consumer through any verifiable, consumer-executed document is not 'information ' that belongs in the consumer 's file at all. \nApplication : Experian maintains both disputed addresses as current, active entries in XXXX 's personal information section. Neither address has ever been verified through any document Complainant executed. The P.O. XXXX is categorically incapable of being a residential address. The XXXX XXXX XXXX address has never appeared on any lease, deed, tax return, utility account, or employment record submitted by or for XXXX. Maintaining unverified, consumer-repudiated address entries violates the spirit and letter of the FCRA 's XXXX framework. \nXXXX FCRA XXXX Mandatory Reinvestigation and Deletion Statutory Text : XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) requires Experian to 'conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file ... before the end of the XXXX period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer. ' Section XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) mandates that if 'an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or can not be verified... the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the file of the consumer. ' Can not Be Verified = Mandatory Deletion : Experian can not verify that Complainant ever resided at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, IL because a P.O. XXXX is not a residence and no person resides there. Experian can not verify that Complainant ever resided at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, IL because she never did, and no document in Complainant 's name supports this address. The standard under XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) is stated in the disjunctive : delete if inaccurate OR incomplete OR unverifiable. All three conditions are satisfied for both addresses. Deletion is not discretionary it is mandatory. \nXXXX Clock and Notice Requirements : The XXXX reinvestigation clock begins upon Experian 's receipt of this letter as documented by XXXX certified mail. Upon completion, Experian must notify Complainant in writing of the results under XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). If the addresses are deleted, Experian must provide Complainant with a free revised credit report under XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( ii ). Failure to meet any of these deadlines is itself an independent FCRA violation. \nAdditional Basis FCRA XXXX Identity Theft Block : XXXX U.S.C. XXXX requires a consumer reporting agency to block reporting of information identified by the consumer as arising from identity theft within XXXX business days of receiving : ( XXXX ) appropriate proof of identity ; ( XXXX ) a copy of an identity theft report ; ( XXXX ) the consumer 's identification of such information; and ( XXXX ) a statement that the information does not relate to any transaction by the consumer. Complainant hereby provides items ( XXXX ) and ( XXXX ) in this letter. Upon receipt of XXXX 's government-issued ID and identity theft report ( if filed ), Experian must block both addresses within XXXX business days under XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX : XXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( CRA 's failure to delete unverifiable address information following consumer dispute is actionable under XXXX ). XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( reinvestigation must be substantive and meaningful CRA can not simply confirm that the address appears in its system ; it must verify that the consumer actually associated with the address ). XXXX v. XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( rubber-stamp reinvestigation that merely confirms existing file data without independent verification fails the XXXX standard and supports willfulness finding ). \nXXXX FCRA XXXX and XXXX Willful and Negligent Noncompliance Willful Noncompliance ( XXXX ) : Experian is XXXX of the XXXX largest consumer reporting agencies in the world with thousands of compliance employees, decades of FCRA enforcement history, and full knowledge of its legal obligations. Maintaining a P.O. XXXX as a residential address in a consumer file is not a subtle technical error it is a facially obvious impossibility that any reasonable accuracy procedure would flag automatically. Experian 's failure to have a procedure that rejects P.O. Box entries as residential addresses constitutes reckless disregard of its XXXX ( b ) obligations under XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). Statutory damages of {$100.00} {$1000.00} per violation plus punitive damages are available under XXXX. \nNegligent Noncompliance ( XXXX ) : At minimum, Experian 's failure to verify both disputed addresses before including them in XXXX 's file, and its failure to detect an obviously non-residential P.O. XXXX as a residential address, constitutes negligent noncompliance. Under XXXX, Experian is liable for XXXX 's actual damages resulting from the maintenance of these false addresses, including emotional distress, time expended in dispute, reputational harm, and any credit or background check harm caused by the presence of unrecognized addresses in her file. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) Unfairness : Maintaining false addresses including a P.O. XXXX and an address Complainant has never occupied causes substantial harm : it creates a misleading picture of XXXX 's residential history for any employer, landlord, or creditor reviewing the report ; it XXXX trigger fraud flags by lenders who see mismatched addresses ; and it undermines the integrity of XXXX 's identity verification. The harm can not be avoided by Complainant because she has no control over what Experian maintains in her file. No countervailing benefit exists to any party from maintaining demonstrably false residential information. All three XXXX unfairness prongs are satisfied. \nDeception : A consumer report displaying a P.O. XXXX and an unoccupied Illinois residential address as part of XXXX XXXX 's personal history is materially misleading to anyone relying on the report. Lenders, employers, and landlords use address history for identity verification false addresses undermine the accuracy of that verification and XXXX cause Complainant to be misidentified, denied services, or flagged as a fraud risk based on information she never supplied and never authorized. \nIV. FORMAL DEMANDS Experian is hereby formally demanded to take ALL of the following actions within the timeframes specified : IMMEDIATE DELETION ( within XXXX business days under XXXX, or 30 days under XXXX ) : Permanently delete BOTH disputed addresses from Complainant 's Experian XXXX file : ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX IL XXXX XXXX \nWRITTEN CONFIRMATION ( within XXXX business days of deletion ) : Provide Complainant with written confirmation that both addresses have been permanently removed from her consumer file. \nREVISED CREDIT REPORT ( within XXXX business days of deletion ) : Provide Complainant with a free, updated copy of her Experian credit report reflecting the deletion of both disputed addresses, as required under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( ii ). \nSOURCE INVESTIGATION : Identify and disclose to Complainant the furnisher ( XXXX ) who submitted or caused each disputed address to appear in her Experian file, consistent with Complainant 's right to know the source of information under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). \nV. NOTICE OF REGULATORY COMPLAINTS AND LEGAL ACTION Please be advised that concurrent with this letter, Complainant is filing formal complaints with : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) consumerfinance.gov/complaint Federal Trade Commission XXXX FTC ) XXXX and XXXX Texas Attorney General XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Illinois Attorney General XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX over Illinois addresses XXXX Failure to comply with the demands herein within the statutory timeframes will result in civil litigation under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX and XXXX seeking : ( a ) actual damages for all harm caused by the maintenance of false address information ; ( b ) statutory damages of {$100.00} {$1000.00} per willful violation ; ( c ) punitive damages ; and ( d ) attorney fees and costs. The maintenance of a P.O. XXXX as a residential address a facially impossible entry supports a strong willfulness finding under XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), as the impossibility of a P.O. XXXX as a residence should have been detected by any reasonable accuracy procedure.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-01T05:08:05.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"604XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19876262","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2026-03-01T04:47:16.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Lenders, employers, and landlords use address history for identity verification false addresses undermine the accuracy of that verification and XXXX cause Complainant to be misidentified, denied <em>services</em>, or flagged as a fraud <em>risk</em> based on information she never supplied and never authorized. \nIV."]},"sort":[12.803949,"19876262"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3967845","_score":11.174111,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint against PennyMac Loan Services , LLC ( aka XXXX XXXX ) XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( co-owner of Federal Reserve ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ; XXXX, XXXX ( partner with XXXX  XXXX XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX for the Biggest economic fraud ; massive securities fraud, identity theft and other crimes Dear CFPB, please find my Complaint against PennyMac, a sham conduit for Federal Reserve co-owners ( XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( who is currently the main co-owner of PennyMac ) and other parties involved in this Biggest economic fraud and crime against humanity. \n\nCFPB and the Government are fully aware of these crimes and agreed to participate because Big Banks promised to indemnify Government Sponsored Enterprises - in exchange of cover up for this Ponzi Scheme with non-mortgage backed securities issued by XXXX XXXX XXXX and based on Book Entry Credit by a participant who never appear in any mortgage or foreclosure XXXX XXXX XXXX an unregulated member of XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nBig Banks ( Stockbrokers ) created a most draconian mystification and fraud against Investors ( Pension Funds, like MI XXXX XXXX XXXX whoo invested over {$2.00} XXXX in thin-air JUNK sold to them by Big Banks sham conduits like non-buyer of non-existing default debt XXXX XXXX XXXX ( owner of XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX aka XXXX XXXX ) and other impersonators hired by Big Banks to pose as issuers of some securities which none of those fake issuers never had, no need to say never owned. \n\nThe transaction with a borrower was the reference point for securitization, to wit : the issuance and sale of securities. And those securities were not conveyances of any right, title, or interest in any debt, note, or mortgage. So the fact that the securities were bets on data contained in discretionary reports issued by the investment bank posing as Master Servicer does not mean the debt was sold. It wasnt. Like the supposed XXXX XXXX the named claimant has no loss and in fact has no interest in the outcome of litigation except as a profiteer. \nThis is reminiscent of the repeated reports to the SEC  of wrongdoing by XXXX XXXX. The reports were regarded as too absurd to be true on the scale that was reported until 10 years later when XXXX himself admitted all charges and was sent to prison. Just because a lie is a whopper doesnt mean that it can be turned into truth. Eventually, financial historians are going to see Securitization for what it is a PONZI scheme. Nothing was securitized. \n\nIt is understandable that Homeowners are a bit put off by the apparent complexity of securitization. But it becomes much simpler when you realize that securitization never occurred. The securities that were issued and sold to investors did not represent ownership of any debt, note, mortgage, or payment. \n\nALL so-called securities are Book-Entry CREDIT issued by XXXX XXXX participant XXXX XXXX XXXX who issue a Participation Certificate based on some mortgages which the Seller ( in my situation actor-for-hire XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX ) SHALL or WILL sell - but never did it. \n\nAll consecutive sales are fictions to defraud homeowners and investors. Nobody SELL or BUY any mortgages, as well as nobody ever issued any Mortgage-Backed Securities. \n\nALL securities sold to Pension Funds are backed by thin-air promise by XXXX to pay, at its discretion - because Investors voluntarily signed away all their rights for recovery. \n\nAnd all this SCAM is operated by owners of private Federal Reserve who agreed to indemnify GSEs from liabilities to investors for their fictitious guarantees of non-existing accounts RECEIVABLES for mortgage loans, which are destroyed by Big Banks at origination to be able to sell DATA ( bets ) about performances of someones loans to investors by several participants at the same time. \n\nMortgages and Notes are scanned and placed into Big Banks main depository held by XXXX XXXX , XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, owner of numerous Title Insurance Companies such as XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, eat ) and XXXX, XXXX ( partner with XXXX XXXX XXXX, owner of XXXX  XXXX XXXX ). Both XXXX and XXXX use sham conduits such as XXXX XXXX XXXX to sell their fictitious Title Insurance Policies which do not cover mortgages with non-existing Lenders who pass borrowers one-time PAYMENTS from Big Banks operating pool for their involuntary participation in Big Banks securitization scheme. \n\nThis ONE-TIME payment ( aka It is merely an acknowledgment of payment for services rendered by the homeowner ) is masqueraded as a loan which borrowers ( aka initial issuers of a security called promissory Note converted into DATA ( images ) and sold by Big Banks to investors as derivatives for 12-184 times more than paid to the borrower for their signature on documents. \n\nThe debt exists only if someone maintains a current ledger entry on their own books of record that shows they paid value for the underlying obligation, along with having supporting documentation ( proof of payment ). If they didnt pay value then they dont own it under both accounting rules and the laws of every jurisdiction. Neither XXXX or PennyMac NEVER purchased ANY of my so-called debt - because here was NO SELLER. \n\nSo-called loan from XXXX XXXX ( fake Lender was simply just a compensation to me for being drafted into a concealed securities scheme operated by Federal Reserve owners ( Big Banks ) though their XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX - who never appeared in any loan documents or any foreclosure cases. \n\nXXXX and PennyMac ( self-proclaimed Servicers of nothing ) work for fees to lie to borrowers and Courts, knowing that their lies will never be investigated and will be covered by the Government who allows this Scheme to operate and defraud Investors from trillions of funds. \n\nFederal Reserve owners ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, ect. ) converted US housing market into a biggest crime scheme where homeowners deliver ALL their wealth to modern slave owners under glimpse of repayment of debt - which was not only paid off 12- 184 times ( without any reduction to the homeowner ) but also force to return their only payment with interest, thus receive negative compensation. \n\nThe securitization players offered securities to investors, the proceeds of such sales going to the investmentbank who in turn distributed the money to the other playersincluding borrowers. Without those securities, there would have been no transaction. But as a result of issuing and selling those securities and then derivatives of those securities the revenue from the sale of securities was in excess of 12 times the amount of the homeowner transaction. \n\nNobody wanted to be a lenderwho would then be accountable for violations of lending laws. So they made sure there was no lender. We are all going down the same rabbit hole when we refer to the homeowner transaction as a loan.It was a payment to get the homeowner to execute documents that were labeled as loan documents a payment that had to be returned, leaving the homeowner with no compensation for his/her role in generating so much revenue. \n\nIf it was a loan, then there would be a lender with a risk of loss and who was accountable for compliance with lending laws particularly those requiring disclosure of compensation and revenue arising from the execution of the documents.If it was a loan, then there would be a lender who was a stakeholder i.e., someone who retained risk of loss and intent for the transaction to be performed and successful.Instead, homeowners got no lender and not even a clue as to who they did business with nor the true extent of revenue and profits generated from what was in reality, simply a securities scheme withno substantive characteristics of a loan.Instead, the homeowner was left with a nonlenderwho had no role in underwriting the viability of theloan contrary to the express requirements of TILA. In fact, and again contrary to the express requirements of TILA, the homeowner was left with nobody who had any stake in the viability or performance of any loan.\n\nTo add insult to injury, the securitization players had substantial financial incentives to steer borrowers into nonviable loans against which the players bet would fail this producing even more profits. \n\nThis scheme is well-known by the Government. From XX/XX/XXXX Federal Reserve ( aka Big Banks ) secretly move huge amounts of money though the back doors, without any oversight from the authorities or members of public - apparently to pay something to investors to keep this crime covered - while throw homeowners under the train of illegal foreclosures, as tax-free revenue for Big Banks. \n\nSince XX/XX/XXXX Federal Reserve purportedly buy some non-existing MBS from Ginnie, XXXX and XXXX - which according to all Prospectuses GSEs NEVER HAD ( all about forward-looking statements we will or we shall but never WE DID PURCHASE ) ) Recently Federal Reserve assigned over {$2.00} XXXX of these non-existing MBS to one of its owners, XXXX XXXX. But no single homeowner never received any Notices about changes of purported ownership of anyones debt from GSE to Federal Reserve and from Federal Reserve to XXXX. \n\nWhich is evident that Big Banks crimes are covered by the Government who agreed to participate in exchange of release of all liabilities ( see HUD From XXXX. Whereas, ( Parent ) is the parent company of ( the Subsidiary ) ; andWhereas, the Subsidiary is applying to become an Issuer/is currently an Issuer in good standing of the of Government National Mortgage Association ( Ginnie Mae ) mortgage-backed securities ( MBS ) program ; andWhereas, the Subsidiary and/or Parent ______________________________________________ ; andWhereas, as a condition precedent to Ginnie Mae allowing the subsidiary to issue/continue to issue Ginnie MaeMBS, Ginnie Mae requires that the performance of the Subsidiary be unconditionally and absolutely guaranteed by Parent ( Corporate Guaranty ) Another evidence of Big Banks fraud with non-existing mortgage accounts and sales is a custodial Agreement between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( one of first Federal Reserve Board members ) ; XXXX XXXX ( whose owners XXXX  and his son created Federal Reserve ) and XXXX XXXX  ( fake Lender and sham conduit for XXXX ) GNMA XXXX are A fully-modified pass-through mortgage-backed certificate guaranteed by GNMA, evidenced by a book-entry credit made by a Securities Intermediary that is a participant of The XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nThe same scam apply to ALL purported Sales of mortgages which are always in look-forward statements, as well as so-called servicing. \n\nUnder the same agreement, the Participant ( XXXX ) has agreed to purchase, from time to time, at its sole election from the Seller ( XXXX ), participation certificates ( the Participation Certificates ) representing 100 % ownership interest in certain residential first mortgage loans. \n\nThe Custodian SHALL hold all documents constituting the Mortgage File received by it for the exclusive use and benefit of the Participant, and SHALL make disposition thereof only in accordance with the written instructions furnished by the Participant. The Custodian SHALL segregate and maintain continuous custody of all documents constituting the Mortgage File received by it in secure and fire-resistant facilities in accordance with customary standards for such custody and shall mark the file folders therefor to indicate that the Mortgage File is being held for the Participant. \n\nThe Seller ( XXXX ) WILL cause the Mortgage Loans evidenced by a Participation Certificate to back a Security ( as defined below ), which the Participant or its designee WILL receive in substitution for the related Participation Certificate The Seller ( XXXX ) WAS OBLIGATED to service the Mortgage Loans. But never did since nobody needed their services. \n\nThe same apply to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( now XXXX and PennyMac ). ALL their Prospectuses are based on forward-looking statements - we shall or we will but never we did. \n\nXXXX XXXX or PennyMac or XXXX NEVER funded any loans and never owned any mortgages. It was a ruse created by XXXX Banks. \n\nXXXX  XXXX XXXX never bought any mortgages from XXXX - simply because XXXX never had any loans to sell to XXXX. What was done - DATA about mortgages was switches in XXXX XXXX/XXXX  database from XXXX to XXXX, who was the ACTUAL party behind the scheme from the beginning - pass of one-time payment to borrowers via sham conduits XXXX XXXX. \n\nWhen XXXX was renamed as PennyMac and XXXX, their part of this scheme didn't changed. Big Banks did not wanted to train a new group of people to commit the same blatant fraud against homeowners and investors ; and decided to use their reliable gang members XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, etc - to perform the same duties : pose as fake Servicers for nothing who purportedly collect mortgage payments for investors - which neither XXXX or PennyMac do because none 's debt was ever securitized or sold. INFORMATION about purported \" debt '' was sold, but not the debt since it was not the debt to begin with. Bear to repeat, it as a compensation to borrowers to be dragged into secretive and very dangerous scheme where borrowers identities are sold as BETS to investors by Big Banks. \n\nALL my payments are collected and processed by XXXX/XXXX  via XXXX XXXX account held by XXXX  XXXX XXXX. \n\nI demand CFPB to stop covering this Biggest Crime, investigate PennyMac, XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX and other banks for their Ponzi Scheme with Pension Funds and compensate me for all damages, no less than 20 % royalties from trades, remove all illegal liens ( such as fake Mortgage Lien from my property ; and pay me for damages caused by fraud and emotional distress, no less than {$50.00} XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-11-21T12:31:50.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"490XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3967845","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.","date_received":"2020-11-21T12:18:35.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The same scam apply to ALL purported Sales of <em>mortgages</em> which are always in look-forward statements, as well as so-called <em>servicing</em>. \n\nUnder the same agreement, the Participant ( XXXX ) has agreed to purchase, from time to time, at its sole election from the Seller ( XXXX ), participation certificates ( the Participation Certificates ) representing 100 % ownership interest in certain <em>residential</em> first <em>mortgage</em> loans."],"company":["PENNYMAC LOAN <em>SERVICES</em>, LLC."],"sub_product":["<em>Mortgage</em> debt"]},"sort":[11.174111,"3967845"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3968326","_score":11.016016,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Countyrwide Financial ) Bank of America ( co-owner of Federal Reserve ) XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX partner with First XXXX XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX for the Biggest economic fraud ; massive securities fraud, identity theft and other crimes Dear CFPB, please find my Complaint against PennyMac, a sham conduit for Federal Reserve co-owners ( Bank of America, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( who is currently the main co-owner of XXXX  ) and other parties involved in this Biggest economic fraud and crime against humanity. \n\nCFPB and the Government are fully aware of these crimes and agreed to participate because Big Banks promised to indemnify Government Sponsored Enterprises - in exchange of cover up for this Ponzi Scheme with non-mortgage backed securities issued by XXXX XXXX XXXX and based on Book Entry Credit by a participant who never appear in any mortgage or foreclosure XXXX XXXX XXXX an unregulated member of XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nBig Banks ( Stockbrokers ) created a most draconian mystification and fraud against Investors ( Pension Funds, like MI XXXX XXXX XXXX whoo invested over {$2.00} Billion in thin-air JUNK sold to them by Big Banks sham conduits like non-buyer of non-existing default debt XXXX XXXX XXXX ( owner of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX aka Countrywide Financial ) and other impersonators hired by Big Banks to pose as issuers of some securities which none of those fake issuers never had, no need to say never owned. \n\nThe transaction with a borrower was the reference point for securitization, to wit : the issuance and sale of securities. And those securities were not conveyances of any right, title, or interest in any debt, note, or mortgage. So the fact that the securities were bets on data contained in discretionary reports issued by the investment bank posing as Master Servicer does not mean the debt was sold. It wasnt. Like the supposed XXXX XXXX the named claimant has no loss and in fact has no interest in the outcome of litigation except as a profiteer. \nThis is reminiscent of the repeated reports to the SEC  of wrongdoing by XXXX XXXX. The reports were regarded as too absurd to be true on the scale that was reported until 10 years later when XXXX himself admitted all charges and was sent to prison. Just because a lie is a whopper doesnt mean that it can be turned into truth. Eventually, financial historians are going to see Securitization for what it is a PONZI scheme. Nothing was securitized. \n\nIt is understandable that Homeowners are a bit put off by the apparent complexity of securitization. But it becomes much simpler when you realize that securitization never occurred. The securities that were issued and sold to investors did not represent ownership of any debt, note, mortgage, or payment. \n\nALL so-called securities are Book-Entry CREDIT issued by XXXX XXXX participant XXXX XXXX XXXX who issue a Participation Certificate based on some mortgages which the Seller ( in my situation actor-for-hire XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX ) SHALL or WILL sell - but never did it. \n\nAll consecutive sales are fictions to defraud homeowners and investors. Nobody SELL or BUY any mortgages, as well as nobody ever issued any Mortgage-Backed Securities. \n\nALL securities sold to Pension Funds are backed by thin-air promise by XXXX to pay, at its discretion - because Investors voluntarily signed away all their rights for recovery. \n\nAnd all this SCAM is operated by owners of private Federal Reserve who agreed to indemnify GSEs from liabilities to investors for their fictitious guarantees of non-existing accounts RECEIVABLES for mortgage loans, which are destroyed by Big Banks at origination to be able to sell DATA ( bets ) about performances of someones loans to investors by several participants at the same time. \n\nMortgages and Notes are scanned and placed into Big Banks main depository held by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, owner of numerous Title Insurance Companies such as XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, eat ) and XXXX, XXXX ( partner with XXXX XXXX XXXX, owner of XXXX  XXXX XXXX ). Both XXXX and XXXX use sham conduits such as XXXX XXXX XXXX to sell their fictitious Title Insurance Policies which do not cover mortgages with non-existing Lenders who pass borrowers one-time PAYMENTS from Big Banks operating pool for their involuntary participation in Big Banks securitization scheme. \n\nThis ONE-TIME payment ( aka It is merely an acknowledgment of payment for services rendered by the homeowner ) is masqueraded as a loan which borrowers ( aka initial issuers of a security called promissory Note converted into DATA ( images ) and sold by Big Banks to investors as derivatives for 12-184 times more than paid to the borrower for their signature on documents. \n\nThe debt exists only if someone maintains a current ledger entry on their own books of record that shows they paid value for the underlying obligation, along with having supporting documentation ( proof of payment ). If they didnt pay value then they dont own it under both accounting rules and the laws of every jurisdiction. Neither XXXX or XXXX NEVER purchased ANY of my so-called debt - because here was NO SELLER. \n\nSo-called loan from XXXX XXXX  ( fake Lender was simply just a compensation to me for being drafted into a concealed securities scheme operated by Federal Reserve owners ( Big Banks ) though their XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX - who never appeared in any loan documents or any foreclosure cases. \n\nXXXX and XXXX ( self-proclaimed Servicers of nothing ) work for fees to lie to borrowers and Courts, knowing that their lies will never be investigated and will be covered by the Government who allows this Scheme to operate and defraud Investors from trillions of funds. \n\nFederal Reserve owners ( XXXX XXXX, BOA, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) converted US housing market into a biggest crime scheme where homeowners deliver ALL their wealth to modern slave owners under glimpse of repayment of debt - which was not only paid off 12- 184 times ( without any reduction to the homeowner ) but also force to return their only payment with interest, thus receive negative compensation. \n\nThe securitization players offered securities to investors, the proceeds of such sales going to the investmentbank who in turn distributed the money to the other playersincluding borrowers. Without those securities, there would have been no transaction. But as a result of issuing and selling those securities and then derivatives of those securities the revenue from the sale of securities was in excess of 12 times the amount of the homeowner transaction. \n\nNobody wanted to be a lenderwho would then be accountable for violations of lending laws. So they made sure there was no lender. We are all going down the same rabbit hole when we refer to the homeowner transaction as a loan.It was a payment to get the homeowner to execute documents that were labeled as loan documents a payment that had to be returned, leaving the homeowner with no compensation for his/her role in generating so much revenue. \n\nIf it was a loan, then there would be a lender with a risk of loss and who was accountable for compliance with lending laws particularly those requiring disclosure of compensation and revenue arising from the execution of the documents.If it was a loan, then there would be a lender who was a stakeholder i.e., someone who retained risk of loss and intent for the transaction to be performed and successful.Instead, homeowners got no lender and not even a clue as to who they did business with nor the true extent of revenue and profits generated from what was in reality, simply a securities scheme withno substantive characteristics of a loan.Instead, the homeowner was left with a nonlenderwho had no role in underwriting the viability of theloan contrary to the express requirements of TILA. In fact, and again contrary to the express requirements of TILA, the homeowner was left with nobody who had any stake in the viability or performance of any loan. \n\nTo add insult to injury, the securitization players had substantial financial incentives to steer borrowers into nonviable loans against which the players bet would fail this producing even more profits. \n\nThis scheme is well-known by the Government. From XX/XX/XXXX Federal Reserve ( aka Big Banks ) secretly move huge amounts of money though the back doors, without any oversight from the authorities or members of public - apparently to pay something to investors to keep this crime covered - while throw homeowners under the train of illegal foreclosures, as tax-free revenue for Big Banks. \n\nSince XX/XX/XXXX Federal Reserve purportedly buy some non-existing MBS from XXXX, XXXX and XXXX - which according to all Prospectuses GSEs NEVER HAD ( all about forward-looking statements we will or we shall but never WE DID PURCHASE ) ) Recently Federal Reserve assigned over {$2.00} Trillion of these non-existing MBS to one of its owners, XXXX XXXX. But no single homeowner never received any Notices about changes of purported ownership of anyones debt from GSE to Federal Reserve and from Federal Reserve to XXXX. \n\nWhich is evident that Big Banks crimes are covered by the Government who agreed to participate in exchange of release of all liabilities ( see HUD From XXXX. Whereas, ( Parent ) is the parent company of ( the Subsidiary ) ; andWhereas, the Subsidiary is applying to become an Issuer/is currently an Issuer in good standing of the of Government National Mortgage Association ( XXXX XXXX ) mortgage-backed securities ( MBS ) program ; andWhereas, the Subsidiary and/or Parent ______________________________________________ ; andWhereas, as a condition precedent to XXXX XXXX allowing the subsidiary to issue/continue to issue XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX requires that the performance of the Subsidiary be unconditionally and absolutely guaranteed by Parent ( XXXX XXXX ) Another evidence of Big Banks fraud with non-existing mortgage accounts and sales is a custodial Agreement between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( one of first Federal Reserve Board members ) ; XXXX XXXX ( whose owners JPM and his son created Federal Reserve ) and XXXX XXXX  ( fake Lender and sham conduit for XXXX ) XXXX XXXX are A fully-modified pass-through mortgage-backed certificate guaranteed by GNMA, evidenced by a book-entry credit made by a Securities Intermediary that is a participant of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nThe same scam apply to ALL purported Sales of mortgages which are always in look-forward statements, as well as so-called servicing. \n\nUnder the same agreement, the Participant ( XXXX ) has agreed to purchase, from time to time, at its sole election from the Seller ( XXXX ), participation certificates ( the Participation Certificates ) representing 100 % ownership interest in certain residential first mortgage loans. \n\nThe Custodian SHALL hold all documents constituting the Mortgage File received by it for the exclusive use and benefit of the Participant, and SHALL make disposition thereof only in accordance with the written instructions furnished by the Participant. The Custodian SHALL segregate and maintain continuous custody of all documents constituting the Mortgage File received by it in secure and fire-resistant facilities in accordance with customary standards for such custody and shall mark the file folders therefor to indicate that the Mortgage File is being held for the Participant. \n\nThe Seller ( XXXX ) WILL cause the Mortgage Loans evidenced by a Participation Certificate to back a Security ( as defined below ), which the Participant or its designee WILL receive in substitution for the related Participation Certificate The Seller ( XXXX ) WAS OBLIGATED to service the Mortgage Loans. But never did since nobody needed their services. \n\nThe same apply to Countrywide Financial Inc ( now XXXX and XXXX ). ALL their Prospectuses are based on forward-looking statements - we shall or we will but never we did. \n\nCountywide Financial or XXXX or XXXX NEVER funded any loans and never owned any mortgages. It was a ruse created by Big Banks. \n\nBank of American never bought any mortgages from Countrywide - simply because CWF never had any loans to sell to BOA. What was done - DATA about mortgages was switches in XXXX XXXX/XXXX  database from XXXX to BOA, who was the ACTUAL party behind the scheme from the beginning - pass of one-time payment to borrowers via sham conduits Countrywide Financial. \n\nWhen CWF was renamed as XXXX and XXXX, their part of this scheme didn't changed. Big Banks did not wanted to train a new group of people to commit the same blatant fraud against homeowners and investors ; and decided to use their reliable gang members XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, etc - to perform the same duties : pose as fake Servicers for nothing who purportedly collect mortgage payments for investors - which neither XXXX or XXXX do because none 's debt was ever securitized or sold. INFORMATION about purported \" debt '' was sold, but not the debt since it was not the debt to begin with. Bear to repeat, it as a compensation to borrowers to be dragged into secretive and very dangerous scheme where borrowers identities are sold as BETS to investors by Big Banks. \n\nALL my payments are collected and processed by XXXX/XXXX  via XXXX XXXX account held by Bank of America. \n\nI demand CFPB to stop covering this Biggest Crime, investigate XXXX, XXXX, Bank of America and other banks for their Ponzi Scheme with Pension Funds and compensate me for all damages, no less than 20 % royalties from trades, remove all illegal liens ( such as fake Mortgage Lien from my property ; and pay me for damages caused by fraud and emotional distress, no less than {$50.00} XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-11-21T12:31:57.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"490XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3968326","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2020-11-21T12:31:54.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The same scam apply to ALL purported Sales of <em>mortgages</em> which are always in look-forward statements, as well as so-called <em>servicing</em>. \n\nUnder the same agreement, the Participant ( XXXX ) has agreed to purchase, from time to time, at its sole election from the Seller ( XXXX ), participation certificates ( the Participation Certificates ) representing 100 % ownership interest in certain <em>residential</em> first <em>mortgage</em> loans."],"sub_product":["<em>Mortgage</em> debt"]},"sort":[11.016016,"3968326"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6774211","_score":10.987829,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"My loan defaulted due to financial hardship. In the XXXX of XXXX, PNC allowed for a COVID-19 loan modification ; however, the interest rate increased from 3.35 % to 3.85 %, which increased my payments from {$1300.00} to {$1400.00} per month. It was unclear if increasing the interest rate and my monthly payments for a loan modification were legal. Still, it added an additional financial burden to an already financial hardship. I completed the loan modification package and sent it back to PNC. I received a letter/package with additional paperwork from PNC stating they should have included additional required documents for signature. I completed the paperwork and got it notarized. Then, received another letter/package stating other documents were not included in the original package and needed a signature and notarized. I signed and notarized the documents and sent PNC loss Mitigation a note stating I will not be signing and notarizing any more documents and should have all the documents required in the original package. PNC later sent additional documentation for signature and notarization. I did not sign or notarized the documents because the documents that were sent and already signed, notarized, and mailed to PNC. \n\n\nSince the XXXX of XXXX, I have been asking PNC for a statement showing what I owe, the remaining balance, payments, and interest rate as I used to receive before. I sent a XXXX message to PNC asking how I would be able to receive a statement so that I can seek assistance in paying for my mortgage through. I was told to contact PNC and remove my account number as it is held as a security risk. I contacted PNC Loss Mitigation again requesting a statement, and a representative stated that could not be done because my account is held under the bankruptcy department, and I would need to contact them. I contacted them, and they sent me an escrow statement showing my payment, not past due, and current balances. Information is needed from the Department of Housing to approve my application for housing assistance. Last week, I received an Escrow Account Disclosure Statement from PNC identifying my new payment effective XX/XX/XXXX for {$1400.00}, and my last payment was {$1300.00}, not knowing they were pursuing foreclosure. However, my previous wire payment was on XX/XX/XXXX, for {$1400.00}. I received a letter yesterday from my county court stating there was a filing against me for foreclosure on my home. I am currently on XXXX XXXXXXXX for XXXX. Therefore, my income has been reduced, and I have proof of every document I am stating in this complaint against PNC. \n\nIn conclusion, PNC can produce an official mortgage statement ; it has nothing to do with my account being under the bankruptcy department, and PNC is choosing not to send me any statements in which I needed to seek financial assistance in my county. Even when making payments, I still did not receive a mortgage statement. My XXXX XXXX case has been dismissed since XX/XX/XXXX, and should not be an excuse not to send me statements; in order for me to seek financial assistance through my local county, I need PNC to provide the following : I want PNC to provide all mortgage statements for XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. \nI want them to rescind their petition filing for foreclosure and provide me with a legit, organized, and all necessary paper for Loss Mitigation paperwork due to hardship. \nI also want my interest rate to go back to 3.75.\n\nI am still waiting for a packet from the Substitute Trustee to file for the Final Loss Mitigation document claims PNC sent.\n\nI want them to prove they were sending me statements because I have not received any.\n\nPNC needs to stop selling my information to third parties.\n\nAccording to the CFPB section 1026.41 Periodic Statements for residential mortgage loans, part states : ( a ) In general Official interpretation of 41 ( a ) In general.Show ( 1 ) Scope. This section applies to a closed-end consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling, unless an exemption in paragraph ( e ) of this section applies. A closed-end consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling is referred to as a mortgage loan for purposes of this section.\n\n( 2 ) Periodic statements. A servicer of a transaction subject to this section shall provide the consumer, for each billing cycle, a periodic statement meeting the requirements of paragraphs ( b ), ( c ), and ( d ) of this section. If a mortgage loan has a billing cycle shorter than a period of 31 days ( for example, a bi-weekly billing cycle ), a periodic statement covering an entire month may be used. For the purposes of this section, servicer includes the creditor, assignee, or servicer, as applicable. A creditor or assignee that does not currently own the mortgage loan or the mortgage servicing rights is not subject to the requirement in this section to provide a periodic statement.\n\n( b ) Timing of the periodic statement. The periodic statement must be delivered or placed in the mail within a reasonably prompt time after the payment due date or the end of any courtesy period provided for the previous billing cycle.\n\nOfficial interpretation of 41 ( b ) Timing of the periodic statement.Show ( c ) Form of the periodic statement. The servicer must make the disclosures required by this section clearly and conspicuously in writing, or electronically if the consumer agrees, and in a form that the consumer may keep. Sample forms for periodic statements are provided in appendix H-30. Proper use of these forms complies with the requirements of this paragraph ( c ) and the layout requirements in paragraph ( d ) of this section.\n\nOfficial interpretation of 41 ( c ) Form of the periodic statement.Show ( d ) Content and layout of the periodic statement. The periodic statement required by this section shall include : Official interpretation of 41 ( d ) Content and layout of the periodic statement.Show ( 1 ) Amount due. Grouped together in close proximity to each other and located at the top of the first page of the statement : Official interpretation of 41 ( d ) ( 1 ) Amount due.Show ( i ) The payment due date ; ( ii ) The amount of any late payment fee, and the date on which that fee will be imposed if payment has not been received ; and ( iii ) The amount due, shown more prominently than other disclosures on the page and, if the transaction has multiple payment options, the amount due under each of the payment options.\n\n( 2 ) Explanation of amount due. The following items, grouped together in close proximity to each other and located on the first page of the statement : Official interpretation of 41 ( d ) ( 2 ) Explanation of amount due.Show ( i ) The monthly payment amount, including a breakdown showing how much, if any, will be applied to principal, interest, and escrow and, if a mortgage loan has multiple payment options, a breakdown of each of the payment options along with information on whether the principal balance will increase, decrease, or stay the same for each option listed ; ( ii ) The total sum of any fees or charges imposed since the last statement; and ( iii ) Any payment amount past due.\n\n( 3 ) Past Payment Breakdown. The following items, grouped together in close proximity to each other and located on the first page of the statement : Official interpretation of 41 ( d ) ( 3 ) Past payment breakdown.Show ( i ) The total of all payments received since the last statement, including a breakdown showing the amount, if any, that was applied to principal, interest, escrow, fees and charges, and the amount, if any, sent to any suspense or unapplied funds account ; and ( ii ) The total of all payments received since the beginning of the current calendar year, including a breakdown of that total showing the amount, if any, that was applied to principal, interest, escrow, fees and charges, and the amount, if any, currently held in any suspense or unapplied funds account.\n\n( 4 ) Transaction activity. A list of all the transaction activity that occurred since the last statement. For purposes of this paragraph ( d ) ( 4 ), transaction activity means any activity that causes a credit or debit to the amount currently due. This list must include the date of the transaction, a brief description of the transaction, and the amount of the transaction for each activity on the list.\n\nOfficial interpretation of 41 ( d ) ( 4 ) Transaction Activity.Show ( 5 ) Partial payment information. If a statement reflects a partial payment that was placed in a suspense or unapplied funds account, information explaining what must be done for the funds to be applied. The information must be on the front page of the statement or, alternatively, may be included on a separate page enclosed with the periodic statement or in a separate letter.\n\n( 6 ) Contact information. A toll-free telephone number and, if applicable, an electronic mailing address that may be used by the consumer to obtain information about the consumer 's account, located on the front page of the statement.\n\n( 7 ) Account information. The following information : ( i ) The amount of the outstanding principal balance ; ( ii ) The current interest rate in effect for the mortgage loan ; ( iii ) The date after which the interest rate may next change ; ( iv ) The existence of any prepayment penalty, as defined in 1026.32 ( b ) ( 6 ) ( i ), that may be charged ; ( v ) The Web site to access either the Bureau list or the HUD list of homeownership counselors and counseling organizations and the HUD toll-free telephone number to access contact information for homeownership counselors or counseling organizations ; and ( 8 ) Delinquency information. If the consumer is more than 45 days delinquent, the following items, grouped together in close proximity to each other and located on the first page of the statement or, alternatively, on a separate page enclosed with the periodic statement or in a separate letter : Official interpretation of 41 ( d ) ( 8 ) Delinquency information.Show ( i ) The length of the consumer 's delinquency ; ( ii ) A notification of possible risks, such as foreclosure, and expenses, that may be incurred if the delinquency is not cured ; ( iii ) An account history showing, for the previous six months or the period since the last time the account was current, whichever is shorter, the amount remaining past due from each billing cycle or, if any such payment was fully paid, the date on which it was credited as fully paid ; ( iv ) A notice indicating any loss mitigation program to which the consumer has agreed, if applicable ; ( v ) A notice of whether the servicer has made the first notice or filing required by applicable law for any judicial or non-judicial foreclosure process, if applicable ; ( vi ) The total payment amount needed to bring the account current ; and ( vii ) A reference to the homeownership counselor information disclosed pursuant to paragraph ( d ) ( 7 ) ( v ) of this section.\n\n( e ) Exemptions Official interpretation of 41 ( e ) Exemptions.Show ( 1 ) Reverse mortgages. Reverse mortgage transactions, as defined by 1026.33 ( a ), are exempt from the requirements of this section.\n\n( 2 ) Timeshare plans. Transactions secured by consumers ' interests in timeshare plans, as defined by 11 U.S.C. 101 ( 53D ), are exempt from the requirements of this section.\n\n( 3 ) Coupon books. The requirements of paragraph ( a ) of this section do not apply to fixed-rate loans if the servicer : Official interpretation of 41 ( e ) ( 3 ) Coupon book exemption.Show ( i ) Provides the consumer with a coupon book that includes on each coupon the information listed in paragraph ( d ) ( 1 ) of this section ; ( ii ) Provides the consumer with a coupon book that includes anywhere in the coupon book : ( A ) The account information listed in paragraph ( d ) ( 7 ) of this section ; ( B ) The contact information for the servicer, listed in paragraph ( d ) ( 6 ) of this section ; and ( C ) Information on how the consumer can obtain the information listed in paragraph ( e ) ( 3 ) ( iii ) of this section ; ( iii ) Makes available upon request to the consumer by telephone, in writing, in person, or electronically, if the consumer consents, the information listed in paragraph ( d ) ( 2 ) through ( 5 ) of this section ; and ( iv ) Provides the consumer the information listed in paragraph ( d ) ( 8 ) of this section in writing, for any billing cycle during which the consumer is more than 45 days delinquent.\n\n( 4 ) Small servicers Official interpretation of 41 ( e ) ( 4 ) Small servicers.Show ( i ) Exemption. A creditor, assignee, or servicer is exempt from the requirements of this section for mortgage loans serviced by a small servicer.\n\n( ii ) Small servicer defined. A small servicer is a servicer that : Official interpretation of 41 ( e ) ( 4 ) ( ii ) Small servicer defined.Show ( A ) Services, together with any affiliates, 5,000 or fewer mortgage loans, for all of which the servicer ( or an affiliate ) is the creditor or assignee ; ( B ) Is a Housing Finance Agency, as defined in 24 CFR 266.5 ; or ( C ) Is a nonprofit entity that services 5,000 or fewer mortgage loans, including any mortgage loans serviced on behalf of associated nonprofit entities, for all of which the servicer or an associated nonprofit entity is the creditor. For purposes of this paragraph ( e ) ( 4 ) ( ii ) ( C ), the following definitions apply : ( 1 ) The term nonprofit entity means an entity having a tax exemption ruling or determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service under section 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ( 26 U.S.C. 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) ; 26 CFR 1.501 ( c ) ( 3 ) -1 ), and ; ( 2 ) The term associated nonprofit entities means nonprofit entities that by agreement operate using a common name, trademark, or servicemark to further and support a common charitable mission or purpose.\n\n( iii ) Small servicer determination. In determining whether a servicer satisfies paragraph ( e ) ( 4 ) ( ii ) ( A ) of this section, the servicer is evaluated based on the mortgage loans serviced by the servicer and any affiliates as of XXXX XXXX and for the remainder of the calendar year. In determining whether a servicer satisfies paragraph ( e ) ( 4 ) ( ii ) ( C ) of this section, the servicer is evaluated based on the mortgage loans serviced by the servicer as of XXXX XXXX and for the remainder of the calendar year. A servicer that ceases to qualify as a small servicer will have six months from the time it ceases to qualify or until the next XXXX XXXX, whichever is later, to comply with any requirements from which the servicer is no longer exempt as a small servicer. The following mortgage loans are not considered in determining whether a servicer qualifies as a small servicer : Official interpretation of 41 ( e ) ( 4 ) ( iii ) Small servicer determination.Show ( A ) Mortgage loans voluntarily serviced by the servicer for a non-affiliate of the servicer and for which the servicer does not receive any compensation or fees.\n\n( B ) Reverse mortgage transactions.\n\n( C ) Mortgage loans secured by consumers ' interests in timeshare plans.\n\n( D ) Transactions serviced by the servicer for a seller financer that meets all of the criteria identified in 1026.36 ( a ) ( 5 ).\n\n( 5 ) Certain consumers in bankruptcy Official interpretation of 41 ( e ) ( 5 ) Certain consumers in bankruptcy.Show ( i ) Exemption. Except as provided in paragraph ( e ) ( 5 ) ( ii ) of this section, a servicer is exempt from the requirements of this section with regard to a mortgage loan if : Official interpretation of 41 ( e ) ( 5 ) ( i ) Exemption.Show ( A ) Any consumer on the mortgage loan is a debtor in bankruptcy under title 11 of the United States Code or has discharged personal liability for the mortgage loan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 727, 1141, 1228, or 1328 ; and ( B ) With regard to any consumer on the mortgage loan : ( 1 ) The consumer requests in writing that the servicer cease providing a periodic statement or coupon book ; ( 2 ) The consumer 's bankruptcy plan provides that the consumer will surrender the dwelling securing the mortgage loan, provides for the avoidance of the lien securing the mortgage loan, or otherwise does not provide for, as applicable, the payment of pre-bankruptcy arrearage or the maintenance of payments due under the mortgage loan ; Official interpretation of Paragraph 41 ( e ) ( 5 ) ( i ) ( B ) ( 2 ) .Show ( 3 ) A court enters an order in the bankruptcy case providing for the avoidance of the lien securing the mortgage loan, lifting the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362 with regard to the dwelling securing the mortgage loan, or requiring the servicer to cease providing a periodic statement or coupon book; or ( 4 ) The consumer files with the court overseeing the bankruptcy case a statement of intention pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 521 ( a ) identifying an intent to surrender the dwelling securing the mortgage loan and a consumer has not made any partial or periodic payment on the mortgage loan after the commencement of the consumer 's bankruptcy case.\n\nOfficial interpretation of Paragraph 41 ( e ) ( 5 ) ( i ) ( B ) ( 4 ) .Show ( ii ) Reaffirmation or consumer request to receive statement or coupon book. A servicer ceases to qualify for an exemption pursuant to paragraph ( e ) ( 5 ) ( i ) of this section with respect to a mortgage loan if the consumer reaffirms personal liability for the loan or any consumer on the loan requests in writing that the servicer provide a periodic statement or coupon book, unless a court enters an order in the bankruptcy case requiring the servicer to cease providing a periodic statement or coupon book.\n\nOfficial interpretation of 41 ( e ) ( 5 ) ( ii ) Reaffirmation or consumer request to receive statement or coupon book.Show ( iii ) Exclusive address. A servicer may establish an address that a consumer must use to submit a written request under paragraph ( e ) ( 5 ) ( i ) ( B ) ( 1 ) or ( e ) ( 5 ) ( ii ) of this section, provided that the servicer notifies the consumer of the address in a manner that is reasonably designed to inform the consumer of the address. If a servicer designates a specific address for requests under paragraph ( e ) ( 5 ) ( i ) ( B ) ( 1 ) or ( e ) ( 5 ) ( ii ) of this section, the servicer shall designate the same address for purposes of both paragraphs ( e ) ( 5 ) ( i ) ( B ) ( 1 ) and ( e ) ( 5 ) ( ii ) of this section.\n\n( iv ) Timing of compliance following transition Official interpretation of 41 ( e ) ( 5 ) ( iv ) Timing of compliance following transition.Show ( A ) Triggering events for transitioning to modified and unmodified periodic statements. A servicer transitions to providing a periodic statement or coupon book with the modifications set forth in paragraph ( f ) of this section or to providing a periodic statement or coupon book without such modifications when one of the following three events occurs : Official interpretation of 41 ( e ) ( 5 ) ( iv ) ( A ) Triggering events for transitioning to modified and unmodified periodic statements.Show ( 1 ) A mortgage loan becomes subject to the requirements of paragraph ( f ) of this section ; ( 2 ) A mortgage loan ceases to be subject to the requirements of paragraph ( f ) of this section ; or ( 3 ) A servicer ceases to qualify for an exemption pursuant to paragraph ( e ) ( 5 ) ( i ) of this section with respect to a mortgage loan.\n\n( B ) Single-statement exemption. As of the date on which one of the events listed in paragraph ( e ) ( 5 ) ( iv ) ( A ) of this section occurs, a servicer is exempt from the requirements of this section with respect to the next periodic statement or coupon book that would otherwise be required but thereafter must provide modified or unmodified periodic statements or coupon books that comply with the requirements of this section.\n\nOfficial interpretation of 41 ( e ) ( 5 ) ( iv ) ( B ) Single-Statement Exemption.Show ( 6 ) Charged-off loans.\n\nOfficial interpretation of 41 ( e ) ( 6 ) Charged-off loans.Show ( i ) A servicer is exempt from the requirements of this section for a mortgage loan if the servicer : ( A ) Has charged off the loan in accordance with loan-loss provisions and will not charge any additional fees or interest on the account ; and ( B ) Provides, within 30 days of charge-off or the most recent periodic statement, a periodic statement, clearly and conspicuously labeled Suspension of Statements & Notice of Charge Off - Retain This Copy for Your Records. The periodic statement must clearly and conspicuously explain that, as applicable, the mortgage loan has been charged off and the servicer will not charge any additional fees or interest on the account ; the servicer will no longer provide the consumer a periodic statement for each billing cycle ; the lien on the property remains in place and the consumer remains liable for the mortgage loan obligation and any obligations arising from or related to the property, which may include property taxes ; the consumer may be required to pay the balance on the account in the future, for example, upon sale of the property ; the balance on the account is not being canceled or forgiven ; and the loan may be purchased, assigned, or transferred.\n\nOfficial interpretation of Paragraph 41 ( e ) ( 6 ) ( i ) ( B ) .Show ( ii ) Resuming compliance.\n\n( A ) If a servicer fails at any time to treat a mortgage loan that is exempt under paragraph ( e ) ( 6 ) ( i ) of this section as charged off or charges any additional fees or interest on the account, the obligation to provide a periodic statement pursuant to this section resumes.\n\n( B ) Prohibition on retroactive fees. A servicer may not retroactively assess fees or interest on the account for the period of time during which the exemption in paragraph ( e ) ( 6 ) ( i ) of this section applied.\n\n( f ) Modified periodic statements and coupon books for certain consumers in bankruptcy. While any consumer on a mortgage loan is a debtor in bankruptcy under title 11 of the United States Code, or if such consumer has discharged personal liability for the mortgage loan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 727, 1141, 1228, or 1328, the requirements of this section are subject to the following modifications with regard to that mortgage loan : Official interpretation of 41 ( f ) Modified periodic statements and coupon books for certain consumers in bankruptcy.Show ( 1 ) Requirements not applicable. The periodic statement may omit the information set forth in paragraphs ( d ) ( 1 ) ( ii ) and ( d ) ( 8 ) ( i ), ( ii ), and ( v ) of this section. The requirement in paragraph ( d ) ( 1 ) ( iii ) of this section that the amount due must be shown more prominently than other disclosures on the page shall not apply.\n\n( 2 ) Bankruptcy notices. The periodic statement must include the following : ( i ) A statement identifying the consumer 's status as a debtor in bankruptcy or the discharged status of the mortgage loan ; and ( ii ) A statement that the periodic statement is for informational purposes only.\n\n( 3 ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX consumers. In addition to any other provisions of this paragraph ( f ) that may apply, with regard to a mortgage loan for which any consumer with primary liability is a debtor in a XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX bankruptcy case, the requirements of this section are subject to the following modifications : Official interpretation of 41 ( f ) ( 3 ) XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX consumers.Show ( i ) Requirements not applicable. In addition to omitting the information set forth in paragraph ( f ) ( 1 ) of this section, the periodic statement may also omit the information set forth in paragraphs ( d ) ( 8 ) ( iii ), ( iv ), ( vi ), and ( vii ) of this section.\n\n( ii ) Amount due. The amount due information set forth in paragraph ( d ) ( 1 ) of this section may be limited to the date and amount of the post-petition payments due and any post-petition fees and charges imposed by the servicer.\n\nOfficial interpretation of 41 ( f ) ( 3 ) ( ii ) Amount due.Show ( iii ) Explanation of amount due. The explanation of amount due information set forth in paragraph ( d ) ( 2 ) of this section may be limited to : Official interpretation of 41 ( f ) ( 3 ) ( iii ) Explanation of amount due.Show ( A ) The monthly post-petition payment amount, including a breakdown showing how much, if any, will be applied to principal, interest, and escrow ; ( B ) The total sum of any post-petition fees or charges imposed since the last statement ; and ( C ) Any post-petition payment amount past due.\n\n( iv ) Transaction activity. The transaction activity information set forth in paragraph ( d ) ( 4 ) of this section must include all payments the servicer has received since the last statement, including all post-petition and pre-petition payments and payments of post-petition fees and charges, and all post-petition fees and charges the servicer has imposed since the last statement. The brief description of the activity need not identify the source of any payments.\n\n( v ) Pre-petition arrearage. If applicable, a servicer must disclose, grouped in close proximity to each other and located on the first page of the statement or, alternatively, on a separate page enclosed with the periodic statement or in a separate letter : Official interpretation of 41 ( f ) ( 3 ) ( v ) Pre-petition arrearage.Show ( A ) The total of all pre-petition payments received since the last statement ; ( B ) The total of all pre-petition payments received since the beginning of the consumer 's bankruptcy case ; and ( C ) The current balance of the consumer 's pre-petition arrearage.\n\n( vi ) Additional disclosures. The periodic statement must include, as applicable : ( A ) A statement that the amount due includes only post-petition payments and does not include other payments that may be due under the terms of the consumer 's bankruptcy plan ; ( B ) If the consumer 's bankruptcy plan requires the consumer to make the post-petition mortgage payments directly to a bankruptcy trustee, a statement that the consumer should send the payment to the trustee and not to the servicer ; ( C ) A statement that the information disclosed on the periodic statement may not include payments the consumer has made to the trustee and may not be consistent with the trustee 's records ; ( D ) A statement that encourages the consumer to contact the consumer 's attorney or the trustee with questions regarding the application of payments ; and ( E ) If the consumer is more than 45 days delinquent on post-petition payments, a statement that the servicer has not received all the payments that became due since the consumer filed for bankruptcy.\n\n( 4 ) Multiple obligors. If this paragraph ( f ) applies in connection with a mortgage loan with more than one primary obligor, the servicer may provide the modified statement to any or all of the primary obligors, even if a primary obligor to whom the servicer provides the modified statement is not a debtor in bankruptcy.\n\nOfficial interpretation of 41 ( f ) ( 4 ) Multiple obligors.Show ( 5 ) Coupon books. A servicer that provides a coupon book instead of a periodic statement under paragraph ( e ) ( 3 ) of this section must include in the coupon book the disclosures set forth in paragraphs ( f ) ( 2 ) and ( f ) ( 3 ) ( vi ) of this section, as applicable. The servicer may include these disclosures anywhere in the coupon book provided to the consumer or on a separate page enclosed with the coupon book. The servicer must make available upon request to the consumer by telephone, in writing, in person, or electronically, if the consumer consents, the information listed in paragraph ( f ) ( 3 ) ( v ) of this section, as applicable. The modifications set forth in paragraphs ( f ) ( 1 ) and ( f ) ( 3 ) ( i ) through ( iv ) and ( vi ) of this section apply to a coupon book and other information a servicer provides to the consumer under paragraph ( e ) ( 3 ) of this section.\n\n( g ) Successor in interest. If, upon confirmation, a servicer provides a confirmed successor in interest who is not liable on the mortgage loan obligation with a written notice and acknowledgment form in accordance with Regulation X, 1024.32 ( c ) ( 1 ) of this chapter, the servicer is not required to provide to the confirmed successor in interest any written disclosure required by this section unless and until the confirmed successor in interest either assumes the mortgage loan obligation under State law or has provided the servicer an executed acknowledgment in accordance with Regulation X, 1024.32 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( iv ) of this chapter, that the confirmed successor in interest has not revoked.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-03-30T19:08:44.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"20747","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6774211","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PNC Bank N.A.","date_received":"2023-03-30T18:40:23.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( iv ) Timing of <em>compliance</em> following transition Official interpretation of 41 ( e ) ( 5 ) ( iv ) Timing of <em>compliance</em> following transition.Show ( A ) Triggering events for transitioning to modified and unmodified periodic statements."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"issue":["Struggling to pay <em>mortgage</em>"],"sub_product":["FHA <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[10.987829,"6774211"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3888794","_score":10.427449,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Our mortgage experience with GREEN TREE SERVINCING originated out of our original loan in XX/XX/XXXX with CONSECO FINANCE f/n/a GREEN TREE FINACIAL SERVICING. While my complaint is directly related to the current actions of GREEN TREE SERVICING and DITECH FINANCIAL it is a direct result of a clear and calculated plan of these entities and their owners to circumvent and violate consumer laws using name changes, bankruptcy and/or creating new entities to shield their assets and avoid being held accountable and denying consumers the means to seek legal remedy caused by their actions. While the actions alone of a corporate name change, creating a new entity or filing bankruptcy may not be illegal doing them in concert with  knowledge of avoiding the consequences of wrong doing and/or to avoid laws designed to keep necessary checks and balances in place to protect consumers transfers to a system of fraud and deceitfulness. \n\nPrior to becoming CONSECO FINANCE violations of consumer laws relating to mortgages began with GREEN TREE FINANCIAL and its violations of regulation Z and D pertaining high cost mortgages as this directly relates to our current situation. GREEN TREE FINANCIAL SERVICING was aware of these violations and stated such in its PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT filing with the SEC document ( XXXX ) date XXXX-03-02 page 33. The practice of shielding itself from the consequences of these violations are stated in GREEN TREE FINANCIALS SEC filing S-/3A ( XXXX ) under recent developments section S-22 where it puts forth its reasoning as DUE TO VARIOUS LAWSUITS IN BOTH THE UNITED STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA that it would be changing its name to CONSECO FINANCE. As part of the name change a company was CONSECO SECURITIZATION was created and it stated the purpose of its creation the direct quote from its PROPESTUS ( see below ) CONSECO FINANCE SECURITIZATIONS CORP.\n\nConseco Securitizations is a wholly owned subsidiary of Green  Tree. It was formed on XX/XX/XXXX. Conseco Securitizations may only engage in the business of acquiring pools of contracts from Green Tree and transferring those contracts to trusts such as the trusts described in this prospectus, and activities incidental or related thereto. The principal executive offices of Conseco Securitizations are located at XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Minnesota XXXX and its telephone number is ( XXXX ) XXXX. \n\nConseco Securitizations has taken and will take steps in conducting its business that are intended to make it unlikely that a bankruptcy of Green Tree would result in the consolidation of the assets and liabilities of Green Tree and Conseco Securitizations. These steps include the creation of Conseco Securitizations as a separate, limited-purpose corporation pursuant to a certification of  incorporation containing restrictions on the permissible business activities of Conseco Securitizations, requiring that Conseco Securitizations have on its board of directors at least two directors who are independent of Green Tree, and requiring that all business transactions or corporate actions outside of the ordinary course of business be approved by the independent directors. \n\nOnce GREEN TREE FINANCIAL became CONSECO FINANCE the violations continued and according to CONSECOS filing with  SEC ( XXXX file date XXXX ) they were aware of these violations citing particularly the consequences of high risk loans as part of their loan pools. Pursuant to rule 12CRF ( 1026.32 ( d ) ) in particular relating to balloon payments as this is what has caused our current situation CONSECO FINANCE knew or should have known that the law provided a means test to identify high cost mortgages that may have been in violated certain provisions pertaining to balloon payments. Again after these violations posed legal jeopardy to CONSECO it moved to change its name back to a form of GREEN TREE FINANCIAL SRVICING to GREEN TREE  SERVICING on XX/XX/XXXX under which it began servicing our loan. \n\nIn XXXX of XXXX we received a letter from your BUREAU regarding a settlement with GREEN TREE SERVINCING ( see attached ) however our mortgage was then being serviced by DITECH FINANCIAL as a result of a merger between DITECH MORTGAGE CORP, DT HOLDINGS LLC and GREEN TREE SERVING ( see below ) STATE OF DELAWARE CERTIFICATE OF MERGER Pursuant to Title 6, Section 18-209 of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, the undersigned hereby executes the following Certificate of Merger : FIRST : The surviving limited liability company is Green Tree Servicing LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and the corporation and limited liability company being merged into this surviving limited liability company are : DT Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Ditech Mortgage Corp, a California corporation.\n\nSECOND : The Agreement and Plan of Merger has been approved, adopted, certified, executed and acknowledged by each of the constituent corporations and limited liability companies pursuant to Title 6, Section 18-209 of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act.\n\nTHIRD : The name of the surviving limited liability company is hereby amended to Ditech Financial LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ( as such surviving entity, the Surviving Limited Liability Company ).\n\nFOURTH : The mergers are to become effective as of XXXX XXXX  EDT on XX/XX/XXXX. \nFIFTH : The Agreement and Plan of Merger is on file at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, FL XXXX, the principal place of business of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nSIXTH : A copy of the Agreement and Plan of Merger will be furnished by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on request, without cost, to any stockholder or member of the constituent corporations or limited liability companies, as applicable. \n[ The remainder of page intentionally left blank. ] ________________________________________ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has caused this certificate to be signed by an authorized officer, the XXXX day of XXXX, XXXX. \n\n\nGREEN TREE SERVICING LLC By : Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX : Assistant Secretary [ Certificate of Merger ] ________________________________________ State of Delaware Secretary of State Division of Corporations Delivered  XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX FILED XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX SR XXXX - File Number XXXX Through the numerous conversions and mergers our mortgage was subjected to violations of consumer housing and credit laws as outlined in the original complaint filed by your Bureau. \nWe were aware that our loan consisted of a balloon payment and attempted to refinance our loan on XX/XX/XXXX, through XXXX XXXX XXXX. We requested the payoff amount for the loan per the request of XXXX XXXX XXXX and was approved for the loan however at the closing of the loan GREEN TREE SERVICING would not accept the payoff amount they initially quoted and required an additional XXXX XXXX dollars. Though we paid our mortgage and was current at the time we were unable to get the approval for the additional funds as it was suggested that we do an upgrade to the home to get the necessary amount for the loan through the appraisal which was a 20ft x 18ft covered porch as an addition to the home we exhausted our saving in an effort to secure the loan. ( we were unable to get a copy of the loan document but attached is a copy of the appraisal ). \nAs the loan neared maturity we reached out on numerous occasions primarily through the office located here in XXXX SC ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) until it was closed to get help from GREEN TREE SERVICING even requesting help in XXXX, XXXX under HAMP we did receive the necessary documents and instructions on how to file ( see attached ) and submitted them to GREEN TREE SERVICING Loss Mitigation, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AZ and received no response after numerous calls and their continuous documentation request in which we complied but with no results. Whereas the above stated events are directly related to the loan while under GREEN TREE SERIVING the practices only continued through the conversion to a new name occurred but individual ownership remained through the merger in which I believe is not just DITECH FINANCIAL or GREEN TREE SERVICING but the institutional practice of DITECH FINANCIAL HOLDING CORP f/k/a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and its owners. DITECH continued the same practice of harassing with multiple calls within the hour several hours during the day in attempts to collect on payments only after a day or two late that fell within the ten day grace period, excessive fees and the refusal to accept proof of insurance. DITECH has continued the practice of GREEN TREE SERVICING in refusing to or engaging in any efforts to modify the loan. We did request a loan modification from DITECH because the balloon payment was due received the instructions and filed necessary documents with DITECH and again no response and filed again after we filed bankruptcy through the court portal ( see attached ). DITECH has also continually inflated the amount of the balance on the loan. In the notice of default letter ( see attached )  dated XX/XX/XXXX identifying the amount owed as {$80000.00} which we contend is not correct while in later statements after they filed bankruptcy and prior to the sale of its company starting in XXXX stating the balance to be as much as {$720000.00}. I made numerous calls to inquire about the discrepancy and was simply told this is what their records reflected. \nWhile we were under bankruptcy here in South Carolina because of the balloon payment our agreement was to pay {$600.00} per month which would be withdrawn from an account set up by DITECH FINANCIAL with XXXX XXXX XXXX  the account information was changed during the process and ultimately closed in XXXX of XXXX and. Being under bankruptcy itself in the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COURT as part of its reorganization plan DITECH agreed to sell its assets which moved it to close the account. \nIn XXXX of XXXX we received notification of a motion seeking relief was filed in the U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA by NEW RESIDENTIAL MORTAGAGE dba SHELLPOINT on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX  acting as trustee for GREEN TREE SERVICING because of failure to pay. I reached out to the consumer claims representative over the DITECH bankruptcy in SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK XXXX XXXX ( XXXX email XXXX ) in conversation she explained the statements above as to why the account was closed but that we should have been receiving statements from SHELLPOINT as the new owner/servicer of the loan. I also pointed out that we received notification back in XXXX that company GREEN TREE SERVING was resolved in a merger ( see above ) she requested the information we received identifying GREEN TREE SERVICING as the holder of the trust. \nI sent a request to Ms. XXXX per our conversation through email for a copy of any statements SHELLPOINT would have sent in XXXX and was only provided a notice of transfer ( see attached ) sent by DITECH to the bankruptcy attorney dated XX/XX/XXXX though our account was closed and we had no means to make any payments to the account. Though the law requires that statements be sent unless an exemption is claimed under the Truth in Lending Act ( Regulation Z sec 1026.41 ) as we did received periodic statements from DITECH throughout the our bankruptcy. We believe this was intentional and used to provide a reason to file the motion. \nOur current situation is a direct result of the numerous violations ( including those they agreed to refrain from committing with your BUREAU ) of mortgage and other consumer laws perpetrated by GREEN TREE SERCVICING and DITECH FINANCIAL a company that pursuant to its merger agreement should have no longer but an announcement was made preempt the announcement of its settlement with your BUREAU and the FTC to protect itself from any potential lawsuits. While GREEN TREE and DITECH are direct offenders they are organizations who conduct  business as laid out by those who manage them, these companies along with others fall under the ownership of DITECH HOLDING CORP f/k/a XXXX XXXX XXXX and the individual that manage them. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Chief Executive Officer and President, Director XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 1 ) Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Executive Vice President and Chief Risk and Compliance Officer XXXX XXXX Chief Operations Officer XXXX XXXX XXXX Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer XXXX XXXX XXXX Senior Vice President and Treasurer XXXX XXXX XXXX General Counsel, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary XXXX XXXX XXXX Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer XXXX XXXX Chief Audit Executive XXXX XXXX Senior Vice President of Financial Planning and Analysis and Corporate Development XXXX XXXX Chief Marketing Officer XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Vice President, Business Integration XXXX XXXX Senior Vice President XXXX XXXX XXXX Chairman of the Board XXXX XXXX XXXX Director XXXX XXXX XXXX These companies and along with the mangers leave in its aftermath families such ours in financial disarray along with the emotional stress and other loss financial opportunities.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-10-08T17:00:51.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"290XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3888794","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2020-10-08T16:35:51.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Our <em>mortgage</em> experience with GREEN TREE SERVINCING originated out of our original loan in XX/XX/XXXX with CONSECO FINANCE f/n/a GREEN TREE FINACIAL <em>SERVICING</em>."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"issue":["Struggling to pay <em>mortgage</em>"],"sub_product":["Conventional home <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[10.427449,"3888794"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7400455","_score":10.426323,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington DC XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau po box 27170 Washington , DC 20038 To Whom It May Concern : Since XX/XX/XXXX, I have requested that Wells Fargo allow me to pay my home mortgage. Wells Fargo has not allowed me to pay, without adding interest. Representatives of Wells Fargo have not been helpful during this 3 year dilemma. In fact, they appear to be completely satisfied with allowing interest to accrue. I received a letter, dated XX/XX/XXXX, from Wells Fargos Enterprise Complaints Management Office that states we confirmed we sent two letters to you about the upcoming maturity of your account on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nIn conversation with a Wells Fargo Executive Office Case Specialist, XXXX XXXX, I was informed that Wells Fargo had to calculate a payoff based on the loan amount in XX/XX/XXXX. Therefore, the statement regarding the letters about the upcoming maturity of [ my ] account on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX does not make sense. According to XXXX XXXX statement, Wells Fargo could not provide a payoff amount before the last month of the loan. \n\nHere are the facts.., 1. This secondary mortgage with Wells Fargo was on my primary residence.\n\n2. The primary mortgage was also with Wells Fargo, on the same residence.\n\n3. This secondary mortgage with Wells Fargo was active for over 10 years.\n\n4. The primary mortgage was also with Wells Fargo was initiated at the same time as the secondary mortgage.\n5. The primary mortgage remains active.\n\n6. This secondary mortgage with Wells Fargo was paid on time every month for the life of the loan with the exception of the final payment, which was prevented by Wells Fargo.\n\n7. The primary mortgage has been paid on time every month since inception.\n\n8. Wells Fargo has not provided an amortization schedule with accrued interest.\n\nGiven the payment history and the facts listed above, it is reasonable to conclude that a payment would have been made if Wells Fargo allowed it. For several years, I have been asking Wells Fargo to accept the final payment, in full and without interest for the period after XX/XX/XXXX. This is a simple ask considering their missteps in providing me with a final payment letter and their history of mortgage scandals. I am asking that Wells Fargo allow me to make the final payment, in full and without interest for the period after XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe Executive Office Case XXXX, XXXX XXXX, stated in his XX/XX/XXXX letter that I called Wells Fargo on XX/XX/XXXX regarding access to [ my ] online account. I also called in XX/XX/XXXX. None of my calls resulted in a payoff notice. Wells Fargo was unmoved as interest began accruing, improperly. The Executive Office Case Specialist, XXXX XXXX, stated that an investigation would take place. After approximately two weeks, Wells Fargo sent an invoice with even more accrued interest. Using the words of the Administrative Law Judge, assigned to hear the fake-account scandal in the XXXX with the Office of Financial Institution Adjudication , Wells Fargo [ failed ] to provide credible challenge. After a decade of making timely payments on the Wells Fargo, there is no acceptable reason that Wells Fargo did not allow me to make my final payment online. \nCreditors must allow online payment for several compelling reasons : 1. Convenience : Online payment offers a high level of convenience for both the creditor and the debtor. It eliminates the need for physical checks, cash, or money orders, saving time and effort for both parties. Debtors can make payments from the comfort of their homes or anywhere with internet access, and creditors can receive payments without the need for manual processing or visits to physical locations.\n\n2. Faster Processing : Online payments are typically processed much faster than traditional payment methods. Once a debtor initiates an online payment, the transaction can be completed and recorded within seconds or minutes. This swift processing benefits both creditors and debtors by ensuring timely and efficient payment processing, reducing the risk of late payments, and improving cash flow for the creditor.\n\n3. Global Accessibility : Enabling online payment options allows creditors to expand their reach beyond local or regional boundaries. Debtors from anywhere in the world can make payments easily, regardless of their geographical location. This broadens the customer base for creditors and facilitates business transactions across borders, promoting international trade and economic growth. \n4. Enhanced Security : Online payment systems employ robust security measures to protect sensitive financial information. Encryption, tokenization, two-factor authentication, and other security protocols ensure that payment transactions are secure and safeguarded against unauthorized access. This instills confidence in debtors, encouraging them to make payments online without concerns about potential fraud or data breaches. \n5. Cost Savings : Online payment methods are generally more cost-effective for both creditors and debtors. Creditors can save on administrative costs associated with processing physical checks or cash payments, such as manual data entry, bank reconciliation, and check handling. Debtors can also avoid costs associated with postage, money orders, or potential late fees due to postal delays.\n\n6. Improved Recordkeeping : Online payment systems provide accurate and easily accessible records of all transactions. Both creditors and debtors can keep track of payments made, dates, and amounts, eliminating the need for paper-based records. In case of disputes or discrepancies, having digital records simplifies the resolution process and provides an audit trail for reference.\n\n7. Customer Satisfaction : Offering online payment options enhances customer satisfaction. Many people prefer the convenience and flexibility of making payments online. By accommodating their preferred payment method, creditors can create a positive customer experience, improve customer retention, and foster long-term relationships. \n\nIn summary, allowing online payment benefits creditors by providing convenience, faster processing, global accessibility, enhanced security, cost savings, improved recordkeeping, and increased customer satisfaction. Embracing online payment methods aligns with the digital transformation of financial services and promotes efficient and seamless transactions in today 's interconnected world. \n\nWells Fargo prevented me from making the final payment online. Then, added interest after it removed my ability to make the final payment. Since the loan matured, I have requested that Wells Fargo remove the interest so I could pay the final balance. Similar to Wells Fargos Mortgage Payment Scandal where the bank failed to properly process mortgage payments, resulting in improper fees and penalties being charged to customers, Wells Fargo prevented me from paying while it ratcheted up the interest on my loan. In XXXX, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) fined Wells Fargo {$1.00} XXXX for the Mortgage Payment Scandal. \n\nCreditors such as Wells Fargo have a responsibility to ensure that the credit reporting information, they provide to credit reporting agencies is accurate and complete. Wells Fargo has violated the responsibility it has to provide accurate and complete information. Since Wells Fargo prevented my ability to pay, as I did for years before the final payment, it has provided inaccurate and incomplete information in two ways : 1 ) Wells Fargo did not report that it prevented payment during the last month of the loan ( and approximately three months after ) ; 2 ) Wells Fargo never reported that the account was in dispute for interest that accrued after it prevented final payment. In the month during, and at any time after, the final payment was due, Wells Fargo could have provided a mechanism for me to pay the final payment without placing additional interest due to its illegal delaying tactic. The actions by Wells Fargo in this matter are consistent with its actions in the Mortgage Payment Scandal referenced above, where it was fined {$1.00} XXXX by the CFPB. After nearly a hundred interactions over several years with Wells Fargo representatives, the company has not allowed me to pay the final loan amount even before the final payment was due. Because Wells Fargo changed the payment method, in the last month of the loan, and charged interest as it delayed providing an alternate payment method, it has consistently provided inaccurate and incomplete information regarding my account. \nThe Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) requires that creditors such as Wells Fargo to furnish accurate and complete information to credit bureaus in a timely manner, and that they correct any errors or inaccuracies that are brought to their attention. I have brought this information to Wells Fargos attention on dozens of occasions. The responsibility of creditors such as Wells Fargo for accurate credit reporting is essential because the information provided by creditors is used by credit reporting agencies to determine creditworthiness and credit scores. Inaccurate information can lead to errors in credit reports, which can in turn lead to negative consequences for consumers, such as being denied credit or receiving higher interest rates on loans. The inaccuracies provided by Wells Fargo to all credit reporting agencies has harmed my employment options, increased my insurance and loan rates, and destroyed my credit. With its history of fraud to include the Mortgage Payment Scandal ( {$1.00} XXXX fine in XXXX ), Credit Card Payment Scandal ( {$180.00} XXXX fine in XXXX ), Auto Loan Payment Scandal ( {$1.00} XXXX fine in XXXX ), Wells Fargo is known for providing inaccurate and misleading information. As a result of these scandals and others, Wells Fargo has experienced fines, legal action, public criticism and calls for accountability from customers, lawmakers, and regulators. Wells Fargos governance structure, internal controls, and FCRA compliance practices are highly questionable. Without question, my loan was likely part of one of several mortgage scandals, a few are listed below. \n\nXXXX : Wells Fargo agreed to pay {$85.00} XXXX to settle claims that it steered borrowers into high-cost, subprime loans, resulting in discriminatory lending practices. This was part of a broader settlement involving several major banks. \nXXXX : Wells Fargo settled a lawsuit for {$170.00} XXXX, which alleged that it discriminated against XXXX and XXXX borrowers by charging them higher fees and rates than white borrowers with similar credit profiles. The settlement included compensation for affected borrowers and changes to lending practices. \nXXXX : Wells Fargo agreed to pay {$1.00} XXXX to settle civil claims that it certified mortgage loans as eligible for Federal Housing Administration ( FHA ) insurance when they were not. \nXXXX : Wells Fargo reached a settlement of {$480.00} XXXX related to a class-action lawsuit accusing the bank of having made misleading statements about its residential mortgage-backed securities to investors. \nXXXX : Wells Fargo agreed to pay a {$2.00} XXXX penalty to settle claims related to its role in originating and selling residential mortgage loans that it knew contained misstated income information. \nXXXX : Wells Fargo agreed to pay {$3.00} XXXX to resolve criminal and civil investigations into its practices related to its sales culture, including opening unauthorized accounts and other issues. \n\nThe examples listed above show a pattern of mortgage improprieties. This list is not exhaustive, several more examples exist. I am asking that Wells Fargo allow me to make the final payment, in full and without interest for the period after XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nRegards, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-14T18:34:46.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"20011","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7400455","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2023-08-14T18:16:20.000Z","state":"DC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX : Wells Fargo agreed to pay {$1.00} XXXX to settle civil claims that it certified <em>mortgage</em> loans as eligible for Federal Housing Administration ( FHA ) insurance when they were not. \nXXXX : Wells Fargo reached a settlement of {$480.00} XXXX related to a class-action lawsuit accusing the bank of having made misleading statements about its <em>residential</em> <em>mortgage</em>-backed securities to investors."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"sub_product":["Conventional home <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[10.426323,"7400455"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18440645","_score":9.257089,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Referencing XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Below has been sent to loanDepot RE : CEASE AND DESIST WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE, DEFECTIVE COLLATERAL, AND IMPROPER FORCE-PLACED INSURANCE Borrowers : XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : VA-Guaranteed Mortgage Loan Foreclosure XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX Force-Placed Insurance Notice : XX/XX/XXXX To loanDepot, LLC : This letter serves as formal notice and demand regarding loanDepots lack of lawful authority to foreclose, improper servicing conduct, and continued reliance on materially defective collateral. \nTo loanDepot, LLC : This letter serves as formal notice and demand regarding loanDepots lack of lawful authority to foreclose, improper servicing conduct, and continued reliance on materially defective collateral. \nXXXX. Defective and Clouded Title No Lawful Foreclosure Authority At origination, loanDepot funded this loan based on representations that the collateral consisted of a unified XXXX improved parcel with residence and appurtenances. That representation was false. \nThe chain of title contains overlapping conveyances, altered or irreconcilable plats, inconsistent acreage descriptions, and conflicting deeds, including but not limited to : Prior divestment of the homesite before the sellers purported acquisition Competing deeds recorded in different counties Agricultural covenant inconsistencies with residential improvements The plat prepared by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. No. XXXX, dated XX/XX/XXXX, was relied upon as the defining boundary instrument for the XXXX property. However, this plat was not recorded with any corresponding deed book or page reference, nor does it contain a clerks filing stamp identifying its entry into the official county records. Despite the absence of a properly recorded plat, the property was subsequently placed under a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), with the covenant instrument recorded on XX/XX/XXXX, and a later bona fide application filed on XX/XX/XXXX. The use of an unrecorded or unindexed plat as the controlling boundary document for acreage certification in support of a XXXX filing raises material concerns regarding professional compliance with XXXX 43-15 and Board Rules, includingbut not limited tosurvey accuracy, proper referencing of antecedent instruments, and the requirement that surveys relied upon for legal or taxation purposes be capable of verification through the public record. The timing and manner in which the XXXX plat was utilized appear inconsistent with the minimum standards for land surveying practice and hinder the ability to reconcile the acreage certified in the XXXX filings with the chain of title and prior recorded instruments. \nLegal descriptions that do not reconcile Trustee deed and limited warranty deed inconsistencies These defects were matters of public record and therefore constitute constructive notice to loanDepot at the time of underwriting and funding. A lender may not disclaim responsibility for defects embedded in the very instruments upon which it bases foreclosure authority. \nBecause the security deed is founded upon void or voidable title, loanDepot lacked lawful authority to foreclose. Foreclosure under such circumstances constitutes wrongful foreclosure under Georgia law. \nXXXX. Improper Force-Placed Hazard Insurance Bad Faith Servicing On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX days before the scheduled foreclosure sale of XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX issued a force-placed hazard insurance notice. This was sent XX/XX/XXXX, to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX property, even though the lender had an updated address on file. I have the screen shot. Further, the letter states it was the second notice, in which we never received the first. The VA valuation officer informed us that a liquidation appraisal was done, however that was sent to an outdated address, an address we lived at back in XXXX, depriving us of notice and opportunity to protect our rights. Neither specific Georgia law nor federal VA regulations explicitly mandate that the servicer ( lender ) provide the homeowner with a copy of the liquidation appraisal during the foreclosure process itself. However, VA regulations state that all appraisal reports and VA value notices are available for inspection or copying by any party on request. We didnt even know one was completed. \nAt that time, loanDepot : Knew the property was subject to foreclosure Knew the collateral was defective and disputed Knew ownership would imminently change Imposing lender-placed insurance under these circumstances served no legitimate protective purpose and instead constitutes : Bad-faith servicing Unjust enrichment Improper charges Accounting irregularities The residence and improvements are situated on land subject to competing ownership claims, rendering the collateral uninsurable under standard underwriting practices. Any attempt to impose or charge force-placed insurance with notice of such defects is commercially unreasonable and inequitable. \nXXXX. Failure to Provide XXXX Despite Payment Despite payment for title services at closing, loanDepot has failed to provide a Closing Protection Letter ( CPL ) or produce evidence that XXXX was issued. \nA XXXX is material to determining : Whether the lender or title insurer assumed risk for settlement agent misconduct Whether title defects, altered instruments, or misapplied funds are covered Whether loanDepot exercised reasonable diligence in closing oversight Failure to provide the XXXX after payment further impairs loanDepots position and supports claims of improper closing practices and lack of good faith. \nXXXX. Notice and Demand Accordingly, loanDepot is hereby directed to : Immediately cease and desist from all collection activity related to this loan Suspend any dispossessory coordination, directly or through counsel Refrain from placing or charging force-placed insurance Cease adverse credit reporting related to this foreclosure Produce the Closing Protection Letter ( CPL ) or written confirmation that none exists Preserve all documents, communications, underwriting materials, title files, servicing notes, and third-party vendor records related to this loan Nothing in this correspondence constitutes a waiver of any rights or remedies. All rights are expressly reserved. \nXXXX. Notice Regarding Counsel and Agents Any actions taken by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX are undertaken solely as agent and stand or fall with the validity of loanDepots foreclosure. If the foreclosure is void or voidable, neither loanDepot nor any purported purchaser holds superior title sufficient to support dispossessory proceedings. XXXX et al., has failed to show superior title. \n\n\nUpdate for CFPB Georgia XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX have received complaint of fraud and misrepresentation and accepted Complaint has passed intake and I have been assigned an investigator for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX will be going out sometime next week Even though the closing documents are conflicting, and I was charged illegal junk fees, I paid for a XXXX  that no one can present.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-03T08:17:35.000Z","issue":"Closing on a mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"30040","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18440645","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LD Holdings Group, LLC","date_received":"2026-01-03T06:21:06.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Closing disclosure or other related disclosures"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>servicing</em> conduct, and continued reliance on materially defective collateral."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"issue":["Closing on a <em>mortgage</em>"],"sub_product":["Conventional home <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[9.257089,"18440645"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3989813","_score":8.758413,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, Please find my complaint against First American Title, part of First American Financial ( FAF ) XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX who defraud home buyers with bogus Title insurances which XXXX XXXX  ( a sham conduit for FAF and XXXX XXXX , owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who owns several Title Companies, like XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FAF and XXXX help XXXX XXXX Banks to operate a giant Ponzi  Scheme with derivatives and massively defraud home buyers about the REAL nature of their transaction - secretive participation in fictitious securitization scheme without borrowers knowledge or consent, where XXXX XXXX Banks sell borrowers ' IDENTITIES on the open markets for about 12-184 profits - while pocket ALL so-called \" mortgage payments '' and escrow money as their tax free revenue. \n\nXXXX XXXX never inform home buyers about WHO will actually their \" Title insurance '' company - because both FAF and XXXX know that Big Banks break every property Title in their fraudulent scheme - and of course are not going to compensate defrauded borrowers. \n\nXXXX XXXX Bankers ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX - created a perfect scheme where it simply is incomprehensible to most people how they could get a loan and then not owe it. It is even more incomprehensible that there could be no creditor that could enforce any alleged obligation of the homeowner. After all, the homeowner signed a note which by itself creates an obligation. \n\nBig Banks want to maintain this illusion as long as they can - and here why they need services of FAF and XXXX - whose subsidiaries XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, XXXX prepare fictious \" assignments '' about non-existing \" sales '' in fraudulent foreclosures presented by lawyers who do not even know who hired them - XXXX and XXXX. \n\nOn an intuitive level, most people understand that they got screwed in what they thought was a lending process. But they don't know how because most people have no reason to know what happens in the world of investment banking. \n\nBut XXXX and FAF know exactly that really happened when most homeowners thought that they were closing a loan transaction. And they know that property TITLE will be broken and clouded. This is why XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  or XXXX XXXX refuse to fulfill their obligation under the Policy they deceptively sold me. Because XXXX and XXXX XXXX are the part of the XXXX XXXX banks mob. \n\nThis is why XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX falsely claim that my \" mortgage with XXXX XXXX  is excluded from coverage. But I never had ANY mortgages with XXXX - ever. \n\nMy transaction on XX/XX/XXXX was not a loan, and XXXX XXXX was not a Lender. \n\nMy transaction was a payment to me by XXXX XXXX XXXX Banks XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who was the actual originator who passed me money for MY services to XXXX XXXX Investment Banks ; and who collects my repayment of my only compensation via XXXX agreement with XXXX/XXXX. \n\nNeither XXXX, XXXX or XXXX never touched a cent from these money. They tell they do but it is a lie. All money are going straight to Big Banks as tax-free revenue for my involuntary servitude in their XXXX  Scheme. \n\nEvery investment banker is merely a stockbroker. They do business with investors and other investment bankers. They do not do business with consumers who purchase goods and services or loans. The investment banker is generally not in the business of lending money. The investment banker is in the business of creating capital for new and existing businesses. They make their money by brokering transactions. They make the most money by brokering the sales of new securities including stocks and bonds. \n\nThe compensation received by the investment banker for brokering a transaction varied from as little as 1 % or 2 % to as much as 20 %. The difference is whether they were brokering the sale of existing securities or underwriting new securities. Obviously, they had a very large incentive to broker the sale of new securities for which they would receive 7 to 10 times the compensation of brokering the sale of existing securities. \n\nBut the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank could issue a new security from a FICTIONAL entity and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending. And this way, they could receive 100 % of the offering instead of a brokerage commission. \n\nBy disconnecting the issuance of securities from the ownership of any perceived obligation from consumers, investment bankers put themselves in a position in which they could issue securities INDEFINITELY without limit and without regard to the amount of the transaction with consumers ( homeowners ) or investors. \n\nIn short, the goal was to make it appear as though loans have been securitized even know they had not been securitized. In order for any asset to have been securitized it would need to have been sold off in parts to investors. What we see in the residential market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a sale consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or mortgage from a homeowner. \n\nAt the end of the day, the world was convinced that the homeowner had entered into a loan transaction while the investment banker had assured itself and its investors that it would be free from liability for violation of any lending laws as a lender. \n\nNeither of them maintained a loan account receivable on their own ledgers even though the capital used to pay homeowners originated from banks who loaned money to investment bankers ( based upon sales of certificates to investors XXXX, which was then used to pay homeowners as little as possible from the pool of capital generated by the loans and certificate sales of mortgage-backed bonds. \n\nFrom the perspective of the investment banker, payment was made to the homeowner in exchange for participation in creating the illusion of a loan transaction despite the fact that there was no lender and no loan account. This was covered up by having more intermediaries claim rights as servicers and the creation of payment histories that implied but never asserted the existence or establishment of a loan account. Of course, they would need to dodge any questions relating to the identification of a creditor. That could be no creditor if there was no loan account. This tactic avoided perjury. \n\nOf course, this could only be accomplished through deceit. The consumer or homeowner, government regulators, and the world at large, would need to be convinced that the homeowner had entered into a secured loan transaction, even though no such thing had occurred. From the investment bankers perspective, they were paying the homeowner as little money as possible in order to create the foundation for their illusion. \n\nBy calling it securitization of loans and selling it that way, they were able to create the illusion successfully. They were able to maintain the illusion because only the investment bankers had the information that would show that there was no business entity that maintained a ledger entry showing ownership of any debt, note, or mortgage against which losses and gains could or would be posted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ( and law ). This is called asymmetry of information. In other words, a LIE. \n\nSince the homeowner had asked for a loan and had received money, it never occurred to any homeowner that he/she was not being paid for a loan or loan documents, but rather was being paid for a service. In order for the transaction to be perceived as a loan obviously, the homeowner had to become obligated to repay the money that had been paid to the homeowner - which negated the consideration paid for the services rendered by the homeowner masqueraded as a \" loan '' The initial sale of the initial certificates was only the beginning of an infinite supply of capital flowing to the investment bank who only had to pay off intermediaries to keep them in the fold. By virtue of the repeal of XXXX in XXXX, none of the certificates were regulated as securities ; so disclosure was a matter of proving fraud ( without any information ) in private actions rather than compliance with any statute. Further, the same investment banks were issuing and trading hedge contracts based upon the performance of the certificates as reported by the investment bank in its sole discretion. \n\nIt was a closed market, free from any free market forces. The theory under which XXXX XXXX, Fed XXXX, was operating was that free-market forces would make any necessary corrections, This blind assumption prevented any further analysis of the concealed business plan of the investment banks. \n\nThere was no free market. Neither homeowners nor investors knew what they were getting themselves into. And based upon the level of litigation that emerged after the crash of XXXX, it is safe to say that the investors and homeowners were deprived of any bargaining position ( because the main aspects for their transition were being misrepresented and concealed ), Both should have received substantially more compensation and would have bargained for it assuming they were willing to even enter into the transaction highly doubtful assumption. \n\nThe investment banks also purchased insurance contracts with extremely rare clauses basically awarding themselves payment for nonexistent losses upon their own declaration of an event relating to the performance of unregulated securities. So between the proceeds from the issuance of certificates and hedge contracts and the proceeds of insurance contracts investment bankers were generally able to generate at least {$12.00} for each {$1.00} that was paid to homeowners and around {$8.00} for each {$1.00} invested by investors in purchasing the certificates. \n\nSo the end result was that the investment banker was able to pay homeowners without any risk of loss on that transaction while at the same time generating capital or revenue far in excess of any payment to the homeowner. Were it not for the need for maintaining the illusion of a loan transaction, the investment banks couldve easily passed on the opportunity to enforce the obligation allegedly due from homeowners. They had already made their money. \n\nThere was no loss to be posted against any account on any ledger of any company if any homeowner decided not to pay the alleged obligation ( which was merely the return of the consideration paid for the homeowners services ). But that did not stop the investment banks from making claims for a bailout and making deals for loss sharing on loans they did not own and never owned. No such losses ever existed. \n\nInvestment bankers first started looking at the consumer lending market back in XXXX there was no bigger market in which they could participate. But there were huge obstacles in doing so. First of all none of them wanted the potential liability for violation of lending laws that had recently been passed on both local and Federal levels ( Truth in Lending Act et al. ) So they needed to avoid classification as a lender. They achieved this goal in 2 ways. First, they did not directly do business of any kind with any consumer or homeowner. They operated strictly through intermediaries that were either real or fictional. If the intermediary was real, it was a sham conduit a company with virtually no balance sheet or income statement that could be collapsed and disappeared if the scheme ever collapsed or just hit a bump in the road. \n\nEither way, the intermediary was not really a party to the transaction with the consumer or homeowner. It did not pay the homeowner nor did it receive payments from the homeowner. It did not own any obligations from the homeowner, according to modern law, because it had never paid value for the obligation. \n\nUnder modern law, the transfer or conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a contemporaneous transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all states of the union. So transfers from the originator who posed as a virtual creditor do not exist in the eyes of the law if they are shown to be lacking in consideration paid for the underlying obligation, as per Article 9 203 Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all 50 states. The transfers were merely part of the illusion of maintaining the apparent existence of the loan transaction with homeowners. \n\nThis is why neither XXXX or XXXX or XXXX can not respond to a simple question who is the owner of my \" obligation '' ( if exists ) and who and when sold my \" loan '' to XXXX. They answer evasively because the obligation does not exist and can not be owned. \nAlthough there is a presumption of ownership derived from claims of delivery and possession of the note, the proponent of that presumption may not avail itself of that presumption if it fails to answer questions relating to rebutting the presumption of existence and ownership of the underlying obligation. \n\nThe homeowner is not getting away with anything or getting a free house as the investment banks have managed to insert into public discourse. \n\nThey are receiving just compensation for their participation in this game in which they were drafted without their knowledge or consent. Considering the 1200 % gain enjoyed by the investment banks which was enabled by the homeowners participation, the 8 % payment to the homeowner seems only fair. Further, if somehow the homeowners apparent obligation to pay the investment bank survives, it is subject to reformation, accounting, and computation as to the true balance and whether it is secured or not. \n\nThe obligation to repay the consideration paid by the investment bank ( through intermediaries ) seems to be a negation of the consideration paid. If that is true, then there is neither a loan contract nor a securities contract. There is no contract because in all cases the offer and acceptance were based upon different terms ( and different deliveries ) without either consideration or execution of the terns expected by the homeowner under the advertised loan contract. \n\nPayments By Homeowners Do Not Reduce Loan Accounts. Each time that a homeowner makes a payment, he or she is perpetuating the myth that they are part of an enforceable loan agreement. There is no loan agreement if there was no intention for anyone to be a lender and if no loan account receivable was established on the books of any business. The same result applies when a loan is originated in the traditional way but then acquired by a successor. The funding is the same as what is described above. The loan account receivable in the acquisition scenario is eliminated. \n\nOnce the transaction is entered as a reference data point for securitization it no longer exists in form or substance. \n\nFor the past 20 years, most homeowners have been making payments to companies that said they were servicers. Even at the point of a judicial gun ( court order ) these companies will fail or refuse to disclose what they do with the money after receipt. Because of lockbox contracts, these companies rarely have any access to pools of money that were generated through payments from homeowners. \n\nLike their counterparts in the origination of transactions with homeowners, they are sham conduits. Like the originators, they are built to be thrown under the bus when the scheme implodes. They will not report to you the identity of the party to whom they forward payments that they have received from homeowners because they have not received the payments from homeowners and they dont know where the money goes. \n\nThe actual accounting for payments received from homeowners is performed by third-party vendors, mostly under the control of XXXX XXXX. Through a series of sham conduit transfers, the pool of money ends up in companies controlled by the investment bank. Some of the money is retained domestically while some is recorded as an offshore off-balance-sheet transaction. \n\nIn order to maintain an active market in which new certificates can be sold to investors, discretionary payments are made to investors who purchase the certificates. The money comes from two main sources. \n\nOne source is payments made by homeowners and the other source is payments made by the investment bank regardless of whether or not they receive payments from the homeowners. The latter payments are referred to as servicer advances. Those payments come from a reserve pool established at the time of sale of the certificates to the investors, consisting of their own money, plus contributions from the investment bank funded by the sales of new certificates. They are not servicer advances. They are neither in advance nor did they come from a servicer. \n* Since there is no loan account receivable owned by anyone, payments received from homeowners are not posted to such an account nor to the benefit of any owner of such an account ( or the underlying obligation ). Instead, accounting for such payments are either reported as return of capital or trading profits. In fact, such payments are neither return of capital nor trading profit. Since the investment bank has already zeroed out any potential loan account receivable, the only correct treatment of the payment for accounting purposes would be revenue. This includes the indirect receipt of proceeds from the forced sale of property in alleged foreclosures. \n\nBy retaining total control over the accounting treatment for receipt of money from investors and homeowners, the investment bank retains total control over how much taxable income it reports. At present, most of the money that was received by the investment bank as part of this revenue scheme is still sitting offshore in various accounts and controlled companies. It is repatriated as needed for the purpose of reporting revenue and net income for investment banks whose stock is traded on the open market. By some fairly reliable estimates, the amount of money held by investment banks offshore is at least {$30.00} XXXX. \n\nAs a baseline for corroboration of some of the estimates and projections contained in this article and many others, we should consider the difference between the current amount of all the fiat money in the world and the number and dollar amount of cash-equivalents in the shadow banking market. In XXXX, the number and dollar amount of such cash equivalents was XXXX. Today it is {$1.00} quadrillion around XXXX times the amount of currency. \nAnd this XXXX  SCGEME would not succeed if XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX along with other fictitious \" sellers \" of bogus \" Title Insurances '' would not create an APPEARANCE of illusion called \" mortgage '' and \" homeownership '' It is proven by many cases in which investors have sued the named trustee of the alleged XXXX trust for failure to take action that wouldve protected the interest of the investors. \n\nThe outcome of all such cases is a finding by the court that the trustee does not represent the investors, the investors are not beneficiaries of the Trust, and that the trustee has no authority, right, title, or interest over any transaction with homeowners. Since the named trustee has no powers of a trustee to administer the affairs of any active trust with assets or a business operating, it is by definition not a trustee. \n\nAnd EVERY Propectus specifically states that mortgages WILL BE pooled in some Trusts which WILL BE created - while none of it happened in the real life. \n\nThe alleged servicers know that they have no authority and in fact do not perform any collections, administration or enforcement of anyone 's debt. \n\nSince here is NO loan account, it can not be guaranteed by any XXXX  ; there can be no default and hence no remedy is there is either no obligation or no ownership of the obligation by the complaining party. \n\nThis is why XXXX, XXXX and XXXX failed and refused to answer basic questions about the establishment, existence, and ownership of the alleged underlying obligation. \n\nI have clear evidence that my transaction was not a \" loan '' and not with XXXX Mortgage but with undisclosed investment bank who hired FAF and XXXX subsidiarties to damage my property Title. \n\nThus, First American Title and XXXX XXXX XXXX compensate me for damages, at least {$130000.00} under the policy. \n\nPlus damages for extreme emotional distress, and aiding and abetting Investment Banks fraud and racket.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-12-03T11:49:32.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"490XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3989813","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2020-12-03T11:01:04.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["What we see in the <em>residential</em> market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a sale consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or <em>mortgage</em> from a homeowner."],"sub_product":["<em>Mortgage</em> debt"]},"sort":[8.758413,"3989813"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4003729","_score":7.9205737,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, Please find my follow up Complaint against XXXX XXXX who stole my property and my money though the chain of fictitious intermediaries who posed as Lenders ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX and fake Servicer XXXX XXXX whose employees very professionally lie to Federal Authorities and defrauded by XXXX XXXX XXXX homeowners. \nI demand XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXXto provide me accounting for the money proceeds from the sale and PROOF that these money were entrusted to XXXX XXXX as Trustee and Board of Directors ; and deposited in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account. \nI also demand a copy of releases of ANY liens after the sale since I became a victim of another racketeering activity by fake Servicer Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC who tried to collect from me on behalf of non-disclosed creditor AFTER my stolen property was illegally sold by XXXX XXXX who did not even knew who was his clients since all instructions were provided by the same XXXX XXXX XXXX system who hired lawyers to commit fraud upon the Court and perjuries. \nUnder the law, EVEN IF the real default happened, the supposed creditor still must provide proof of any damages as well as satisfaction of the debt. None of it was ever provided to me. Not even purportedly original Note ( forged by XXXX XXXX ) Thus far, the banks have been selling property and then depositing the cash into an account controlled by a concealed investment bank notwithstanding the naming of the sham conduit claimant in whose name the foreclosure process was started. \nMy transaction with XXXX XXXX was not a loan. It was a singe-time payment for me to PERFORM SERVICES to the wit issue a Promissory Note which XXXX XXXX indefinitely sold as DATA to investors who placed BETS not backed by ANY collateral. \nI was expected to return my compensation, with interest ( involuntary servitude aka XX/XX/XXXX) plus return the property ( theft ) back to XXXX XXXX so they can defraud another homebuyer who is not in possession of stolen from me property. \nIt is not a secret anymore that Wall Street Banks operate a giant criminal scheme, which created XXXX Crash which resulted in over {$31.00} XXXX bailouts for non-damaged parties ( like {$50.00} XXXX bailout to XXXX which in fact went to XXXX XXXX as a pure profit ) and millions of illegal foreclosures by Big Banks as additional revenue. Now they collapsed the economy again - and nobody on the Government level is even talking about it. \nThe banks have been siphoning off trillions of dollars from the US economy for over 20 years. The level of Mayhem generated by the banks is virtually beyond human comprehension. But as a reference point for the scope of their illegal activities, consider this : there is about XXXX XXXX in XXXX currency worldwide. that is all the money there is. But the shadow banking market, which had zero in XXXX, now is estimated by most analysts to be in excess of {$1.00} quadrillion more than 15 times all the money in the world. \nThat makes the banks who make a market in this nominal stuff ( but treated as cash equivalents ) in a position far beyond the ability of anyone who wants to regulate them or otherwise keep their abuses in check. And the fact that much of the money that was siphoned out of the US economy is sitting in various off-shore locations makes control over the banks virtually impossible across political borders. \nWith no control, the banks will not just do the same, they will escalate because that is what they do. It is already apparent that the availability of credit has lured workers into allowing their wages to be replaced by debt. At this point, the Wall Street banks are in a position where they could and no doubt will find ways to present incentives for US consumers to take on more debt that in actuality is a wage for services rendered. The service rendered by consumers is issuing the necessary paperwork to establish a reference data point against which investors can place bets. The revenue from selling such bets is literally infinite. \nMeanwhile, the consumer who was lured into such transactions without knowledge of the real transaction is stuck with overpriced assets and is lured into strategies that create the illusion of delinquency, default, judgment, and sale of the property encumbered by liens. \nAll of this happens because consumers believe they are taking on loans went in fact they have become partners in a business scheme in which consumers receive none of the profits and assume all of the risk of loss. \nYet, Banks lawyer appear in the Courts when they try to get the money back that they paid to homeowners in exchange for starting a series of transactions in which unregulated securities were sold, on an infinite basis, to investors who were betting on future announcements of data performance by the issuer doing business under the name of a legally nonexistent trust because nothing had actually been entrusted to the named trustee of the named trust and LIE non-stop while none of the lawyers do not even know who is their actual clients all instructions are provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \nIn plain language all such assertions were false and all evidence of default was equally false. Such sales and the orders and judgments that permitted them were and remain void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Such court actions are ultra vires. \n\nThese illegal acts do not ripen with time. They are still void. It is the same with any wild deed. The money proceeds from such sales were paid to parties who neither intended nor received the money to reduce any debt owed by the homeowner ( s ). This was a for profit venture that succeeded by deceit, camouflage, manipulation and fabrication of documents, and false testimony. \n\nThe courts have permitted this false securitization venture and false foreclosure venture to continue under the erroneous belief that the proceeds of foreclosure sales would eventually find their way into the hands of someone who had a loss arising from the failure or refusal of homeowners to make scheduled payments in accordance with a promissory note that was executed at the time of the closing of the transaction with the homeowners. This assumption was and remains completely and utterly false. \n\nNeither the debt nor the owner of any debt owed by the homeowner existed at the time of the foreclosure. The filing of such foreclosures was a malicious attempt to cover up a fraudulent scheme that was part direct fraud on investors and homeowners, and part Ponzi scheme. \n\nThe goal of foreclosure was ( a ) to perpetuate the illusion of an existing established loan account receivable on the books and records of a valid legal creditor and ( b ) to generate funds for the foreclosure players including but not limited to some of the securitization players. In effect, each such foreclosure was a bonus lawsuit i.e., where the proceeds were used to pay bonuses and other compensation to people and companies who assisted in the scheme. \n\nLike other institutionalized practices in this countrys history that were eventually revoked and abandoned as abhorrent to simple notions of decency, law, justice and equity, the time has come for the courts to exercise their independence from executive policy and to apply the laws as they have existed for hundreds of years.\n\nYet, Big Banks lawyers continue to present FALSE statements ( Lies and Perjuries ) to the Courts, along with forged documents, and in 99 % walk away with someones stolen home and all the money when they reinforce the myth that the debts exist and that there is a creditor who owns the debt. In fact, the process referred to as securitization is a process of liquidating any entry on the ledger of any company on which a receivable had appeared. \nThe money never goes to the named claimant where the alleged claim was based upon securitization of the debt because the loan, debt, note, and mortgage were never securitized. ( Securitization means breaking up an asset into component parts that are sold to investors in pro-rata shares. Such sales never occurred. Securities were sold but they did not represent an ownership interest in any asset. ) Thus, Federal Reserves unlimited purchases of Mortgage Backed Securities ( over {$2.00} XXXX ) is another lie to keep this myth floating through the Courts. XXXX, XXXX and XXXX did not purchased any loans simply because here was no one who can sell them. All their Prospectuses are based on forward-looking statements such as we will, we shall but never we did. Moreover, GSEs and other Propsectuses specifically state that their securities are not related to mortgages. \nAll so-called mortgages ( data about borrowers identity ) is processed via Federal Reserve Depository Trust Corporation who assign them to XXXX XXXX XXXX Big Banks sell BETS on performance of DATA which they control without any supervision. \nWall Street Transactions with Homeowners and other borrowers are Not Loans. \nIt is incomprehensible to most people how they could get a loan and then not owe it. It is even more incomprehensible that there could be no creditor that could enforce any alleged obligation of the homeowner. After all, the homeowner signed a note which by itself creates an obligation. \nNone of this seems to make sense. Yet on an intuitive level, most people understand that they got screwed in what they thought was a lending process. The reason for this disconnect is that most people have no reason to know what happens in the world of investment banking. \n\nFirst, every investment banker is merely a stockbroker. They do business with investors and other investment bankers. They do not do business with consumers who purchase goods and services or loans. The investment banker is generally not in the business of lending money. The investment banker is in the business of creating capital for new and existing businesses. They make their money by brokering transactions. They make the most money by brokering the sales of new securities including stocks and bonds. \n\nThe compensation received by the investment banker for brokering a transaction varied from as little as 1 % or 2 % to as much as 20 %. The difference is whether they were brokering the sale of existing securities or underwriting new securities. Obviously, they had a very large incentive to broker the sale of new securities for which they would receive 7 to 10 times the compensation of brokering the sale of existing securities. \n\nBut the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank could issue a new security from a fictional entity and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending. And this way, they could receive 100 % of the offering instead of a brokerage commission. \n\nBut as youll see below, by disconnecting the issuance of securities from the ownership of any perceived obligation from consumers, investment bankers put themselves in a position in which they could issue securities indefinitely without limit and without regard to the amount of the transaction with consumers ( homeowners ) or investors. \n\nIn short, the goal was to make it appear as though loans have been securitized even know they had not been securitized. In order for any asset to have been securitized it would need to have been sold off in parts to investors. What we see in the residential market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a sale consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or mortgage from a homeowner. \n\nAt the end of the day, the world was convinced that the homeowner had entered into a loan transaction while the investment banker had assured itself and its investors that it would be free from liability for violation of any lending laws as a lender. \n\nNeither of them maintained a loan account receivable on their own ledgers even though the capital used to pay homeowners originated from banks who loaned money to investment bankers ( based upon sales of certificates to investors ), which was then used to pay homeowners as little as possible from the pool of capital generated by the loans and certificate sales of mortgage-backed bonds. \n\nFrom the perspective of the investment banker, payment was made to the homeowner in exchange for participation in creating the illusion of a loan transaction despite the fact that there was no lender and no loan account. This was covered up by having more intermediaries claim rights as servicers and the creation of payment histories that implied but never asserted the existence or establishment of a loan account. Of course, they would need to dodge any questions relating to the identification of a creditor. That could be no creditor if there was no loan account. This tactic avoided perjury. \n\nOf course, this could only be accomplished through deceit. The consumer or homeowner, government regulators, and the world at large, would need to be convinced that the homeowner had entered into a secured loan transaction, even though no such thing had occurred. From the investment bankers perspective, they were paying the homeowner as little money as possible in order to create the foundation for their illusion. \n\nBy calling it securitization of loans and selling it that way, they were able to create the illusion successfully. They were able to maintain the illusion because only the investment bankers had the information that would show that there was no business entity that maintained a ledger entry showing ownership of any debt, note, or mortgage against which losses and gains could or would be posted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ( and law ). This is called asymmetry of information and a great deal has been written on these pages and by many other authors. \n\nSince the homeowner had asked for a loan and had received money, it never occurred to any homeowner that he/she was not being paid for a loan or loan documents, but rather was being paid for a service. In order for the transaction to be perceived as a loan obviously, the homeowner had to become obligated to repay the money that had been paid to the homeowner. While this probably negated the consideration paid for the services rendered by the homeowner, nobody was any the wiser. \n\nAs shown below, the initial sale of the initial certificates was only the beginning of an infinite supply of capital flowing to the investment bank who only had to pay off intermediaries to keep them in the fold. By virtue of the repeal of XXXX in XXXX, none of the certificates were regulated as securities ; so disclosure was a matter of proving fraud ( without any information ) in private actions rather than compliance with any statute. Further, the same investment banks were issuing and trading hedge contracts based upon the performance of the certificates as reported by the investment bank in its sole discretion. \n\nIt was a closed market, free from any free market forces. The theory under which XXXX XXXX, Fed Chairman, was operating was that free-market forces would make any necessary corrections, This blind assumption prevented any further analysis of the concealed business plan of the investment banks a mistake that XXXX later acknowledged. \n\nThere was no free market. Neither homeowners nor investors knew what they were getting themselves into. And based upon the level of litigation that emerged after the crash of XXXX, it is safe to say that the investors and homeowners were deprived of any bargaining position ( because the main aspects for their transition were being misrepresented and concealed ), Both should have received substantially more compensation and would have bargained for it assuming they were willing to even enter into the transaction highly doubtful assumption. \n\nThe investment banks also purchased insurance contracts with extremely rare clauses basically awarding themselves payment for nonexistent losses upon their own declaration of an event relating to the performance of unregulated securities. So between the proceeds from the issuance of certificates and hedge contracts and the proceeds of insurance contracts investment bankers were generally able to generate at least {$12.00} for each {$1.00} that was paid to homeowners and around {$8.00} for each {$1.00} invested by investors in purchasing the certificates. \n\nSo the end result was that the investment banker was able to pay homeowners without any risk of loss on that transaction while at the same time generating capital or revenue far in excess of any payment to the homeowner. Were it not for the need for maintaining the illusion of a loan transaction, the investment banks couldve easily passed on the opportunity to enforce the obligation allegedly due from homeowners. They had already made their money. \n\nThere was no loss to be posted against any account on any ledger of any company if any homeowner decided not to pay the alleged obligation ( which was merely the return of the consideration paid for the homeowners services ). But that did not stop the investment banks from making claims for a bailout and making deals for loss sharing on loans they did not own and never owned. No such losses ever existed. \n\nInvestment bankers first started looking at the consumer lending market back in XXXX. But there were huge obstacles in doing so. First of all none of them wanted the potential liability for violation of lending laws that had recently been passed on both local and Federal levels ( Truth in Lending Act et al. ) So they needed to avoid classification as a lender. They achieved this goal in 2 ways. First, they did not directly do business of any kind with any consumer or homeowner. They operated strictly through intermediaries that were either real or fictional. If the intermediary was real, it was a sham conduit a company with virtually no balance sheet or income statement that could be collapsed and disappeared if the scheme ever collapsed or just hit a bump in the road. \n\nEither way, the intermediary was not really a party to the transaction with the consumer or homeowner. It did not pay the homeowner nor did it receive payments from the homeowner. It did not own any obligations from the homeowner, according to modern law, because it had never paid value for the obligation. \n\nUnder modern law, the transfer or conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a contemporaneous transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all states of the union. So transfers from the originator who posed as a virtual creditor do not exist in the eyes of the law if they are shown to be lacking in consideration paid for the underlying obligation, as per Article 9 203 Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all 50 states. The transfers were merely part of the illusion of maintaining the apparent existence of the loan transaction with homeowners. \n\nAnd this brings us to the strategies to be employed by homeowners in contesting foreclosures and evictions based on foreclosures. Based upon my participation in review of thousands of cases it is always true that any question regarding the existence and ownership of the alleged obligation is treated evasively because the obligation does not exist and can not be owned. \n\nIn court, the failure to respond to such questions that are posed in proper form and in a timely manner is the foundation for the victory of the homeowner. Although there is a presumption of ownership derived from claims of delivery and possession of the note, the proponent of that presumption may not avail itself of that presumption if it fails to answer questions relating to rebutting the presumption of existence and ownership of the underlying obligation. Such cases usually ( not always ) result in either judgment for the homeowner or settlement with the homeowner on very favorable terms. \n\nThe homeowner is not getting away with anything or getting a free house as the investment banks have managed to insert into public discourse. \n\nThey are receiving just compensation for their participation in this game in which they were drafted without their knowledge or consent. Considering the 1200 % gain enjoyed by the investment banks which was enabled by the homeowners participation, the 8 % payment to the homeowner seems only fair. Further, if somehow the homeowners apparent obligation to pay the investment bank survives, it is subject to reformation, accounting, and computation as to the true balance and whether it is secured or not. \n\nThe obligation to repay the consideration paid by the investment bank ( through intermediaries ) seems to be a negation of the consideration paid. If that is true, then there is neither a loan contract nor a securities contract. There is no contract because in all cases the offer and acceptance were based upon different terms ( and different deliveries ) without either consideration or execution of the terns expected by the homeowner under the advertised loan contract. \nPayments By Homeowners Do Not Reduce Loan Accounts Each time that a homeowner makes a payment, he or she is perpetuating the myth that they are part of an enforceable loan agreement. There is no loan agreement if there was no intention for anyone to be a lender and if no loan account receivable was established on the books of any business. The same result applies when a loan is originated in the traditional way but then acquired by a successor. The funding is the same as what is described above. The loan account receivable in the acquisition scenario is eliminated. \nOnce the transaction is entered as a reference data point for securitization it no longer exists in form or substance. \nFor the past 20 years, most homeowners have been making payments to companies that said they were servicers. Even at the point of a judicial gun ( court order ) these companies will fail or refuse to disclose what they do with the money after receipt. Because of lockbox contracts, these companies rarely have any access to pools of money that were generated through payments from homeowners. \n\nLike their counterparts in the origination of transactions with homeowners, they are sham conduits. Like the originators, they are built to be thrown under the bus when the scheme implodes. They will not report to you the identity of the party to whom they forward payments that they have received from homeowners because they have not received the payments from homeowners and they dont know where the money goes. \n* As I have described in some detail in other articles on this blog, with the help of some contributors, the actual accounting for payments received from homeowners is performed by third-party vendors, mostly under the control of XXXX XXXX. Through a series of sham conduit transfers, the pool of money ends up in companies controlled by the investment bank. Some of the money is retained domestically while some is recorded as an offshore off-balance-sheet transaction. \n\nIn order to maintain an active market in which new certificates can be sold to investors, discretionary payments are made to investors who purchase the certificates. The money comes from two main sources. \n\nOne source is payments made by homeowners and the other source is payments made by the investment bank regardless of whether or not they receive payments from the homeowners. The latter payments are referred to as servicer advances. Those payments come from a reserve pool established at the time of sale of the certificates to the investors, consisting of their own money, plus contributions from the investment bank funded by the sales of new certificates. They are not servicer advances. They are neither in advance nor did they come from a servicer. \n\nSince there is no loan account receivable owned by anyone, payments received from homeowners are not posted to such an account nor to the benefit of any owner of such an account ( or the underlying obligation ). Instead, accounting for such payments are either reported as return of capital or trading profits. In fact, such payments are neither return of capital nor trading profit. Since the investment bank has already zeroed out any potential loan account receivable, the only correct treatment of the payment for accounting purposes would be revenue. This includes the indirect receipt of proceeds from the forced sale of property in alleged foreclosures. \n\nBy retaining total control over the accounting treatment for receipt of money from investors and homeowners, the investment bank retains total control over how much taxable income it reports. At present, most of the money that was received by the investment bank as part of this revenue scheme is still sitting offshore in various accounts and controlled companies. It is repatriated as needed for the purpose of reporting revenue and net income for investment banks whose stock is traded on the open market. By some fairly reliable estimates, the amount of money held by investment banks offshore is at least {$3.00} XXXX. In my opinion, the amount is much larger than that. \n\nAs a baseline for corroboration of some of the estimates and projections contained in this article and many others, we should consider the difference between the current amount of all the fiat money in the world and the number and dollar amount of cash-equivalents in the shadow banking market. In XXXX, the number and dollar amount of such cash equivalents was XXXX. Today it is {$1.00} quadrillion around 15-20 times the amount of currency.\n\nIn the final analysis, if the truth was fully revealed, each foreclosure involves a foreclosure lawyer who does not have any idea whose interest he/she is representing. They may know that they are being paid from an account titled in the name of the self-proclaimed servicer. And because of that, they will often saying that they represent the servicer. They are pretty careful about not specifically saying that the named plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure or the named beneficiary in a nonjudicial foreclosure is their client. That is because they have no retainer agreement or even a relationship with the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. Such lawyers have generally never spoken with anyone employed by the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. \n\nWhen such lawyers and self-proclaimed servicers go to court-ordered mediation, neither one has the authority to do anything except show up. Proving that the lawyer does not actually represent the named trustee of the fictitious trust can be very challenging. \n\nIf you find the cases in which investors have sued the named trustee of the alleged XXXX trust for failure to take action that wouldve protected the interest of the investors meaning that the trustee does not represent the investors, the investors are not beneficiaries of the Trust, and that the trustee has no authority, right, title, or interest over any transaction with homeowners. Since the named trustee has no powers of a trustee to administer the affairs of any active trust with assets or a business operating, it is by definition not a trustee. For purposes of the foreclosure, it can not be a named party either much less the client of the attorney, behind whom the securitization players are hiding because of a judicial doctrine called judicial immunity. \n\nIf you ask whether the lawyer who shows up is representing for example XXXX XXXX. Or you might ask whether XXXX XXXX is the client of the lawyer. The answer might surprise you. In some cases, the lawyer insisted that they represented XXXX or some other self-proclaimed servicer. \n\nI am writing to you because In less than 2o days, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are extended. That means that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of foreclosures will be filed or completed over the next year. And just like the XXXX meltdown, the securities brokerage firms that call themselves investment banks will be swarming like maggots over the carcass of millions of lives for demand back money received by homeowners was an inducement to enter into a concealed transaction in which the homeowner was not intended to receive any benefits. \n\nBorrowers asked for a loan but never received a loan. It was not part of a loan agreement because the money was received from players who had no intention of being lenders subject to statute and who had no intention of maintaining a loan account receivable against which payments could be received and posted. \nThe attempt to get payment from homeowners is a concealed attempt to zero out the consideration paid to the homeowner for the concealed transaction. \nIn short, the homeowner was attempting to purchase a loan with the note and mortgage but didnt get it. And the money paid to the homeowner was only temporary consideration for a concealed transaction in which the players received all the benefit and the homeowner took all the concealed risks. \nAnd just like the XXXX crash, the impact of the new wave of foreclosures and evictions based on such foreclosures will be felt for years to come. The full impact of the COVID pandemic wont be known for a long time. It could result in many more people falling into the grasp of greedy Wall Street bankers.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-05T13:22:44.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"606XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4003729","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","date_received":"2020-12-10T07:39:23.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["What we see in the <em>residential</em> market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a sale consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or <em>mortgage</em> from a homeowner."],"company":["Specialized Loan <em>Servicing</em> Holdings LLC"],"sub_product":["<em>Mortgage</em> debt"]},"sort":[7.9205737,"4003729"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4003724","_score":7.870533,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, Please find my follow up Complaint against XXXX XXXX who stole my property and my money though the chain of fictitious intermediaries who posed as Lenders ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX and fake Servicer Wells Fargo whose employees very professionally lie to Federal Authorities and defrauded by XXXX XXXX XXXX homeowners. \nI demand XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and Wells Fargoto provide me accounting for the money proceeds from the sale and PROOF that these money were entrusted to XXXX XXXX as Trustee and Board of Directors ; and deposited in XXXX Trust XXXX XXXX account. \nI also demand a copy of releases of ANY liens after the sale since I became a victim of another racketeering activity by fake Servicer XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX who tried to collect from me on behalf of non-disclosed creditor AFTER my stolen property was illegally sold by XXXX XXXX who did not even knew who was his clients since all instructions were provided by the same XXXX XXXX XXXX system who hired lawyers to commit fraud upon the Court and perjuries. \nUnder the law, EVEN IF the real default happened, the supposed creditor still must provide proof of any damages as well as satisfaction of the debt. None of it was ever provided to me. Not even purportedly original Note ( forged by XXXX XXXX ) Thus far, the banks have been selling property and then depositing the cash into an account controlled by a concealed investment bank notwithstanding the naming of the sham conduit claimant in whose name the foreclosure process was started. \nMy transaction with XXXX XXXX was not a loan. It was a singe-time payment for me to PERFORM SERVICES to the wit issue a Promissory Note which XXXX XXXX indefinitely sold as DATA to investors who placed BETS not backed by ANY collateral. \nI was expected to return my compensation, with interest ( involuntary servitude aka SLAVERY ) plus return the property ( theft ) back to XXXX XXXX so they can defraud another homebuyer who is not in possession of stolen from me property. \nIt is not a secret anymore that XXXX XXXX  Banks operate a giant criminal scheme, which created XXXX Crash which resulted in over {$31.00} XXXX bailouts for non-damaged parties ( like {$50.00} XXXX bailout to XXXX which in fact went to XXXX XXXX as a pure profit ) and millions of illegal foreclosures by Big Banks as additional revenue. Now they collapsed the economy again - and nobody on the Government level is even talking about it. \nThe banks have been siphoning off trillions of dollars from the US economy for over 20 years. The level of Mayhem generated by the banks is virtually beyond human comprehension. But as a reference point for the scope of their illegal activities, consider this : there is about XXXX XXXX in XXXX currency worldwide. that is all the money there is. But the shadow banking market, which had XXXX in XXXX, now is estimated by most analysts to be in excess of {$1.00} quadrillion more than 15 times all the money in the world.\n\nThat makes the banks who make a market in this nominal stuff ( but treated as cash equivalents ) in a position far beyond the ability of anyone who wants to regulate them or otherwise keep their abuses in check. And the fact that much of the money that was siphoned out of the US economy is sitting in various off-shore locations makes control over the banks virtually impossible across political borders. \nWith no control, the banks will not just do the same, they will escalate because that is what they do. It is already apparent that the availability of credit has lured workers into allowing their wages to be replaced by debt. At this point, the XXXX XXXX banks are in a position where they could and no doubt will find ways to present incentives for US consumers to take on more debt that in actuality is a wage for services rendered. The service rendered by consumers is issuing the necessary paperwork to establish a reference data point against which investors can place bets. The revenue from selling such bets is literally infinite. \nMeanwhile, the consumer who was lured into such transactions without knowledge of the real transaction is stuck with overpriced assets and is lured into strategies that create the illusion of delinquency, default, judgment, and sale of the property encumbered by liens. \nAll of this happens because consumers believe they are taking on loans went in fact they have become partners in a business scheme in which consumers receive none of the profits and assume all of the risk of loss. \nYet, Banks lawyer appear in the Courts when they try to get the money back that they paid to homeowners in exchange for starting a series of transactions in which unregulated securities were sold, on an infinite basis, to investors who were betting on future announcements of data performance by the issuer doing business under the name of a legally nonexistent trust because nothing had actually been entrusted to the named trustee of the named trust and LIE non-stop while none of the lawyers do not even know who is their actual clients all instructions are provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \nIn plain language all such assertions were false and all evidence of default was equally false. Such sales and the orders and judgments that permitted them were and remain void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Such court actions are ultra vires. \n\nThese illegal acts do not ripen with time. They are still void. It is the same with any wild deed. The money proceeds from such sales were paid to parties who neither intended nor received the money to reduce any debt owed by the homeowner ( s ). This was a for profit venture that succeeded by deceit, camouflage, manipulation and fabrication of documents, and false testimony. \n\nThe courts have permitted this false securitization venture and false foreclosure venture to continue under the erroneous belief that the proceeds of foreclosure sales would eventually find their way into the hands of someone who had a loss arising from the failure or refusal of homeowners to make scheduled payments in accordance with a promissory note that was executed at the time of the closing of the transaction with the homeowners. This assumption was and remains completely and utterly false. \n\nNeither the debt nor the owner of any debt owed by the homeowner existed at the time of the foreclosure. The filing of such foreclosures was a malicious attempt to cover up a fraudulent scheme that was part direct fraud on investors and homeowners, and part Ponzi scheme. \n\nThe goal of foreclosure was XXXX a ) to perpetuate the illusion of an existing established loan account receivable on the books and records of a valid legal creditor and ( b XXXX to generate funds for the foreclosure players including but not limited to some of the securitization players. In effect, each such foreclosure was a bonus lawsuit i.e., where the proceeds were used to pay bonuses and other compensation to people and companies who assisted in the scheme. \n\nLike other institutionalized practices in this countrys history that were eventually revoked and abandoned as abhorrent to simple notions of decency, law, justice and equity, the time has come for the courts to exercise their independence from executive policy and to apply the laws as they have existed for hundreds of years. \nYet, Big Banks lawyers continue to present FALSE statements ( Lies and Perjuries ) to the Courts, along with forged documents, and in 99 % walk away with someones stolen home and all the money when they reinforce the myth that the debts exist and that there is a creditor who owns the debt. In fact, the process referred to as securitization is a process of liquidating any entry on the ledger of any company on which a receivable had appeared. \nThe money never goes to the named claimant where the alleged claim was based upon securitization of the debt because the loan, debt, note, and mortgage were never securitized. ( Securitization means breaking up an asset into component parts that are sold to investors in pro-rata shares. Such sales never occurred. Securities were sold but they did not represent an ownership interest in any asset. ) Thus, Federal Reserves unlimited purchases of Mortgage Backed Securities ( over {$2.00} XXXX ) is another lie to keep this myth floating through the Courts. XXXX, XXXX and XXXX did not purchased any loans simply because here was no one who can sell them. All their Prospectuses are based on forward-looking statements such as we will, we shall but never we did. Moreover, GSEs and other Propsectuses specifically state that their securities are not related to mortgages. \nAll so-called mortgages ( data about borrowers identity ) is processed via Federal Reserve Depository Trust Corporation who assign them to XXXX XXXX XXXX Big Banks sell BETS on performance of DATA which they control without any supervision. \nXXXX XXXX Transactions with Homeowners and other borrowers are Not Loans. \nIt is incomprehensible to most people how they could get a loan and then not owe it. It is even more incomprehensible that there could be no creditor that could enforce any alleged obligation of the homeowner. After all, the homeowner signed a note which by itself creates an obligation. \nNone of this seems to make sense. Yet on an intuitive level, most people understand that they got screwed in what they thought was a lending process. The reason for this disconnect is that most people have no reason to know what happens in the world of investment banking. \n\nFirst, every investment banker is merely a stockbroker. They do business with investors and other investment bankers. They do not do business with consumers who purchase goods and services or loans. The investment banker is generally not in the business of lending money. The investment banker is in the business of creating capital for new and existing businesses. They make their money by brokering transactions. They make the most money by brokering the sales of new securities including stocks and bonds. \n\nThe compensation received by the investment banker for brokering a transaction varied from as little as 1 % or 2 % to as much as 20 %. The difference is whether they were brokering the sale of existing securities or underwriting new securities. Obviously, they had a very large incentive to broker the sale of new securities for which they would receive 7 to 10 times the compensation of brokering the sale of existing securities. \n\nBut the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank could issue a new security from a fictional entity and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending. And this way, they could receive 100 % of the offering instead of a brokerage commission. \n\nBut as youll see below, by disconnecting the issuance of securities from the ownership of any perceived obligation from consumers, investment bankers put themselves in a position in which they could issue securities indefinitely without limit and without regard to the amount of the transaction with consumers ( homeowners ) or investors. \n\nIn short, the goal was to make it appear as though loans have been securitized even know they had not been securitized. In order for any asset to have been securitized it would need to have been sold off in parts to investors. What we see in the residential market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a sale consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or mortgage from a homeowner. \n\nAt the end of the day, the world was convinced that the homeowner had entered into a loan transaction while the investment banker had assured itself and its investors that it would be free from liability for violation of any lending laws as a lender. \n\nNeither of them maintained a loan account receivable on their own ledgers even though the capital used to pay homeowners originated from banks who loaned money to investment bankers ( based upon sales of certificates to investors ), which was then used to pay homeowners as little as possible from the pool of capital generated by the loans and certificate sales of mortgage-backed bonds. \n\nFrom the perspective of the investment banker, payment was made to the homeowner in exchange for participation in creating the illusion of a loan transaction despite the fact that there was no lender and no loan account. This was covered up by having more intermediaries claim rights as servicers and the creation of payment histories that implied but never asserted the existence or establishment of a loan account. Of course, they would need to dodge any questions relating to the identification of a creditor. That could be no creditor if there was no loan account. This tactic avoided perjury. \n\nOf course, this could only be accomplished through deceit. The consumer or homeowner, government regulators, and the world at large, would need to be convinced that the homeowner had entered into a secured loan transaction, even though no such thing had occurred. From the investment bankers perspective, they were paying the homeowner as little money as possible in order to create the foundation for their illusion. \n\nBy calling it securitization of loans and selling it that way, they were able to create the illusion successfully. They were able to maintain the illusion because only the investment bankers had the information that would show that there was no business entity that maintained a ledger entry showing ownership of any debt, note, or mortgage against which losses and gains could or would be posted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ( and law ). This is called asymmetry of information and a great deal has been written on these pages and by many other authors. \n\nSince the homeowner had asked for a loan and had received money, it never occurred to any homeowner that he/she was not being paid for a loan or loan documents, but rather was being paid for a service. In order for the transaction to be perceived as a loan obviously, the homeowner had to become obligated to repay the money that had been paid to the homeowner. While this probably negated the consideration paid for the services rendered by the homeowner, nobody was any the wiser. \n\nAs shown below, the initial sale of the initial certificates was only the beginning of an infinite supply of capital flowing to the investment bank who only had to pay off intermediaries to keep them in the fold. By virtue of the repeal of Glass-Steagall in XXXX, none of the certificates were regulated as securities ; so disclosure was a matter of proving fraud ( without any information ) in private actions rather than compliance with any statute. Further, the same investment banks were issuing and trading hedge contracts based upon the performance of the certificates as reported by the investment bank in its sole discretion. \n\nIt was a closed market, free from any free market forces. The theory under which XXXX XXXX, Fed Chairman, was operating was that free-market forces would make any necessary corrections, This blind assumption prevented any further analysis of the concealed business plan of the investment banks a mistake that XXXX later acknowledged. \n\nThere was no free market. Neither homeowners nor investors knew what they were getting themselves into. And based upon the level of litigation that emerged after the crash of XXXX, it is safe to say that the investors and homeowners were deprived of any bargaining position ( because the main aspects for their transition were being misrepresented and concealed ), Both should have received substantially more compensation and would have bargained for it assuming they were willing to even enter into the transaction highly doubtful assumption. \n\nThe investment banks also purchased insurance contracts with extremely rare clauses basically awarding themselves payment for nonexistent losses upon their own declaration of an event relating to the performance of unregulated securities. So between the proceeds from the issuance of certificates and hedge contracts and the proceeds of insurance contracts investment bankers were generally able to generate at least {$12.00} for each {$1.00} that was paid to homeowners and around {$8.00} for each {$1.00} invested by investors in purchasing the certificates. \n\nSo the end result was that the investment banker was able to pay homeowners without any risk of loss on that transaction while at the same time generating capital or revenue far in excess of any payment to the homeowner. Were it not for the need for maintaining the illusion of a loan transaction, the investment banks couldve easily passed on the opportunity to enforce the obligation allegedly due from homeowners. They had already made their money. \n\nThere was no loss to be posted against any account on any ledger of any company if any homeowner decided not to pay the alleged obligation ( which was merely the return of the consideration paid for the homeowners services ). But that did not stop the investment banks from making claims for a bailout and making deals for loss sharing on loans they did not own and never owned. No such losses ever existed. \n\nInvestment bankers first started looking at the consumer lending market back in XXXX. But there were huge obstacles in doing so. First of all none of them wanted the potential liability for violation of lending laws that had recently been passed on both local and Federal levels ( Truth in Lending Act et al. ) So they needed to avoid classification as a lender. They achieved this goal in 2 ways. First, they did not directly do business of any kind with any consumer or homeowner. They operated strictly through intermediaries that were either real or fictional. If the intermediary was real, it was a sham conduit a company with virtually no balance sheet or income statement that could be collapsed and disappeared if the scheme ever collapsed or just hit a bump in the road. \n\nEither way, the intermediary was not really a party to the transaction with the consumer or homeowner. It did not pay the homeowner nor did it receive payments from the homeowner. It did not own any obligations from the homeowner, according to modern law, because it had never paid value for the obligation. \n\nUnder modern law, the transfer or conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a contemporaneous transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all states of the union. So transfers from the originator who posed as a virtual creditor do not exist in the eyes of the law if they are shown to be lacking in consideration paid for the underlying obligation, as per Article 9 203 Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all 50 states. The transfers were merely part of the illusion of maintaining the apparent existence of the loan transaction with homeowners. \n\nAnd this brings us to the strategies to be employed by homeowners in contesting foreclosures and evictions based on foreclosures. Based upon my participation in review of thousands of cases it is always true that any question regarding the existence and ownership of the alleged obligation is treated evasively because the obligation does not exist and can not be owned. \n\nIn court, the failure to respond to such questions that are posed in proper form and in a timely manner is the foundation for the victory of the homeowner. Although there is a presumption of ownership derived from claims of delivery and possession of the note, the proponent of that presumption may not avail itself of that presumption if it fails to answer questions relating to rebutting the presumption of existence and ownership of the underlying obligation. Such cases usually ( not always ) result in either judgment for the homeowner or settlement with the homeowner on very favorable terms. \n\nThe homeowner is not getting away with anything or getting a free house as the investment banks have managed to insert into public discourse. \n\nThey are receiving just compensation for their participation in this game in which they were drafted without their knowledge or consent. Considering the 1200 % gain enjoyed by the investment banks which was enabled by the homeowners participation, the 8 % payment to the homeowner seems only fair. Further, if somehow the homeowners apparent obligation to pay the investment bank survives, it is subject to reformation, accounting, and computation as to the true balance and whether it is secured or not. \n\nThe obligation to repay the consideration paid by the investment bank ( through intermediaries ) seems to be a negation of the consideration paid. If that is true, then there is neither a loan contract nor a securities contract. There is no contract because in all cases the offer and acceptance were based upon different terms ( and different deliveries ) without either consideration or execution of the terns expected by the homeowner under the advertised loan contract. \nPayments By Homeowners Do Not Reduce Loan Accounts Each time that a homeowner makes a payment, he or she is perpetuating the myth that they are part of an enforceable loan agreement. There is no loan agreement if there was no intention for anyone to be a lender and if no loan account receivable was established on the books of any business. The same result applies when a loan is originated in the traditional way but then acquired by a successor. The funding is the same as what is described above. The loan account receivable in the acquisition scenario is eliminated. \nOnce the transaction is entered as a reference data point for securitization it no longer exists in form or substance. \nFor the past 20 years, most homeowners have been making payments to companies that said they were servicers. Even at the point of a judicial gun ( court order ) these companies will fail or refuse to disclose what they do with the money after receipt. Because of lockbox contracts, these companies rarely have any access to pools of money that were generated through payments from homeowners. \n\nLike their counterparts in the origination of transactions with homeowners, they are sham conduits. Like the originators, they are built to be thrown under the bus when the scheme implodes. They will not report to you the identity of the party to whom they forward payments that they have received from homeowners because they have not received the payments from homeowners and they dont know where the money goes. \n* As I have described in some detail in other articles on this blog, with the help of some contributors, the actual accounting for payments received from homeowners is performed by third-party vendors, mostly under the control of XXXX XXXX. Through a series of sham conduit transfers, the pool of money ends up in companies controlled by the investment bank. Some of the money is retained domestically while some is recorded as an offshore off-balance-sheet transaction. \n\nIn order to maintain an active market in which new certificates can be sold to investors, discretionary payments are made to investors who purchase the certificates. The money comes from two main sources. \n\nOne source is payments made by homeowners and the other source is payments made by the investment bank regardless of whether or not they receive payments from the homeowners. The latter payments are referred to as servicer advances. Those payments come from a reserve pool established at the time of sale of the certificates to the investors, consisting of their own money, plus contributions from the investment bank funded by the sales of new certificates. They are not servicer advances. They are neither in advance nor did they come from a servicer. \n\nSince there is no loan account receivable owned by anyone, payments received from homeowners are not posted to such an account nor to the benefit of any owner of such an account ( or the underlying obligation ). Instead, accounting for such payments are either reported as return of capital or trading profits. In fact, such payments are neither return of capital nor trading profit. Since the investment bank has already zeroed out any potential loan account receivable, the only correct treatment of the payment for accounting purposes would be revenue. This includes the indirect receipt of proceeds from the forced sale of property in alleged foreclosures. \n\nBy retaining total control over the accounting treatment for receipt of money from investors and homeowners, the investment bank retains total control over how much taxable income it reports. At present, most of the money that was received by the investment bank as part of this revenue scheme is still sitting offshore in various accounts and controlled companies. It is repatriated as needed for the purpose of reporting revenue and net income for investment banks whose stock is traded on the open market. By some fairly reliable estimates, the amount of money held by investment banks offshore is at least {$3.00} XXXX. In my opinion, the amount is much larger than that. \n\nAs a baseline for corroboration of some of the estimates and projections contained in this article and many others, we should consider the difference between the current amount of all the fiat money in the world and the number and dollar amount of cash-equivalents in the shadow banking market. In XXXX, the number and dollar amount of such cash equivalents was zero. Today it is {$1.00} quadrillion around 15-20 times the amount of currency.\n\nIn the final analysis, if the truth was fully revealed, each foreclosure involves a foreclosure lawyer who does not have any idea whose interest he/she is representing. They may know that they are being paid from an account titled in the name of the self-proclaimed servicer. And because of that, they will often saying that they represent the servicer. They are pretty careful about not specifically saying that the named plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure or the named beneficiary in a nonjudicial foreclosure is their client. That is because they have no retainer agreement or even a relationship with the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. Such lawyers have generally never spoken with anyone employed by the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. \n\nWhen such lawyers and self-proclaimed servicers go to court-ordered mediation, neither one has the authority to do anything except show up. Proving that the lawyer does not actually represent the named trustee of the fictitious trust can be very challenging. \n\nIf you find the cases in which investors have sued the named trustee of the alleged XXXX trust for failure to take action that wouldve protected the interest of the investors meaning that the trustee does not represent the investors, the investors are not beneficiaries of the XXXX, and that the trustee has no authority, right, title, or interest over any transaction with homeowners. Since the named trustee has no powers of a trustee to administer the affairs of any active trust with assets or a business operating, it is by definition not a trustee. For purposes of the foreclosure, it can not be a named party either much less the client of the attorney, behind whom the securitization players are hiding because of a judicial doctrine called judicial immunity. \n\nIf you ask whether the lawyer who shows up is representing for example XXXX XXXX. Or you might ask whether XXXX XXXX is the client of the lawyer. The answer might surprise you. In some cases, the lawyer insisted that they represented XXXX or some other self-proclaimed servicer. \n\nI am writing to you because In less than XXXX days, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are extended. That means that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of foreclosures will be filed or completed over the next year. And just like the XXXX meltdown, the securities brokerage firms that call themselves investment banks will be swarming like maggots over the carcass of millions of lives for demand back money received by homeowners was an inducement to enter into a concealed transaction in which the homeowner was not intended to receive any benefits. \n\nBorrowers asked for a loan but never received a loan. It was not part of a loan agreement because the money was received from players who had no intention of being lenders subject to statute and who had no intention of maintaining a loan account receivable against which payments could be received and posted. \nThe attempt to get payment from homeowners is a concealed attempt to zero out the consideration paid to the homeowner for the concealed transaction. \nIn short, the homeowner was attempting to purchase a loan with the note and mortgage but didnt get it. And the money paid to the homeowner was only temporary consideration for a concealed transaction in which the players received all the benefit and the homeowner took all the concealed risks. \nAnd just like the XXXX crash, the impact of the new wave of foreclosures and evictions based on such foreclosures will be felt for years to come. The full impact of the COVID pandemic wont be known for a long time. It could result in many more people falling into the grasp of greedy XXXX XXXX bankers.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-12-22T11:38:01.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"606XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4003724","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2020-12-10T07:30:36.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["What we see in the <em>residential</em> market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a sale consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or <em>mortgage</em> from a homeowner."],"sub_product":["<em>Mortgage</em> debt"]},"sort":[7.870533,"4003724"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5248282","_score":6.8179426,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I XXXX XXXX XXXX, am concerned that there is immediate need for injunction and restitution. I seek your expertise and authority to inform the agency heads as to the grave injustice that is proceeding. There is a hearing in XXXX XXXX today XX/XX/XXXX, under XXXX, which may cause to invalidate our recorded interest and award a Quiet title to land developers. They have interfered with all our attempts to settle the claims with XXXX Bank since prior to the XXXX foreclosure. As I am still in the home, I intend preserve my interest and The XXXX 's estate. My family have attempted to defend and assert the right to rescind and did properly defeat the WILD, Unlawful, Unconscionable contract. We are seeking right to equity and ownership of our home. \nWe are first time homeowners, first time buyers, and never refinanced, or even legally completed any remodification. The proof and records are already in the possession of the XXXX, XXXX XXXX, The CFPB file XXXX [ XXXX ] XXXX The Federal Court XXXX and The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of this state supplied by the foreclosing entities. The exhibits and statements made by the attorney on behalf of XXXX XXXX differ from the response provided to this agency compared to the response provided to the XXXX. All this is evidence confirms and substantiate everything alleged by the XXXX 's. The extent of trickery and egregious actions by the foreclosing Parties and their counsel are too numerous and therefore extremely difficult to direct the courts and regulators to. \nWe have made every attempt to navigate Non-Judicial foreclosure proceedings under the WA XXXX more than a good faith effort to negotiate with the regulatory agencies, foreclosure prevention entities, and the foreclosing parties. Everyone has ignored us. Now I see that the DOJ has found liability and guilt information under XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( See footnote at XXXX of Annex XXXX, as it relates to NPV and equity to the parties ). The settlement is contingent on the relief to the homeowners. It shows there was viable restitution and remedy to keep us out of foreclosure and out of harms way this entire time. Not one of the states agencies made an attempt to help us. This Mortgage created consist of Violations of Sections 17 ( a ) ( 2 ) and 17 ( a ) ( 3 ) of the Securities Act and 17 ( b ) engaged in transactions, practices, or sec ( 16 ) courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser. CV XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX against the false representation made by the XXXX securities offerings explains in detail the effects this contract has on the world financial markets and global economy. It also shows the knowledge and forethought of XXXX and XXXX Bank as it pertains to their respective roles. Also see that history shows all parties beside the homeowner victims were able to seek remedy or claims under securitization jurisdiction and are not injured by the XXXX 's. ( XXXX Bank XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX FDIC, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), and see FDIC XXXX & A for failed bank for XXXX cost over XXXX XXXX in FDIC insured accounts to be paid, less than half of the Liabilities after all assets liquidated. \nIn fact the XXXX was signing a stipulated Judgement to settle horrific crimes against XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( all bad acts against XXXX transpired XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX conveniently ) On XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Judgement it was explicitly noted that we were resolving claims for monetary compensation paid to us for harm done during these years. Furthermore, the damages awarded were TO BE conclusive of the damages we sustained during these years XXXX. HOWEVER, it is my believe any amount owed to XXXX XXXX would be included as they initiated foreclosure in XXXX and proceeded to trustee sale on XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX day XXXX settled with the XXXX 's XXXX I feel that a rouge escrow account falsely trigger foreclosure on us in XXXX the same month WA XXXX was cashing an extortion bank draft forced under duress to pay and then the XXXX XXXX is allowed to proceed in this State without the agency heads even looking into the DOJ XXXX XXXX XXXX the XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX disturbing. The winter of XXXX XXXX spent sitting in the cold, dark, XXXX XXXX with no food or heat trying to study law to defend against the foreclosure and the XXXX agents simultaneous, [ which is The XXXX 's full time residence not properly taxed or described ]. \n\nAll the documents and exhibits provided are an admission of the adverse party. Because they have been supplied and are available for review, I will point out several factors that appear to violate the XXXX 's rights, as well as the foreclosing statutory requirements. \nA trustee can not appoint a trustee. A Trustee and Beneficiary can not be the same persons under WA XXXX. Who is the XXXX of the DOT foreclosed on the XXXX 's XXXX? The Lienholder notice sent by XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX was sent to XXXX Bank. The XXXX XXXX states that the XXXX XXXX case was moved to XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to restrain sale. Our right to demand trial or contest a magistrate was waived XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX and XXXX XXXX say 14 days from filing a case are allowed to comply with this. XXXX is 13 days. The federal docket will also show that Ocwen filed the case XX/XX/XXXX, first document on court is the XXXX 's Complaint. This document was replaced by Ocwen on XX/XX/XXXX, the same day the XXXX was removed, and XXXX assigned. An action is not brought, and case does not commence until filing of the complaint. Further the XXXX have no idea what was placed on the federal court XX/XX/XXXX labelled \" the complaint '' and then changed XX/XX/XXXX. This is Prejudice and strange. Third the response to CFPF on page XXXX sec XXXX states sale was Postponed to XX/XX/XXXX. No notice was provided or published. Then there is the fact that Ocwen and PHH were merging in Delaware in XXXX. Ocwen was forced closed due to the violations it was already known to be committing on homeowners. XX/XX/XXXX consent order was signed exactly when Ocwen acquired the XXXX 's accounts and proceeded to do every XXXX of the violations alleged by your agency to my family up until XX/XX/XXXX. PHH was not merged in WA until XXXX. There was no servicer to negotiate with all of XX/XX/XXXX to save the foreclosure from proceeding. Further XX/XX/XXXX PHH responded to XXXX complaint and said they needed more time and would provide the XXXX response after XX/XX/XXXX sale date. Also, PHH admitted to needing more time to provide the XXXX required account statements and confessed to providing the XXXX 's with false information in their response provided to us in XXXX. \nPLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT these actions should be moot, considering I have learned that the XXXX XXXX has so been ordered, back in XXXX to provide direct relief to the VICTIMS. I am a direct transacting party from XXXX all the way until XX/XX/XXXX, when PHH sold the REO to an investment company. From XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX the title was in the name of XXXX Bank as trustee for XXXX XXXX and PHH is XXXX of attorney to complete the XXXX requirements of foreclosure and holding property. During this time the XXXX makes clear that the XXXX can void the trustee sale and make right with the XXXX 's rather than continue to move forward and knowingly perpetuate the now confirmed mortgage fraud. \nThe order and sanctions imposed by the DOJ on XXXX Bank for finally confessing to the collaboration with XXXX under the XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) transaction. Gave until XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX Bank to comply with the requirements of XXXX XXXX in the form of 100 % forgiveness or a workable negotiation. The XXXX 's being under contract the entire time with the original parties from XXXX have never been afforded any mitigation or loss prevention. We were in fact denied by all the agencies. What this means is that all equity and obligation has been performed by the XXXX 's. We paid and they do admit this. There statements show the value of the home on the XXXX records in XXXX XXXX and now XXXX. Its beyond likely they are not entitled to gross enrichment. We have receipts to prove far more paid to the parties. ( They all are now confirmed to have committed fraud under that Transaction of XXXX INABS trust. ) Why would this state not order the relief be granted rather than imply the XXXX 's must pay known criminals? The XXXX collapsed the world economy, this is an international event, PHH is a foreign company, and this may very well be crimes against Humanity. Not just against XXXX XXXX XXXX. However, I am only seeking your intervention and assistance in protection from the crime of foreclosing on my home. The XXXX 's are only the second owner of the summer cabin on XXXX XXXX. It is a XXXX XXXX and it has an interesting and odd past. The Trustee on the DOT recorded was scratched off. The original trustees named all deny any knowledge of this DOT. The XXXX is very clear that the beneficiary may assign a successor trustee for foreclosure and upon this they are vested with full statutory authority of THE ORIGINAL TRUSTEE, with which comes power of sale Who is the TRUSTEE under the XXXX 's DOT? Furthermore, the Escrow was collected XX/XX/XXXX, the heirs of the estate ( sellers ) were conveyed the estate from probate XX/XX/XXXX. The escrow covered title insurance and closing costs, for the loan on the DOT. The escrow agent was XXXX. They were not licensed. XXXX, took the escrow and some other title company forced a legal description change 1 day prior to executing the DOT with XXXX. The title insurance went with the escrow under loan displayed on DOT, XXXX took first payment early and under a different loan number XX/XX/XXXX with an entirely separate escrow account for our tax and PMI. Recently I see this XXXX account # with escrow for the PMI was still running concurrent XXXX payable to XXXX, while Ocwen started servicing XXXX under account no XXXX, to which an escrow account was also active. I even called and spoke to the XXXX in XXXX when I discovered this and they are unable to represent individuals, so I received no notice that this trust was found to have violated my family and relief was ordered. On this note it is my understanding that upon the courts recommendation or prosecutors recommendation regulatory agencies in WA may enjoin a citizen complaint if action is in the interest of the public. This is a perfect example. The same parties as in XXXX XXXX XXXX, however the XXXX have been injured directly by MERS, and there is absolute harm and certain absolute that we are at risk of paying twice. These two elements are the 2 elements of the CPA violations that were not found to be present in that case. Also in XXXX she defaulted in the first year XXXX, on much larger loan value. Even despite this the XXXX enjoined the action due to all the excitement surrounding MERS beneficiary not recording in the XXXX XXXX records. That case determined MERS was not a beneficiary under WA XXXX, but more important they recognized that XXXX dissolved and could not assign interest by a nominee in XXXX. So why can they in XXXX by way of OCWEN as MERS attorney in fact, where MERS is acting for XXXX? Could it be the patented loan document that allows them the beneficial interest? ( MERS Modified XXXX ). \nThe multiple mystery accounts ran through the life of our DOT until all agencies were starting to investigate the XXXX in late XXXX - XXXX Ocwen began to foreclose to consolidate the concurrent fraudulent accounts. This was only made aware by my pleadings to the court in XXXX by the counsel and that is why all responses to your agency heads were redacted. The court rules on redaction or debt disputes makes clear that the identifying material evidence such as account numbers do not qualify for redaction. This was a deceitful act to prejudice us. \nI recently learned fidelity was not licensed and find it must be made known to your agency and the regulatory heads that is the only reason XXXX XXXX XXXX under case XXXX is attempting to rule against the XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX for a superior title action. Because he is an escrow agent licensed to assign the DOT. When in fact the escrow agent that sold the mortgage was not licensed either, and refuses to allow Our Reconveyance and declaration. \nI have read the XXXX, XXXX, and assumption agreements, I have read the XXXX and XXXX ratings entitled \" The Takedown '' dated XX/XX/XXXX. I have read all the SEC filings from all the entities under the XXXX XXXX XXXX Issuing contract and understand how the Depositor, Seller, Issuer, Sponsor, Servicer, Lender all being IndyMac is not normal. Yet because of XXXX performing and controlling all these roles under XXXX, when they were deemed insolvent the entire contract legally collapsed. It must be void as it was made specifically when insolvent. Statutorily and traditionally this is accurate. However under the XXXX, The Trustee ( XXXX Bank [ Co-Manager of the XXXX XXXX Trust formation and XXXX ] XXXX would take beneficial interest of \" the assets '' and \" the Original Loan documents '' among many other indemnification contract language, that preserved the XXXX XXXX contract. It was not until XXXX upon officially linking XXXX Bank to XXXX and having equally engaged in the underwriting scheme, false representations of the opine, and malfeasance that action can now be brought. The share holders and certificate holders are not the only ones injured. \nDeliberate indifference as instructed under WPI XXXX appears to be consistently effecting my families right to peace and fear from persecution. I feel the Agencies are turning a XXXX Eye to XXXX XXXX Trusts abusive business Practice and failing to Prevent by required reporting of Trust. And imposing Double standards by subjecting the XXXX to the XXXX when the foreclosing beneficiary is the ISSUER, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and should have been restrained from non-judicial foreclosure. This is the issuing entity formed under the XXXX Prospectus Co-Managed by XXXX and XXXX Bank. The contract closed on XX/XX/XXXX, The same day the XXXX XXXX with the parties under the XXXX. As of the findings and in full consideration of the totality of the findings in the completed XXXX and XXXX cases conducted over the last XXXX years it has been found to be an unconscionable contract. According to the language used by the DOJ settlement as well as the FDIC, XXXX, AND similar cases settled, does not waive the rights of any individual or any agency of state or local to pursue claims for the Mortgage Securitization scheme INABS XXXX contract. That as of XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Bank as trustee lost any Indemnification provided in the XXXX contract that is the INABS XXXX. I lost all the equity by XXXX plummeting, and also the world economy collapsed as a result. My family has persevered all these years and started XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, 3 days before XXXX funded the formation of the XXXX in XXXX as a direct result of this contract. \nI also believe it is because of the desire to provide loans to the XXXX that XXXX loan numbers were generated under the XXXX 's name and I also believe these were used to manage escrow accounts unlawfully. Our NOD which should be on file was sworn by XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to have provided the XXXX 's a mediation meeting with beneficiary. It is blank on the date and time of this false meeting. I learn that XXXX XXXX was the same rep that committed perjury in a bankruptcy case by lying about hugely overstate escrow shortages XX/XX/XXXX. Could it be that the XXXX 's really did not get a mediation meeting and that we were also victim of an escrow shortage scheme? Is it fishy that the XXXX recorded on the DOT was never paid on yet the title insurance and escrow account did in fact go forth with that loan number. Is it also strange that no Trustee on the DOT truly ever existed or wont admit? are they not the one with the Power of Sale. Is it not more likely than not that the closing escrow agents had something to do with the changing of the legal description of the estate a day before close? It is no secret that the neighbors on XXXX XXXX who have now purchased the dirty deed in XX/XX/XXXX are intending to develop and are not bona-fide purchasers. They have mocked us for not having any remedy under foreclosure and are providing no legal authority to deny our recorded interest. The XXXX stated XX/XX/XXXX that they do not have jurisdiction to void the XXXX 's recorded interest, however he will sign a legally insufficient SJ order today at XXXX to try to cause such effect in order to give the appearance of justification for ruling in favor of the parties seeking to profit from horrific mortgage fraud. This is causing undue hardship, it is very disturbing and has already harmed me beyond repair. The only saving grace has been the sanctuary of my home. It was appraised at XXXX in XXXX by an independent XXXX. \nShort XXXX c XXXX : \" This act may be known and cited as the foreclosure fairness act. '' [ 2011 c 58 2. ] ( b ) Create a framework for homeowners and beneficiaries to communicate with each other to reach a resolution and avoid foreclosure whenever possible; and ( c ) Provide a process for foreclosure mediation when a housing counselor or attorney determines that mediation is appropriate. \nAdditionally the XXXX also states that the XXXX will do everything it can to work with the XXXX for the beneficiary XXXX. WA created XXXX, sec XXXX, sec XXXX, sec XXXX, sec XXXX and sec XXXX specifically to combat the hidden beneficiaries and the lost ability to negotiate with a lender. Securities and MERS give rise and are cause of legally unsound deed of trust statutes in the wake of the securitization of residential mortgages. To make matters worse the XXXX also gives detail of how the servicer and trustee are paid. Both serve to profit in such ways that are left to self regulation and honor system. XXXX would profit from the dissolution of XXXX and the XXXX, is in a position that provides beneficial interest in foreclosing, proceeds, and full deference to determine when a mortgage is in default which is breeding ground for scienter. The servicer incentives were used to prolong application times and delay modifications and in my case Ocwen accepted over a year of payments and kept them in suspense or unapplied funds continuously. They refused to apply additional payments to principal as well. \nGiven that there is clearly more than meets the eye here and there is time to save our home, and perhaps assist in continuing efforts to prosecute the bad actors, I respectfully call upon this agency and the State regulators to allow the XXXX 's to show the evidence, to seek restitution and protection. Because the PHH and XXXX bank did not sale until 2 years ago today, it is still technically within 2 years. However if your agency can confirm the DOJ settlement does in fact welcome state and local efforts to enforce. and You can confirm the XXXX XXXX XXXX is included in the list of trust that are named under the \" covered conduct ''. The XXXX XXXX list the XXXX that XXXX Bank is liable to. XXXX XXXX is listed on page XXXX left column midway down. It is only under the XXXX 's DOT that all these parties can be seen in full light. I assert that both civil and criminal acts have been committed against my family by XXXX bank. Please understand that this is no way conclusive of all the findings and evidence that I have uncovered. I am not an attorney and do not have the ability to articulate any of this briefly. I also would ask that you remember XXXX XXXX is a Trust, the ISSUING entity of ALL the securitized mortgages, and the security certificates. Within this XXXX are Hundreds of \" supplemental trust ''. My mortgage just so happens to be held in a \" supplemental trust '' also named XXXX XXXX. This is not the same as XXXX XXXX XXXX \" issuer ''. This must be understood to confirm that XXXX Bank and XXXX did both conspire and are both now confirmed liable and have both directly harmed the XXXX and continue to proceed as a normal course of business under this contract. I seek equitable estoppel, and prosecution if it is found they are ignoring the DOJ order and attempting to conduct fraudulent mortgage activity in the state of WA. \nThank you for your consideration and immediate attention to this matter as time is of the essence. The WA state constitution and statutory code do not intend to supersede any federal law or law of The United States that has jurisdiction over such entities, as regulatory, licensing, or reporting enforcement. And likewise the federal authorities have given full deference to the local jurisdictions to take action. And furthermore, in the XXXX XXXX XXXX under XXXX XXXX it also makes clear that the Servicer and Trustee will report to and abide by any local jurisdictions authority as it XXXX relate. The statute of limitation XXXX be closing, or it XXXX be seen to not yet have commenced as the compliance review for XXXX will be evaluated next month. I would like to have the concerns presented here addressed regardless if I lose my home or not. These states regulatory agencies will need to tell the XXXX 's and XXXX XXXX : 1. who the ORIGINAL trustee was? 2. who had any statutory authority ( MERS as beneficiary ) to assign to XXXX in XXXX beneficial interest of XXXX XXXX 3. Did MERS divest any beneficial interest to XXXX? If, so under what legal statute or authority do you rely? 4. Who was the XXXX that foreclosed? 5. Are they the proper party to foreclose on a residential first-time homeowner under WA XXXX? 6. If XXXX XXXX has WA approval to foreclose, does the DOJ XXXX XXXX have no merit? or is it not applicable to The XXXX? 8. If XXXX XXXX has WA approval to foreclose, can the XXXX or XXXX explain what obligation they are foreclosing on? 9. The default on the receivables, or is that one Leon secures two obligations? \nI am available for any further information and I do appreciate your diligence in this matter. \nSigned This day XX/XX/XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-04-05T12:14:45.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Other type of mortgage","zip_code":"98584","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5248282","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","date_received":"2022-02-22T17:24:03.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Securities and MERS give rise and are cause of legally unsound deed of trust statutes in the wake of the securitization of <em>residential</em> <em>mortgages</em>. To make matters worse the XXXX also gives detail of how the <em>servicer</em> and trustee are paid. Both serve to profit in such ways that are left to self regulation and honor system."],"product":["<em>Mortgage</em>"],"sub_product":["Other type of <em>mortgage</em>"]},"sort":[6.8179426,"5248282"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10880867","_score":6.0387783,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"TransUnion is obligated by the FCRA to report accurate accounting. consumer has advised ALL the inquiries reported was fraud. said company had 4 days BY LAW to remove such items. FTC fraud report was filed on behalf of consumer, consumer is now REQUESTING TransUnion to provide the documentation used to determine inquiry was indeed authorized by the consumer, TransUnion has 15 days to provide me with the name of the person spoken to, documentation used, signed application with the consumer WET INK signature. consumer is not asking for either CREDIT REPORT or e-oscar report. if TransUnion does not have documentation to show these were in FACT authorized, it must be removed ASAP. Said company is liable under the SEC to follow certain rules. TRANSUNION Commission file number XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX NY XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX i will be filing XXXX treasury omb forms to audit consumers account. TRANSUNION is securitizing consumer DATA yet Refuses to provide consumer with a copy of their CONSUMER FILE and pretends to not have any knowledge to what a CONSUMER FILE IS. consumer is not asking for CONSUMER REPORT. consumer is asking for CONSUMER FILE as stated several times in this report. \n15 U.S. Code 1681g - Disclosures to consumers ( a ) Information on file ; sources ; report recipients Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, and subject to section 1681h ( a ) ( 1 ) of this title, clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer : ( 1 ) All information in the consumers file at the time of the request, except that ( A ) if the consumer to whom the file relates requests that the first 5 digits of the social security number ( or similar identification number ) of the consumer not be included in the disclosure and the consumer reporting agency has received appropriate proof of the identity of the requester, the consumer reporting agency shall so truncate such number in such disclosure ; and ( B ) nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to disclose to a consumer any information concerning credit scores or any other risk scores or predictors relating to the consumer.\n\n( 2 ) The sources of the information ; except that the sources of information acquired solely for use in preparing an investigative consumer report and actually used for no other purpose need not be disclosed : Provided, That in the event an action is brought under this subchapter, such sources shall be available to the plaintiff under appropriate discovery procedures in the court in which the action is brought.\n\n( 3 ) ( A ) Identification of each person ( including each end-user identified under section 1681e ( e ) ( 1 ) of this title ) that procured a consumer report ( i ) for employment purposes, during the 2-year period preceding the date on which the request is made ; or ( ii ) for any other purpose, during the 1-year period preceding the date on which the request is made.\n\n( B ) An identification of a person under subparagraph ( A ) shall include ( i ) the name of the person or, if applicable, the trade name ( written in full ) under which such person conducts business ; and ( ii ) upon request of the consumer, the address and telephone number of the person.\n\n( C ) Subparagraph ( A ) does not apply if ( i ) the end user is an agency or department of the United States Government that procures the report from the person for purposes of determining the eligibility of the consumer to whom the report relates to receive access or continued access to classified information ( as defined in section 1681b ( b ) ( 4 ) ( E ) ( i ) [ 1 ] of this title ) ; and ( ii ) the head of the agency or department makes a written finding as prescribed under section 1681b ( b ) ( 4 ) ( A ) of this title.\n\n( 4 ) The dates, original payees, and amounts of any checks upon which is based any adverse characterization of the consumer, included in the file at the time of the disclosure.\n\n( 5 ) A record of all inquiries received by the agency during the 1-year period preceding the request that identified the consumer in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that was not initiated by the consumer.\n\n( 6 ) If the consumer requests the credit file and not the credit score, a statement that the consumer may request and obtain a credit score.\n\n( b ) Exempt information The requirements of subsection ( a ) respecting the disclosure of sources of information and the recipients of consumer reports do not apply to information received or consumer reports furnished prior to the effective date of this subchapter except to the extent that the matter involved is contained in the files of the consumer reporting agency on that date.\n\n( c ) Summary of rights to obtain and dispute information in consumer reports and to obtain credit scores ( 1 ) Commission [ 2 ] summary of rights required ( A ) In general The Commission2 shall prepare a model summary of the rights of consumers under this subchapter.\n\n( B ) Content of summary The summary of rights prepared under subparagraph ( A ) shall include a description of ( i ) the right of a consumer to obtain a copy of a consumer report under subsection ( a ) from each consumer reporting agency ; ( ii ) the frequency and circumstances under which a consumer is entitled to receive a consumer report without charge under section 1681j of this title ; ( iii ) the right of a consumer to dispute information in the file of the consumer under section 1681i of this title ; ( iv ) the right of a consumer to obtain a credit score from a consumer reporting agency, and a description of how to obtain a credit score ; ( v ) the method by which a consumer can contact, and obtain a consumer report from, a consumer reporting agency without charge, as provided in the regulations of the Bureau prescribed under section 211 ( c ) 1 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ; and ( vi ) the method by which a consumer can contact, and obtain a consumer report from, a consumer reporting agency described in section 1681a ( w ) 1 of this title, as provided in the regulations of the Bureau prescribed under section 1681j ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ) of this title.\n\n( C ) Availability of summary of rights The Commission2 shall ( i ) actively publicize the availability of the summary of rights prepared under this paragraph ; ( ii ) conspicuously post on its Internet website the availability of such summary of rights ; and ( iii ) promptly make such summary of rights available to consumers, on request.\n\n( 2 ) Summary of rights required to be included with agency disclosures A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer, with each written disclosure by the agency to the consumer under this section ( A ) the summary of rights prepared by the Bureau under paragraph ( 1 ) ; ( B ) in the case of a consumer reporting agency described in section 1681a ( p ) of this title, a toll-free telephone number established by the agency, at which personnel are accessible to consumers during normal business hours ; ( C ) a list of all Federal agencies responsible for enforcing any provision of this subchapter, and the address and any appropriate phone number of each such agency, in a form that will assist the consumer in selecting the appropriate agency ; ( D ) a statement that the consumer may have additional rights under State law, and that the consumer may wish to contact a State or local consumer protection agency or a State attorney general ( or the equivalent thereof ) to learn of those rights ; and ( E ) a statement that a consumer reporting agency is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from the file of a consumer, unless the information is outdated under section 1681c of this title or can not be verified.\n\n( d ) Summary of rights of identity theft victims ( 1 ) In general The Commission,2 in consultation with the Federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration , shall prepare a model summary of the rights of consumers under this subchapter with respect to the procedures for remedying the effects of fraud or identity theft involving credit, an electronic fund transfer, or an account or transaction at or with a financial institution or other creditor.\n\n( 2 ) Summary of rights and contact information Beginning 60 days after the date on which the model summary of rights is prescribed in final form by the Bureau pursuant to paragraph ( 1 ), if any consumer contacts a consumer reporting agency and expresses a belief that the consumer is a victim of fraud or identity theft involving credit, an electronic fund transfer, or an account or transaction at or with a financial institution or other creditor, the consumer reporting agency shall, in addition to any other action that the agency may take, provide the consumer with a summary of rights that contains all of the information required by the Bureau under paragraph ( 1 ), and information on how to contact the Bureau to obtain more detailed information.\n\n( e ) Information available to victims ( 1 ) In general For the purpose of documenting fraudulent transactions resulting from identity theft, not later than 30 days after the date of receipt of a request from a victim in accordance with paragraph ( 3 ), and subject to verification of the identity of the victim and the claim of identity theft in accordance with paragraph ( 2 ), a business entity that has provided credit to, provided for consideration products, goods, or services to, accepted payment from, or otherwise entered into a commercial transaction for consideration with, a person who has allegedly made unauthorized use of the means of identification of the victim, shall provide a copy of application and business transaction records in the control of the business entity, whether maintained by the business entity or by another person on behalf of the business entity, evidencing any transaction alleged to be a result of identity theft to ( A ) the victim ; ( B ) any Federal, State, or local government law enforcement agency or officer specified by the victim in such a request ; or ( C ) any law enforcement agency investigating the identity theft and authorized by the victim to take receipt of records provided under this subsection.\n\n( 2 ) Verification of identity and claim Before a business entity provides any information under paragraph ( 1 ), unless the business entity, at its discretion, otherwise has a high degree of confidence that it knows the identity of the victim making a request under paragraph ( 1 ), the victim shall provide to the business entity ( A ) as proof of positive identification of the victim, at the election of the business entity ( i ) the presentation of a government-issued identification card ; ( ii ) personally identifying information of the same type as was provided to the business entity by the unauthorized person ; or ( iii ) personally identifying information that the business entity typically requests from new applicants or for new transactions, at the time of the victims request for information, including any documentation described in clauses ( i ) and ( ii ) ; and ( B ) as proof of a claim of identity theft, at the election of the business entity ( i ) a copy of a police report evidencing the claim of the victim of identity theft ; and ( ii ) a properly completed ( I ) copy of a standardized affidavit of identity theft developed and made available by the Bureau ; or ( II ) an [ 3 ] affidavit of fact that is acceptable to the business entity for that purpose.\n\n( 3 ) Procedures The request of a victim under paragraph ( 1 ) shall ( A ) be in writing ; ( B ) be mailed to an address specified by the business entity, if any ; and ( C ) if asked by the business entity, include relevant information about any transaction alleged to be a result of identity theft to facilitate compliance with this section including ( i ) if known by the victim ( or if readily obtainable by the victim ), the date of the application or transaction ; and ( ii ) if known by the victim ( or if readily obtainable by the victim ), any other identifying information such as an account or transaction number.\n\n( 4 ) No charge to victim Information required to be provided under paragraph ( 1 ) shall be so provided without charge.\n\n( 5 ) Authority to decline to provide information A business entity may decline to provide information under paragraph ( 1 ) if, in the exercise of good faith, the business entity determines that ( A ) this subsection does not require disclosure of the information ; ( B ) after reviewing the information provided pursuant to paragraph ( 2 ), the business entity does not have a high degree of confidence in knowing the true identity of the individual requesting the information ; ( C ) the request for the information is based on a misrepresentation of fact by the individual requesting the information relevant to the request for information ; or ( D ) the information requested is Internet navigational data or similar information about a persons visit to a website or online service.\n\n( 6 ) Limitation on liability Except as provided in section 1681s of this title, sections 1681n and 1681o of this title do not apply to any violation of this subsection.\n\n( 7 ) Limitation on civil liability No business entity may be held civilly liable under any provision of Federal, State, or other law for disclosure, made in good faith pursuant to this subsection.\n\n( 8 ) No new recordkeeping obligation Nothing in this subsection creates an obligation on the part of a business entity to obtain, retain, or maintain information or records that are not otherwise required to be obtained, retained, or maintained in the ordinary course of its business or under other applicable law.\n\n( 9 ) Rule of construction ( A ) In general No provision of subtitle A of title V of Public Law 106102 [ 15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq. ], prohibiting the disclosure of financial information by a business entity to third parties shall be used to deny disclosure of information to the victim under this subsection.\n\n( B ) Limitation Except as provided in subparagraph ( A ), nothing in this subsection permits a business entity to disclose information, including information to law enforcement under subparagraphs ( B ) and ( C ) of paragraph ( 1 ), that the business entity is otherwise prohibited from disclosing under any other applicable provision of Federal or State law.\n\n( 10 ) Affirmative defense In any civil action brought to enforce this subsection, it is an affirmative defense ( which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence ) for a business entity to file an affidavit or answer stating that ( A ) the business entity has made a reasonably diligent search of its available business records; and ( B ) the records requested under this subsection do not exist or are not reasonably available.\n\n( 11 ) Definition of victim For purposes of this subsection, the term victim means a consumer whose means of identification or financial information has been used or transferred ( or has been alleged to have been used or transferred ) without the authority of that consumer, with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, an identity theft or a similar crime.\n\n( 12 ) Effective date This subsection shall become effective 180 days after XX/XX/year>. \n( XXXX ) Effectiveness study Not later than 18 months after XX/XX/year>, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a report to Congress assessing the effectiveness of this provision.\n\n( f ) Disclosure of credit scores ( 1 ) In general Upon the request of a consumer for a credit score, a consumer reporting agency shall supply to the consumer a statement indicating that the information and credit scoring model may be different than the credit score that may be used by the lender, and a notice which shall include ( A ) the current credit score of the consumer or the most recent credit score of the consumer that was previously calculated by the credit reporting agency for a purpose related to the extension of credit ; ( B ) the range of possible credit scores under the model used; ( C ) all of the key factors that adversely affected the credit score of the consumer in the model used, the total number of which shall not exceed 4, subject to paragraph ( 9 ) ; ( D ) the date on which the credit score was created ; and ( E ) the name of the person or entity that provided the credit score or credit file upon which the credit score was created.\n\n( 2 ) Definitions For purposes of this subsection, the following definitions shall apply : ( A ) Credit score The term credit score ( i ) means a numerical value or a categorization derived from a statistical tool or modeling system used by a person who makes or arranges a loan to predict the likelihood of certain credit behaviors, including default ( and the numerical value or the categorization derived from such analysis may also be referred to as a risk predictor or risk score ) ; and ( ii ) does not include ( I ) any mortgage score or rating of an automated underwriting system that considers one or more factors in addition to credit information, including the loan to value ratio, the amount of down payment, or the financial assets of a consumer ; or ( II ) any other elements of the underwriting process or underwriting decision.\n\n( B ) Key factors The term key factors means all relevant elements or reasons adversely affecting the credit score for the particular individual, listed in the order of their importance based on their effect on the credit score.\n\n( 3 ) Timeframe and manner of disclosure The information required by this subsection shall be provided in the same timeframe and manner as the information described in subsection ( a ).\n\n( 4 ) Applicability to certain uses This subsection shall not be construed so as to compel a consumer reporting agency to develop or disclose a score if the agency does not ( A ) distribute scores that are used in connection with residential real property loans; or ( B ) develop scores that assist credit providers in understanding the general credit behavior of a consumer and predicting the future credit behavior of the consumer.\n\n( 5 ) Applicability to credit scores developed by another person ( A ) In general This subsection shall not be construed to require a consumer reporting agency that distributes credit scores developed by another person or entity to provide a further explanation of them, or to process a dispute arising pursuant to section 1681i of this title, except that the consumer reporting agency shall provide the consumer with the name and address and website for contacting the person or entity who developed the score or developed the methodology of the score.\n\n( B ) Exception This paragraph shall not apply to a consumer reporting agency that develops or modifies scores that are developed by another person or entity.\n\n( 6 ) Maintenance of credit scores not required This subsection shall not be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to maintain credit scores in its files.\n\n( 7 ) Compliance in certain cases In complying with this subsection, a consumer reporting agency shall ( A ) supply the consumer with a credit score that is derived from a credit scoring model that is widely distributed to users by that consumer reporting agency in connection with residential real property loans or with a credit score that assists the consumer in understanding the credit scoring assessment of the credit behavior of the consumer and predictions about the future credit behavior of the consumer; and ( B ) a statement indicating that the information and credit scoring model may be different than that used by the lender.\n\n( 8 ) Fair and reasonable fee A consumer reporting agency may charge a fair and reasonable fee, as determined by the Bureau, for providing the information required under this subsection.\n\n( 9 ) Use of enquiries as a key factor If a key factor that adversely affects the credit score of a consumer consists of the number of enquiries made with respect to a consumer report, that factor shall be included in the disclosure pursuant to paragraph ( 1 ) ( C ) without regard to the numerical limitation in such paragraph.\n\n( g ) Disclosure of credit scores by certain mortgage lenders ( 1 ) In general Any person who makes or arranges loans and who uses a consumer credit score, as defined in subsection ( f ), in connection with an application initiated or sought by a consumer for a closed end loan or the establishment of an open end loan for a consumer purpose that is secured by 1 to 4 units of residential real property ( hereafter in this subsection referred to as the lender ) shall provide the following to the consumer as soon as reasonably practicable : ( A ) Information required under subsection ( f ) ( i ) In general A copy of the information identified in subsection ( f ) that was obtained from a consumer reporting agency or was developed and used by the user of the information.\n\n( ii ) Notice under subparagraph ( D ) In addition to the information provided to it by a third party that provided the credit score or scores, a lender is only required to provide the notice contained in subparagraph ( D ).\n\n( B ) Disclosures in case of automated underwriting system ( i ) In general If a person that is subject to this subsection uses an automated underwriting system to underwrite a loan, that person may satisfy the obligation to provide a credit score by disclosing a credit score and associated key factors supplied by a consumer reporting agency.\n\n( ii ) Numerical credit score However, if a numerical credit score is generated by an automated underwriting system used by an enterprise, and that score is disclosed to the person, the score shall be disclosed to the consumer consistent with subparagraph ( C ).\n\n( iii ) Enterprise defined For purposes of this subparagraph, the term enterprise has the same meaning as in paragraph ( 6 ) of section 4502 of title 12.\n\n( C ) Disclosures of credit scores not obtained from a consumer reporting agency A person that is subject to the provisions of this subsection and that uses a credit score, other than a credit score provided by a consumer reporting agency, may satisfy the obligation to provide a credit score by disclosing a credit score and associated key factors supplied by a consumer reporting agency ( D ) Notice to home loan applicants A copy of the following notice, which shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each consumer reporting agency providing a credit score that was used : notice to the home loan applicant In connection with your application for a home loan, the lender must disclose to you the score that a consumer reporting agency distributed to users and the lender used in connection with your home loan, and the key factors affecting your credit scores.\n\nThe credit score is a computer generated summary calculated at the time of the request and based on information that a consumer reporting agency or lender has on file. The scores are based on data about your credit history and payment patterns. Credit scores are important because they are used to assist the lender in determining whether you will obtain a loan. They may also be used to determine what interest rate you may be offered on the mortgage. Credit scores can change over time, depending on your conduct, how your credit history and payment patterns change, and how credit scoring technologies change.\n\nBecause the score is based on information in your credit history, it is very important that you review the credit-related information that is being furnished to make sure it is accurate. Credit records may vary from one company to another.\n\nIf you have questions about your credit score or the credit information that is furnished to you, contact the consumer reporting agency at the address and telephone number provided with this notice, or contact the lender, if the lender developed or generated the credit score. The consumer reporting agency plays no part in the decision to take any action on the loan application and is unable to provide you with specific reasons for the decision on a loan application.\n\nIf you have questions concerning the terms of the loan, contact the lender..\n\n( E ) Actions not required under this subsection This subsection shall not require any person to ( i ) explain the information provided pursuant to subsection ( f ) ; ( ii ) disclose any information other than a credit score or key factors, as defined in subsection ( f ) ; ( iii ) disclose any credit score or related information obtained by the user after a loan has closed ; ( iv ) provide more than 1 disclosure per loan transaction ; or ( v ) provide the disclosure required by this subsection when another person has made the disclosure to the consumer for that loan transaction.\n\n( F ) No obligation for content ( i ) In general The obligation of any person pursuant to this subsection shall be limited solely to providing a copy of the information that was received from the consumer reporting agency.\n\n( ii ) Limit on liability No person has liability under this subsection for the content of that information or for the omission of any information within the report provided by the consumer reporting agency.\n\n( G ) Person defined as excluding enterprise As used in this subsection, the term person does not include an enterprise ( as defined in paragraph ( 6 ) of section 4502 of title 12 ).\n\n( 2 ) Prohibition on disclosure clauses null and void ( A ) In general Any provision in a contract that prohibits the disclosure of a credit score by a person who makes or arranges loans or a consumer reporting agency is void.\n\n( B ) No liability for disclosure under this subsection A lender shall not have liability under any contractual provision for disclosure of a credit score pursuant to this subsection.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-21T22:11:09.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"34743","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10880867","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-11-21T21:08:39.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( 7 ) <em>Compliance</em> in certain cases In complying with this subsection, a consumer reporting agency shall ( A ) supply the consumer with a credit score that is derived from a credit scoring model that is widely distributed to users by that consumer reporting agency in connection with <em>residential</em> real property loans or with a credit score that assists the consumer in understanding the credit scoring assessment of the credit behavior of the consumer and predictions about the future credit behavior of"]},"sort":[6.0387783,"10880867"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4459792","_score":6.013365,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I recently took a look at my credit profile with XXXX, Equifax, & XXXX and discovered accounts that are not mines and were fraudulent. I have the following accounts that need to be removed from my profile immediately as it is severely affecting my quality of living. \n\n1. XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX {$4700.00} 2. XXXX XXXX XXXX {$2500.00} 3. XXXX {$2000.00} I have tried reaching out to the bureaus and they keep telling me that there isn't much they can do. It's not fair that someone can do this and the credit bureaus seem clueless as to how to help victims. \n\nI do understand under the F.C.R.A that consumers have the right to have items removed when they are inaccurate or in my case a result of identity theft. \n\n605B. Block of information resulting from identity theft [ 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ] ( a ) Block. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency of ( 1 ) appropriate proof of the identity of the consumer ; ( 2 ) a copy of an identity theft report ; ( 3 ) the identification of such information by the consumer ; and ( 4 ) a statement by the consumer that the information is not information relating to any transaction by the consumer.\n\n( b ) Notification. A consumer reporting agency shall promptly notify the furnisher of information identified by the consumer under subsection ( a ) -- ( 1 ) that the information may be a result of identity theft ; ( 2 ) that an identity theft report has been filed ; ( 3 ) that a block has been requested under this section ; and ( 4 ) of the effective dates of the block.\n\n609. Disclosures to consumers [ 15 U.S.C. 1681g ] ( a ) Information on file ; sources ; report recipients. Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, and subject to 610 ( a ) ( 1 ) [ 1681h ], clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer : ( 1 ) All information in the consumer 's file at the time of the request except that -- ( A ) if the consumer to whom the file relates requests that the first 5 digits of the social security number ( or similar identification number ) of the consumer not be included in the disclosure and the consumer reporting agency has received appropriate proof of the identity of the requester, the consumer reporting agency shall so truncate such number in such disclosure ; and ( B ) nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to disclose to a consumer any information concerning credit scores or any other risk scores or predictors relating to the consumer.\n\n( 2 ) The sources of the information ; except that the sources of information acquired solely for use in preparing an investigative consumer report and actually use for no other purpose need not be disclosed : Provided, That in the event an action is brought under this title, such sources shall be available to the plaintiff under appropriate discovery procedures in the court in which the action is brought.\n\n( 3 ) ( A ) Identification of each person ( including each end-user identified under section 607 ( e ) ( 1 ) [ 1681e ] ) that procured a consumer report ( i ) for employment purposes, during the 2-year period preceding the date on which the request is made ; or ( ii ) for any other purpose, during the 1-year period preceding the date on which the request is made.\n\n( B ) An identification of a person under subparagraph ( A ) shall include ( i ) the name of the person or, if applicable, the trade name ( written in full ) under which such person conducts business ; and ( ii ) upon request of the consumer, the address and telephone number of the person.\n\n( C ) Subparagraph ( A ) does not apply if ( i ) the end user is an agency or department of the United States Government that procures the report from the person for purposes of determining the eligibility of the consumer to whom the report relates to receive access or continued access to classified information ( as defined in section 604 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( E ) ( i ) ) ; and ( ii ) the head of the agency or department makes a written finding as prescribed under section 604 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( A ).\n\n( 4 ) The dates, original payees, and amounts of any checks upon which is based any adverse characterization of the consumer, included in the file at the time of the disclosure.\n\n( 5 ) A record of all inquiries received by the agency during the 1-year period preceding the request that identified the consumer in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that was not initiated by the consumer.\n\n( 6 ) If the consumer requests the credit file and not the credit score, a statement that the consumer may request and obtain a credit score.\n\n( b ) Exempt information. The requirements of subsection ( a ) of this section respecting the disclosure of sources of information and the recipients of consumer reports do not apply to information received or consumer reports furnished prior to the effective date of this title except to the extent that the matter involved is contained in the files of the consumer reporting agency on that date.\n\n( c ) Summary of Rights to Obtain and Dispute Information in Consumer Reports and to Obtain Credit Scores ( 1 ) Bureau Summary of Rights Required ( A ) In general. The Bureau shall prepare a model summary of the rights of consumers under this title.\n\n( B ) Content of summary. The summary of rights prepared under subparagraph ( A ) shall include a description of ( i ) the right of a consumer to obtain a copy of a consumer report under subsection ( a ) from each consumer reporting agency ; ( ii ) the frequency and circumstances under which a consumer is entitled to receive a consumer report without charge under section 612 ; ( iii ) the right of a consumer to dispute information in the file of the consumer under section 611 ; ( iv ) the right of a consumer to obtain a credit score from a consumer reporting agency, and a description of how to obtain a credit score ; ( v ) the method by which a consumer can contact, and obtain a consumer report from, a consumer reporting agency without charge, as provided in the regulations of the Bureau prescribed under section 211 ( c ) of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ; and ( vi ) the method by which a consumer can contact, and obtain a consumer report from, a consumer reporting agency described in section 603 ( w ), as provided in the regulations of the Bureau prescribed under section 612 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ).\n\n( C ) Availability of summary of rights. The Bureau shall ( i ) actively publicize the availability of the summary of rights prepared under this paragraph ; ( ii ) conspicuously post on its Internet website the availability of such summary of rights ; and ( iii ) promptly make such summary of rights available to consumers, on request.\n\n( 2 ) Summary of rights required to be included with agency disclosures. A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer, with each written disclosure by the agency to the consumer under this section ( A ) the summary of rights prepared by the Bureau under paragraph ( 1 ) ; ( B ) in the case of a consumer reporting agency described in section 603 ( p ), a toll-free telephone number established by the agency, at which personnel are accessible to consumers during normal business hours ; ( C ) a list of all Federal agencies responsible for enforcing any provision of this title, and the address and any appropriate phone number of each such agency, in a form that will assist the consumer in selecting the appropriate agency ; ( D ) a statement that the consumer may have additional rights under State law, and that the consumer may wish to contact a State or local consumer protection agency or a State attorney general ( or the equivalent thereof ) to learn of those rights ; and ( E ) a statement that a consumer reporting agency is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from the file of a consumer, unless the information is outdated under section 605 or can not be verified.\n\n( d ) Summary of Rights of Identity Theft Victims ( 1 ) In general. The Bureau, in consultation with the Federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration, shall prepare a model summary of the rights of consumers under this title with respect to the procedures for remedying the effects of fraud or identity theft involving credit, an electronic fund transfer, or an account or transaction at or with a financial institution or other creditor.\n\n( 2 ) Summary of rights and contact information. Beginning 60 days after the date on which the model summary of rights is prescribed in final form by the Bureau pursuant to paragraph ( 1 ), if any consumer contacts a consumer reporting agency and expresses a belief that the consumer is a victim of fraud or identity theft involving credit, an electronic fund transfer, or an account or transaction at or with a financial institution or other creditor, the consumer reporting agency shall, in addition to any other action that the agency may take, provide the consumer with a summary of rights that contains all of the information required by the Bureau under paragraph ( 1 ), and information on how to contact the Bureau to obtain more detailed information.\n\n( e ) Information Available to Victims ( 1 ) In general. For the purpose of documenting fraudulent transactions resulting from identity theft, not later than 30 days after the date of receipt of a request from a victim in accordance with paragraph ( 3 ), and subject to verification of the identity of the victim and the claim of identity theft in accordance with paragraph ( 2 ), a business entity that has provided credit to, provided for consideration products, goods, or services to, accepted payment from, or otherwise entered into a commercial transaction for consideration with, a person who has allegedly made unauthorized use of the means of identification of the victim, shall provide a copy of application and business transaction records in the control of the business entity, whether maintained by the business entity or by another person on behalf of the business entity, evidencing any transaction alleged to be a result of identity theft to ( A ) the victim ; ( B ) any Federal, State, or local government law enforcement agency or officer specified by the victim in such a request ; or ( C ) any law enforcement agency investigating the identity theft and authorized by the victim to take receipt of records provided under this subsection.\n\n( 2 ) Verification of identity and claim. Before a business entity provides any information under paragraph ( 1 ), unless the business entity, at its discretion, otherwise has a high degree of confidence that it knows the identity of the victim making a request under paragraph ( 1 ), the victim shall provide to the business entity ( A ) as proof of positive identification of the victim, at the election of the business entity ( i ) the presentation of a government-issued identification card ; ( ii ) personally identifying information of the same type as was provided to the business entity by the unauthorized person ; or ( iii ) personally identifying information that the business entity typically requests from new applicants or for new transactions, at the time of the victim 's request for information, including any documentation described in clauses ( i ) and ( ii ) ; and ( B ) as proof of a claim of identity theft, at the election of the business entity ( i ) a copy of a police report evidencing the claim of the victim of identity theft ; and ( ii ) a properly completed ( I ) copy of a standardized affidavit of identity theft developed and made available by the Bureau ; or ( II ) an affidavit of fact that is acceptable to the business entity for that purpose.\n\n( 3 ) Procedures. The request of a victim under paragraph ( 1 ) shall ( A ) be in writing ; ( B ) be mailed to an address specified by the business entity, if any ; and ( C ) if asked by the business entity, include relevant information about any transaction alleged to be a result of identity theft to facilitate compliance with this section including ( i ) if known by the victim ( or if readily obtainable by the victim ), the date of the application or transaction ; and ( ii ) if known by the victim ( or if readily obtainable by the victim ), any other identifying information such as an account or transaction number.\n\n( 4 ) No charge to victim. Information required to be provided under paragraph ( 1 ) shall be so provided without charge.\n\n( 5 ) Authority to decline to provide information. A business entity may decline to provide information under paragraph ( 1 ) if, in the exercise of good faith, the business entity determines that ( A ) this subsection does not require disclosure of the information ; ( B ) after reviewing the information provided pursuant to paragraph ( 2 ), the business entity does not have a high degree of confidence in knowing the true identity of the individual requesting the information ; ( C ) the request for the information is based on a misrepresentation of fact by the individual requesting the information relevant to the request for information ; or ( D ) the information requested is Internet navigational data or similar information about a person 's visit to a website or online service.\n\n( 6 ) Limitation on liability. Except as provided in section 621, sections 616 and 617 do not apply to any violation of this subsection.\n\n( 7 ) Limitation on civil liability. No business entity may be held civilly liable under any provision of Federal, State, or other law for disclosure, made in good faith pursuant to this subsection.\n\n( 8 ) No new recordkeeping obligation. Nothing in this subsection creates an obligation on the part of a business entity to obtain, retain, or maintain information or records that are not otherwise required to be obtained, retained, or maintained in the ordinary course of its business or under other applicable law.\n\n( 9 ) Rule of Construction ( A ) In general. No provision of subtitle A of title V of Public Law 106-102, prohibiting the disclosure of financial information by a business entity to third parties shall be used to deny disclosure of information to the victim under this subsection.\n\n( B ) Limitation. Except as provided in subparagraph ( A ), nothing in this subsection permits a business entity to disclose information, including information to law enforcement under subparagraphs ( B ) and ( C ) of paragraph ( 1 ), that the business entity is otherwise prohibited from disclosing under any other applicable provision of Federal or State law.\n\n( 10 ) Affirmative defense. In any civil action brought to enforce this subsection, it is an affirmative defense ( which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence ) for a business entity to file an affidavit or answer stating that ( A ) the business entity has made a reasonably diligent search of its available business records ; and ( B ) the records requested under this subsection do not exist or are not reasonably available.\n\n( 11 ) Definition of victim. For purposes of this subsection, the term \" victim '' means a consumer whose means of identification or financial information has been used or transferred ( or has been alleged to have been used or transferred ) without the authority of that consumer, with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, an identity theft or a similar crime.\n\n( 12 ) Effective date. This subsection shall become effective 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection.\n\n( 13 ) Effectiveness study. Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a report to Congress assessing the effectiveness of this provision.\n\n( f ) Disclosure of Credit Scores ( 1 ) In general. Upon the request of a consumer for a credit score, a consumer reporting agency shall supply to the consumer a statement indicating that the information and credit scoring model may be different than the credit score that may be used by the lender, and a notice which shall include ( A ) the current credit score of the consumer or the most recent credit score of the consumer that was previously calculated by the credit reporting agency for a purpose related to the extension of credit ; ( B ) the range of possible credit scores under the model used ; ( C ) all of the key factors that adversely affected the credit score of the consumer in the model used, the total number of which shall not exceed 4, subject to paragraph ( 9 ) ; ( D ) the date on which the credit score was created ; and ( E ) the name of the person or entity that provided the credit score or credit file upon which the credit score was created.\n\n( 2 ) Definitions. For purposes of this subsection, the following definitions shall apply : ( A ) The term \" credit score '' ( i ) means a numerical value or a categorization derived from a statistical tool or modeling system used by a person who makes or arranges a loan to predict the likelihood of certain credit behaviors, including default ( and the numerical value or the categorization derived from such analysis may also be referred to as a \" risk predictor '' or \" risk score '' ) ; and ( ii ) does not include ( I ) any mortgage score or rating of an automated underwriting system that considers one or more factors in addition to credit information, including the loan to value ratio, the amount of down payment, or the financial assets of a consumer ; or ( II ) any other elements of the underwriting process or underwriting decision.\n\n( B ) The term \" key factors '' means all relevant elements or reasons adversely affecting the credit score for the particular individual, listed in the order of their importance based on their effect on the credit score.\n\n( 3 ) Timeframe and manner of disclosure. The information required by this subsection shall be provided in the same timeframe and manner as the information described in subsection ( a ).\n\n( 4 ) Applicability to certain uses. This subsection shall not be construed so as to compel a consumer reporting agency to develop or disclose a score if the agency does not ( A ) distribute scores that are used in connection with residential real property loans ; or ( B ) develop scores that assist credit providers in understanding the general credit behavior of a consumer and predicting the future credit behavior of the consumer.\n\n( 5 ) Applicability to credit scores developed by another person.\n\n( A ) In general. This subsection shall not be construed to require a consumer reporting agency that distributes credit scores developed by another person or entity to provide a further explanation of them, or to process a dispute arising pursuant to section 611, except that the consumer reporting agency shall provide the consumer with the name and address and website for contacting the person or entity who developed the score or developed the methodology of the score.\n\n( B ) Exception. This paragraph shall not apply to a consumer reporting agency that develops or modifies scores that are developed by another person or entity.\n\n( 6 ) Maintenance of credit scores not required. This subsection shall not be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to maintain credit scores in its files.\n\n( 7 ) Compliance in certain cases. In complying with this subsection, a consumer reporting agency shall ( A ) supply the consumer with a credit score that is derived from a credit scoring model that is widely distributed to users by that consumer reporting agency in connection with residential real property loans or with a credit score that assists the consumer in understanding the credit scoring assessment of the credit behavior of the consumer and predictions about the future credit behavior of the consumer ; and ( B ) a statement indicating that the information and credit scoring model may be different than that used by the lender.\n\n( 8 ) Fair and reasonable fee. A consumer reporting agency may charge a fair and reasonable fee, as determined by the Bureau, for providing the information required under this subsection. See also 69 Fed. Reg. 64698 ( 11/08/04 ) ( 9 ) Use of enquiries as a key factor. If a key factor that adversely affects the credit score of a consumer consists of the number of enquiries made with respect to a consumer report, that factor shall be included in the disclosure pursuant to paragraph ( 1 ) ( C ) without regard to the numerical limitation in such paragraph.\n\n( g ) Disclosure of Credit Scores by Certain Mortgage Lenders ( 1 ) In general. Any person who makes or arranges loans and who uses a consumer credit score, as defined in subsection ( f ), in connection with an application initiated or sought by a consumer for a closed end loan or the establishment of an open end loan for a consumer purpose that is secured by 1 to 4 units of residential real property ( hereafter in this subsection referred to as the \" lender '' ) shall provide the following to the consumer as soon as reasonably practicable : ( A ) Information Required under Subsection ( f ) ( i ) In general. A copy of the information identified in subsection ( f ) that was obtained from a consumer reporting agency or was developed and used by the user of the information.\n\n( ii ) Notice under subparagraph ( D ). In addition to the information provided to it by a third party that provided the credit score or scores, a lender is only required to provide the notice contained in subparagraph ( D ).\n\n( B ) Disclosures in Case of Automated Underwriting System ( i ) In general. If a person that is subject to this subsection uses an automated underwriting system to underwrite a loan, that person may satisfy the obligation to provide a credit score by disclosing a credit score and associated key factors supplied by a consumer reporting agency.\n\n( ii ) Numerical credit score. However, if a numerical credit score is generated by an automated underwriting system used by an enterprise, and that score is disclosed to the person, the score shall be disclosed to the consumer consistent with subparagraph ( c ).\n\n( iii ) Enterprise defined. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term \" enterprise '' has the same meaning as in paragraph ( 6 ) of section 1303 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992.\n\n( C ) Disclosures of credit scores not obtained from a consumer reporting agency.\n\nA person that is subject to the provisions of this subsection and that uses a credit score, other than a credit score provided by a consumer reporting agency, may satisfy the obligation to provide a credit score by disclosing a credit score and associated key factors supplied by a consumer reporting agency.\n\n( D ) Notice to home loan applicants. A copy of the following notice, which shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each consumer reporting agency providing a credit score that was used : \" Notice To The Home Loan Applicant \" In connection with your application for a home loan, the lender must disclose to you the score that a consumer reporting agency distributed to users and the lender used in connection with your home loan, and the key factors affecting your credit scores.\n\n\" The credit score is a computer generated summary calculated at the time of the request and based on information that a consumer reporting agency or lender has on file.\n\nThe scores are based on data about your credit history and payment patterns. Credit scores are important because they are used to assist the lender in determining whether you will obtain a loan. They may also be used to determine what interest rate you may be offered on the mortgage. Credit scores can change over time, depending on your conduct, how your credit history and payment patterns change, and how credit scoring technologies change.\n\n\" Because the score is based on information in your credit history, it is very important that you review the credit-related information that is being furnished to make sure it is accurate. Credit records may vary from one company to another.\n\n\" If you have questions about your credit score or the credit information that is furnished to you, contact the consumer reporting agency at the address and telephone number provided with this notice, or contact the lender, if the lender developed or generated the credit score. The consumer reporting agency plays no part in the decision to take any action on the loan application and is unable to provide you with specific reasons for the decision on a loan application.\n\n\" If you have questions concerning the terms of the loan, contact the lender. '' ( E ) Actions not required under this subsection. This subsection shall not require any person to ( i ) explain the information provided pursuant to subsection ( f ) ; ( ii ) disclose any information other than a credit score or key factors, as defined in subsection ( f ) ; ( iii ) disclose any credit score or related information obtained by the user after a loan has closed ; ( iv ) provide more than 1 disclosure per loan transaction ; or ( v ) provide the disclosure required by this subsection when another person has made the disclosure to the consumer for that loan transaction.\n\n( F ) No Obligation for Content ( i ) In general. The obligation of any person pursuant to this subsection shall be limited solely to providing a copy of the information that was received from the c","date_sent_to_company":"2021-06-14T20:57:21.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"91767","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4459792","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2021-06-14T20:57:16.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( 7 ) <em>Compliance</em> in certain cases."]},"sort":[6.013365,"4459792"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4459790","_score":6.013365,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I recently took a look at my credit profile with XXXX, XXXX, & Transunion and discovered accounts that are not mines and were fraudulent. I have the following accounts that need to be removed from my profile immediately as it is severely affecting my quality of living. \n\n1. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$4700.00} 2. XXXX XXXX XXXX {$2500.00} 3. XXXX {$2000.00} I have tried reaching out to the bureaus and they keep telling me that there isn't much they can do. It's not fair that someone can do this and the credit bureaus seem clueless as to how to help victims. \n\nI do understand under the F.C.R.A that consumers have the right to have items removed when they are inaccurate or in my case a result of identity theft. \n\n605B. Block of information resulting from identity theft [ 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ] ( a ) Block. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency of ( 1 ) appropriate proof of the identity of the consumer ; ( 2 ) a copy of an identity theft report ; ( 3 ) the identification of such information by the consumer ; and ( 4 ) a statement by the consumer that the information is not information relating to any transaction by the consumer. \n\n\n( b ) Notification. A consumer reporting agency shall promptly notify the furnisher of information identified by the consumer under subsection ( a ) -- ( 1 ) that the information may be a result of identity theft ; ( 2 ) that an identity theft report has been filed ; ( 3 ) that a block has been requested under this section ; and ( 4 ) of the effective dates of the block. \n\n609. Disclosures to consumers [ 15 U.S.C. 1681g ] ( a ) Information on file ; sources ; report recipients. Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, and subject to 610 ( a ) ( 1 ) [ 1681h ], clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer : ( 1 ) All information in the consumer 's file at the time of the request except that -- ( A ) if the consumer to whom the file relates requests that the first 5 digits of the social security number ( or similar identification number ) of the consumer not be included in the disclosure and the consumer reporting agency has received appropriate proof of the identity of the requester, the consumer reporting agency shall so truncate such number in such disclosure ; and ( B ) nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to disclose to a consumer any information concerning credit scores or any other risk scores or predictors relating to the consumer. \n\n\n\n( 2 ) The sources of the information ; except that the sources of information acquired solely for use in preparing an investigative consumer report and actually use for no other purpose need not be disclosed : Provided, That in the event an action is brought under this title, such sources shall be available to the plaintiff under appropriate discovery procedures in the court in which the action is brought. \n\n\n\n( 3 ) ( A ) Identification of each person ( including each end-user identified under section 607 ( e ) ( 1 ) [ 1681e ] ) that procured a consumer report ( i ) for employment purposes, during the 2-year period preceding the date on which the request is made ; or ( ii ) for any other purpose, during the 1-year period preceding the date on which the request is made. \n\n\n\n( B ) An identification of a person under subparagraph ( A ) shall include ( i ) the name of the person or, if applicable, the trade name ( written in full ) under which such person conducts business ; and XXXX ii ) upon request of the consumer, the address and telephone number of the person. \n\n\n\n( C ) Subparagraph ( A ) does not apply if ( i ) the end user is an agency or department of the United States Government that procures the report from the person for purposes of determining the eligibility of the consumer to whom the report relates to receive access or continued access to classified information ( as defined in section 604 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( E ) ( i ) ) ; and ( ii ) the head of the agency or department makes a written finding as prescribed under section 604 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( A ).\n\n( 4 ) The dates, original payees, and amounts of any checks upon which is based any adverse characterization of the consumer, included in the file at the time of the disclosure.\n\n( 5 ) A record of all inquiries received by the agency during the 1-year period preceding the request that identified the consumer in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that was not initiated by the consumer.\n\n( 6 ) If the consumer requests the credit file and not the credit score, a statement that the consumer may request and obtain a credit score.\n\n( b ) Exempt information. The requirements of subsection ( a ) of this section respecting the disclosure of sources of information and the recipients of consumer reports do not apply to information received or consumer reports furnished prior to the effective date of this title except to the extent that the matter involved is contained in the files of the consumer reporting agency on that date.\n\n( c ) Summary of Rights to Obtain and Dispute Information in Consumer Reports and to Obtain Credit Scores ( 1 ) Bureau Summary of Rights Required ( A ) In general. The Bureau shall prepare a model summary of the rights of consumers under this title.\n\n( B ) Content of summary. The summary of rights prepared under subparagraph ( A ) shall include a description of ( i ) the right of a consumer to obtain a copy of a consumer report under subsection ( a ) from each consumer reporting agency ; ( ii ) the frequency and circumstances under which a consumer is entitled to receive a consumer report without charge under section 612 ; ( iii ) the right of a consumer to dispute information in the file of the consumer under section 611 ; ( iv ) the right of a consumer to obtain a credit score from a consumer reporting agency, and a description of how to obtain a credit score ; ( v ) the method by which a consumer can contact, and obtain a consumer report from, a consumer reporting agency without charge, as provided in the regulations of the Bureau prescribed under section 211 ( c ) of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ; and ( vi ) the method by which a consumer can contact, and obtain a consumer report from, a consumer reporting agency described in section 603 ( w ), as provided in the regulations of the Bureau prescribed under section 612 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ).\n\n( C ) Availability of summary of rights. The Bureau shall ( i ) actively publicize the availability of the summary of rights prepared under this paragraph ; ( ii ) conspicuously post on its Internet website the availability of such summary of rights ; and ( iii ) promptly make such summary of rights available to consumers, on request.\n\n( 2 ) Summary of rights required to be included with agency disclosures. A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer, with each written disclosure by the agency to the consumer under this section ( A ) the summary of rights prepared by the Bureau under paragraph ( 1 ) ; ( B ) in the case of a consumer reporting agency described in section 603 ( p ), a toll-free telephone number established by the agency, at which personnel are accessible to consumers during normal business hours ; ( C ) a list of all Federal agencies responsible for enforcing any provision of this title, and the address and any appropriate phone number of each such agency, in a form that will assist the consumer in selecting the appropriate agency ; ( D ) a statement that the consumer may have additional rights under State law, and that the consumer may wish to contact a State or local consumer protection agency or a State attorney general ( or the equivalent thereof ) to learn of those rights ; and ( E ) a statement that a consumer reporting agency is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from the file of a consumer, unless the information is outdated under section 605 or can not be verified.\n\n( d ) Summary of Rights of Identity Theft Victims ( 1 ) In general. The Bureau, in consultation with the Federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration, shall prepare a model summary of the rights of consumers under this title with respect to the procedures for remedying the effects of fraud or identity theft involving credit, an electronic fund transfer, or an account or transaction at or with a financial institution or other creditor.\n\n( 2 ) Summary of rights and contact information. Beginning 60 days after the date on which the model summary of rights is prescribed in final form by the Bureau pursuant to paragraph ( 1 ), if any consumer contacts a consumer reporting agency and expresses a belief that the consumer is a victim of fraud or identity theft involving credit, an electronic fund transfer, or an account or transaction at or with a financial institution or other creditor, the consumer reporting agency shall, in addition to any other action that the agency may take, provide the consumer with a summary of rights that contains all of the information required by the Bureau under paragraph ( 1 ), and information on how to contact the Bureau to obtain more detailed information.\n\n( e ) Information Available to Victims ( 1 ) In general. For the purpose of documenting fraudulent transactions resulting from identity theft, not later than 30 days after the date of receipt of a request from a victim in accordance with paragraph ( 3 ), and subject to verification of the identity of the victim and the claim of identity theft in accordance with paragraph ( 2 ), a business entity that has provided credit to, provided for consideration products, goods, or services to, accepted payment from, or otherwise entered into a commercial transaction for consideration with, a person who has allegedly made unauthorized use of the means of identification of the victim, shall provide a copy of application and business transaction records in the control of the business entity, whether maintained by the business entity or by another person on behalf of the business entity, evidencing any transaction alleged to be a result of identity theft to ( A ) the victim ; ( B ) any Federal, State, or local government law enforcement agency or officer specified by the victim in such a request ; or ( C ) any law enforcement agency investigating the identity theft and authorized by the victim to take receipt of records provided under this subsection.\n\n( 2 ) Verification of identity and claim. Before a business entity provides any information under paragraph ( 1 ), unless the business entity, at its discretion, otherwise has a high degree of confidence that it knows the identity of the victim making a request under paragraph ( 1 ), the victim shall provide to the business entity ( A ) as proof of positive identification of the victim, at the election of the business entity ( i ) the presentation of a government-issued identification card ; ( ii ) personally identifying information of the same type as was provided to the business entity by the unauthorized person ; or ( iii ) personally identifying information that the business entity typically requests from new applicants or for new transactions, at the time of the victim 's request for information, including any documentation described in clauses ( i ) and ( ii ) ; and ( B ) as proof of a claim of identity theft, at the election of the business entity ( i ) a copy of a police report evidencing the claim of the victim of identity theft ; and ( ii ) a properly completed ( I ) copy of a standardized affidavit of identity theft developed and made available by the Bureau ; or ( II ) an affidavit of fact that is acceptable to the business entity for that purpose.\n\n( 3 ) Procedures. The request of a victim under paragraph ( 1 ) shall ( A ) be in writing ; ( B ) be mailed to an address specified by the business entity, if any ; and ( C ) if asked by the business entity, include relevant information about any transaction alleged to be a result of identity theft to facilitate compliance with this section including ( i ) if known by the victim ( or if readily obtainable by the victim ), the date of the application or transaction ; and ( ii ) if known by the victim ( or if readily obtainable by the victim ), any other identifying information such as an account or transaction number.\n\n( 4 ) No charge to victim. Information required to be provided under paragraph ( 1 ) shall be so provided without charge.\n\n( 5 ) Authority to decline to provide information. A business entity may decline to provide information under paragraph ( 1 ) if, in the exercise of good faith, the business entity determines that ( A ) this subsection does not require disclosure of the information ; ( B ) after reviewing the information provided pursuant to paragraph ( 2 ), the business entity does not have a high degree of confidence in knowing the true identity of the individual requesting the information ; ( C ) the request for the information is based on a misrepresentation of fact by the individual requesting the information relevant to the request for information ; or ( D ) the information requested is Internet navigational data or similar information about a person 's visit to a website or online service.\n\n( 6 ) Limitation on liability. Except as provided in section 621, sections 616 and 617 do not apply to any violation of this subsection.\n\n( 7 ) Limitation on civil liability. No business entity may be held civilly liable under any provision of Federal, State, or other law for disclosure, made in good faith pursuant to this subsection.\n\n( 8 ) No new recordkeeping obligation. Nothing in this subsection creates an obligation on the part of a business entity to obtain, retain, or maintain information or records that are not otherwise required to be obtained, retained, or maintained in the ordinary course of its business or under other applicable law.\n\n( 9 ) Rule of Construction ( A ) In general. No provision of subtitle A of title V of Public Law 106-102, prohibiting the disclosure of financial information by a business entity to third parties shall be used to deny disclosure of information to the victim under this subsection.\n\n( B ) Limitation. Except as provided in subparagraph ( A ), nothing in this subsection permits a business entity to disclose information, including information to law enforcement under subparagraphs ( B ) and ( C ) of paragraph ( 1 ), that the business entity is otherwise prohibited from disclosing under any other applicable provision of Federal or State law.\n\n( 10 ) Affirmative defense. In any civil action brought to enforce this subsection, it is an affirmative defense ( which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence ) for a business entity to file an affidavit or answer stating that ( A ) the business entity has made a reasonably diligent search of its available business records ; and ( B ) the records requested under this subsection do not exist or are not reasonably available.\n\n( 11 ) Definition of victim. For purposes of this subsection, the term \" victim '' means a consumer whose means of identification or financial information has been used or transferred ( or has been alleged to have been used or transferred ) without the authority of that consumer, with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, an identity theft or a similar crime.\n\n( 12 ) Effective date. This subsection shall become effective 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection.\n\n( 13 ) Effectiveness study. Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a report to Congress assessing the effectiveness of this provision.\n\n( f ) Disclosure of Credit Scores ( 1 ) In general. Upon the request of a consumer for a credit score, a consumer reporting agency shall supply to the consumer a statement indicating that the information and credit scoring model may be different than the credit score that may be used by the lender, and a notice which shall include ( A ) the current credit score of the consumer or the most recent credit score of the consumer that was previously calculated by the credit reporting agency for a purpose related to the extension of credit ; ( B ) the range of possible credit scores under the model used ; ( C ) all of the key factors that adversely affected the credit score of the consumer in the model used, the total number of which shall not exceed 4, subject to paragraph ( 9 ) ; ( D ) the date on which the credit score was created ; and ( E ) the name of the person or entity that provided the credit score or credit file upon which the credit score was created.\n\n( 2 ) Definitions. For purposes of this subsection, the following definitions shall apply : ( A ) The term \" credit score '' ( i ) means a numerical value or a categorization derived from a statistical tool or modeling system used by a person who makes or arranges a loan to predict the likelihood of certain credit behaviors, including default ( and the numerical value or the categorization derived from such analysis may also be referred to as a \" risk predictor '' or \" risk score '' ) ; and ( ii ) does not include ( I ) any mortgage score or rating of an automated underwriting system that considers one or more factors in addition to credit information, including the loan to value ratio, the amount of down payment, or the financial assets of a consumer ; or ( II ) any other elements of the underwriting process or underwriting decision.\n\n( B ) The term \" key factors '' means all relevant elements or reasons adversely affecting the credit score for the particular individual, listed in the order of their importance based on their effect on the credit score.\n\n( 3 ) Timeframe and manner of disclosure. The information required by this subsection shall be provided in the same timeframe and manner as the information described in subsection ( a ).\n\n( 4 ) Applicability to certain uses. This subsection shall not be construed so as to compel a consumer reporting agency to develop or disclose a score if the agency does not ( A ) distribute scores that are used in connection with residential real property loans ; or ( B ) develop scores that assist credit providers in understanding the general credit behavior of a consumer and predicting the future credit behavior of the consumer.\n\n( 5 ) Applicability to credit scores developed by another person.\n\n( A ) In general. This subsection shall not be construed to require a consumer reporting agency that distributes credit scores developed by another person or entity to provide a further explanation of them, or to process a dispute arising pursuant to section 611, except that the consumer reporting agency shall provide the consumer with the name and address and website for contacting the person or entity who developed the score or developed the methodology of the score.\n\n( B ) Exception. This paragraph shall not apply to a consumer reporting agency that develops or modifies scores that are developed by another person or entity.\n\n( 6 ) Maintenance of credit scores not required. This subsection shall not be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to maintain credit scores in its files.\n\n( 7 ) Compliance in certain cases. In complying with this subsection, a consumer reporting agency shall ( A ) supply the consumer with a credit score that is derived from a credit scoring model that is widely distributed to users by that consumer reporting agency in connection with residential real property loans or with a credit score that assists the consumer in understanding the credit scoring assessment of the credit behavior of the consumer and predictions about the future credit behavior of the consumer ; and ( B ) a statement indicating that the information and credit scoring model may be different than that used by the lender.\n\n( 8 ) Fair and reasonable fee. A consumer reporting agency may charge a fair and reasonable fee, as determined by the Bureau, for providing the information required under this subsection. See also 69 Fed. Reg. 64698 ( 11/08/04 ) ( 9 ) Use of enquiries as a key factor. If a key factor that adversely affects the credit score of a consumer consists of the number of enquiries made with respect to a consumer report, that factor shall be included in the disclosure pursuant to paragraph ( 1 ) ( C ) without regard to the numerical limitation in such paragraph.\n\n( g ) Disclosure of Credit Scores by Certain Mortgage Lenders ( 1 ) In general. Any person who makes or arranges loans and who uses a consumer credit score, as defined in subsection ( f ), in connection with an application initiated or sought by a consumer for a closed end loan or the establishment of an open end loan for a consumer purpose that is secured by 1 to 4 units of residential real property ( hereafter in this subsection referred to as the \" lender '' ) shall provide the following to the consumer as soon as reasonably practicable : ( A ) Information Required under Subsection ( f ) ( i ) In general. A copy of the information identified in subsection ( f ) that was obtained from a consumer reporting agency or was developed and used by the user of the information.\n\n( ii ) Notice under subparagraph ( D ). In addition to the information provided to it by a third party that provided the credit score or scores, a lender is only required to provide the notice contained in subparagraph ( D ).\n\n( B ) Disclosures in Case of Automated Underwriting System ( i ) In general. If a person that is subject to this subsection uses an automated underwriting system to underwrite a loan, that person may satisfy the obligation to provide a credit score by disclosing a credit score and associated key factors supplied by a consumer reporting agency.\n\n( ii ) Numerical credit score. However, if a numerical credit score is generated by an automated underwriting system used by an enterprise, and that score is disclosed to the person, the score shall be disclosed to the consumer consistent with subparagraph ( c ).\n\n( iii ) Enterprise defined. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term \" enterprise '' has the same meaning as in paragraph ( 6 ) of section 1303 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992.\n\n( C ) Disclosures of credit scores not obtained from a consumer reporting agency.\n\nA person that is subject to the provisions of this subsection and that uses a credit score, other than a credit score provided by a consumer reporting agency, may satisfy the obligation to provide a credit score by disclosing a credit score and associated key factors supplied by a consumer reporting agency.\n\n( D ) Notice to home loan applicants. A copy of the following notice, which shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each consumer reporting agency providing a credit score that was used : \" Notice To The Home Loan Applicant \" In connection with your application for a home loan, the lender must disclose to you the score that a consumer reporting agency distributed to users and the lender used in connection with your home loan, and the key factors affecting your credit scores.\n\n\" The credit score is a computer generated summary calculated at the time of the request and based on information that a consumer reporting agency or lender has on file.\n\nThe scores are based on data about your credit history and payment patterns. Credit scores are important because they are used to assist the lender in determining whether you will obtain a loan. They may also be used to determine what interest rate you may be offered on the mortgage. Credit scores can change over time, depending on your conduct, how your credit history and payment patterns change, and how credit scoring technologies change.\n\n\" Because the score is based on information in your credit history, it is very important that you review the credit-related information that is being furnished to make sure it is accurate. Credit records may vary from one company to another.\n\n\" If you have questions about your credit score or the credit information that is furnished to you, contact the consumer reporting agency at the address and telephone number provided with this notice, or contact the lender, if the lender developed or generated the credit score. The consumer reporting agency plays no part in the decision to take any action on the loan application and is unable to provide you with specific reasons for the decision on a loan application.\n\n\" If you have questions concerning the terms of the loan, contact the lender. '' ( E ) Actions not required under this subsection. This subsection shall not require any person to ( i ) explain the information provided pursuant to subsection ( f ) ; ( ii ) disclose any information other than a credit score or key factors, as defined in subsection ( f ) ; ( iii ) disclose any credit score or related information obtained by the user after a loan has closed ; ( iv ) provide more than 1 disclosure per loan transaction ; or ( v ) provide the disclosure required by this subsection when another person has made the disclosure to the consumer for that loan transaction.\n\n( F ) No Obligation for Content ( i ) In general. The obligation of any person pursuant to this subsection shall be limited solely to providing a copy of the information that was received from the c","date_sent_to_company":"2021-06-14T20:57:21.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"91767","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4459790","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2021-06-14T20:57:16.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( 7 ) <em>Compliance</em> in certain cases."]},"sort":[6.013365,"4459790"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8307946","_score":5.4970584,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX continues to report an alleged bankruptcy. I have asked for verification from XXXX that grants them permission to report this information about me. This is my consumer report and the information must be verified by me. XXXX sells consumer information for profit to various companies including the credit bureaus but the law that governs these companies say you need my permission to report this information. You do not have my permission and you do not have my permission to sell my information to anyone. Stop stalling by asking for my ID and SSC when I attach them to the complaint. Delete this bankruptcy. \n\n( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title.\n\n( b ) Accuracy of report Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.\n\n( c ) Disclosure of consumer reports by users allowed A consumer reporting agency may not prohibit a user of a consumer report furnished by the agency on a consumer from disclosing the contents of the report to the consumer, if adverse action against the consumer has been taken by the user based in whole or in part on the report.\n\n( d ) Notice to users and furnishers of information ( 1 ) Notice requirement A consumer reporting agency shall provide to any person ( A ) who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to the agency with respect to any consumer ; or ( B ) to whom a consumer report is provided by the agency ; a notice of such persons responsibilities under this subchapter.\n\n( 2 ) Content of notice The Bureau shall prescribe the content of notices under paragraph ( 1 ), and a consumer reporting agency shall be in compliance with this subsection if it provides a notice under paragraph ( 1 ) that is substantially similar to the Bureau prescription under this paragraph.\n\n( e ) Procurement of consumer report for resale ( 1 ) Disclosure A person may not procure a consumer report for purposes of reselling the report ( or any information in the report ) unless the person discloses to the consumer reporting agency that originally furnishes the report ( A ) the identity of the end-user of the report ( or information ) ; and ( B ) each permissible purpose under section 1681b of this title for which the report is furnished to the end-user of the report ( or information ).\n\n( 2 ) Responsibilities of procurers for resale A person who procures a consumer report for purposes of reselling the report ( or any information in the report ) shall ( A ) establish and comply with reasonable procedures designed to ensure that the report ( or information ) is resold by the person only for a purpose for which the report may be furnished under section 1681b of this title, including by requiring that each person to which the report ( or information ) is resold and that resells or provides the report ( or information ) to any other person ( i ) identifies each end user of the resold report ( or information ) ; ( ii ) certifies each purpose for which the report ( or information ) will be used ; and ( iii ) certifies that the report ( or information ) will be used for no other purpose ; and ( B ) before reselling the report, make reasonable efforts to verify the identifications and certifications made under subparagraph ( A ).\n\n( 3 ) Resale of consumer report to a Federal agency or department Notwithstanding paragraph ( 1 ) or ( 2 ), a person who procures a consumer report for purposes of reselling the report ( or any information in the report ) shall not disclose the identity of the end-user of the report under paragraph ( 1 ) or ( 2 ) if ( A ) the end user is an agency or department of the United States Government which procures the report from the person for purposes of determining the eligibility of the consumer concerned to receive access or continued access to classified information ( as defined in section 1681b ( b ) ( 4 ) ( E ) ( i ) [ 1 ] of this title ) ; and ( B ) the agency or department certifies in writing to the person reselling the report that nondisclosure is necessary to protect classified information or the safety of persons employed by or contracting with, or undergoing investigation for work or contracting with the agency or department.\n\n( a ) Information on file ; sources ; report recipients Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, and subject to section 1681h ( a ) ( 1 ) of this title, clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer : ( 1 ) All information in the consumers file at the time of the request, except that ( A ) if the consumer to whom the file relates requests that the first 5 digits of the social security number ( or similar identification number ) of the consumer not be included in the disclosure and the consumer reporting agency has received appropriate proof of the identity of the requester, the consumer reporting agency shall so truncate such number in such disclosure; and ( B ) nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to disclose to a consumer any information concerning credit scores or any other risk scores or predictors relating to the consumer.\n\n( 2 ) The sources of the information ; except that the sources of information acquired solely for use in preparing an investigative consumer report and actually used for no other purpose need not be disclosed : Provided, That in the event an action is brought under this subchapter, such sources shall be available to the plaintiff under appropriate discovery procedures in the court in which the action is brought.\n\n( 3 ) ( A ) Identification of each person ( including each end-user identified under section 1681e ( e ) ( 1 ) of this title ) that procured a consumer report ( i ) for employment purposes, during the 2-year period preceding the date on which the request is made ; or ( ii ) for any other purpose, during the 1-year period preceding the date on which the request is made.\n\n( B ) An identification of a person under subparagraph ( A ) shall include ( i ) the name of the person or, if applicable, the trade name ( written in full ) under which such person conducts business ; and ( ii ) upon request of the consumer, the address and telephone number of the person.\n\n( C ) Subparagraph ( A ) does not apply if ( i ) the end user is an agency or department of the United States Government that procures the report from the person for purposes of determining the eligibility of the consumer to whom the report relates to receive access or continued access to classified information ( as defined in section 1681b ( b ) ( 4 ) ( E ) ( i ) [ 1 ] of this title ) ; and ( ii ) the head of the agency or department makes a written finding as prescribed under section 1681b ( b ) ( 4 ) ( A ) of this title.\n\n( 4 ) The dates, original payees, and amounts of any checks upon which is based any adverse characterization of the consumer, included in the file at the time of the disclosure.\n\n( 5 ) A record of all inquiries received by the agency during the 1-year period preceding the request that identified the consumer in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that was not initiated by the consumer.\n\n( 6 ) If the consumer requests the credit file and not the credit score, a statement that the consumer may request and obtain a credit score.\n\n( b ) Exempt information The requirements of subsection ( a ) respecting the disclosure of sources of information and the recipients of consumer reports do not apply to information received or consumer reports furnished prior to the effective date of this subchapter except to the extent that the matter involved is contained in the files of the consumer reporting agency on that date.\n\n( c ) Summary of rights to obtain and dispute information in consumer reports and to obtain credit scores ( 1 ) Commission [ 2 ] summary of rights required ( A ) In general The Commission2 shall prepare a model summary of the rights of consumers under this subchapter.\n\n( B ) Content of summary The summary of rights prepared under subparagraph ( A ) shall include a description of ( i ) the right of a consumer to obtain a copy of a consumer report under subsection ( a ) from each consumer reporting agency ; ( ii ) the frequency and circumstances under which a consumer is entitled to receive a consumer report without charge under section 1681j of this title ; ( iii ) the right of a consumer to dispute information in the file of the consumer under section 1681i of this title ; ( iv ) the right of a consumer to obtain a credit score from a consumer reporting agency, and a description of how to obtain a credit score ; ( v ) the method by which a consumer can contact, and obtain a consumer report from, a consumer reporting agency without charge, as provided in the regulations of the Bureau prescribed under section 211 ( c ) 1 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ; and ( vi ) the method by which a consumer can contact, and obtain a consumer report from, a consumer reporting agency described in section 1681a ( w ) 1 of this title, as provided in the regulations of the Bureau prescribed under section 1681j ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ) of this title.\n\n( C ) Availability of summary of rights The Commission2 shall ( i ) actively publicize the availability of the summary of rights prepared under this paragraph ; ( ii ) conspicuously post on its Internet website the availability of such summary of rights ; and ( iii ) promptly make such summary of rights available to consumers, on request.\n\n( 2 ) Summary of rights required to be included with agency disclosures A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer, with each written disclosure by the agency to the consumer under this section ( A ) the summary of rights prepared by the Bureau under paragraph ( 1 ) ; ( B ) in the case of a consumer reporting agency described in section 1681a ( p ) of this title, a toll-free telephone number established by the agency, at which personnel are accessible to consumers during normal business hours ; ( C ) a list of all Federal agencies responsible for enforcing any provision of this subchapter, and the address and any appropriate phone number of each such agency, in a form that will assist the consumer in selecting the appropriate agency ; ( D ) a statement that the consumer may have additional rights under State law, and that the consumer may wish to contact a State or local consumer protection agency or a State attorney general ( or the equivalent thereof ) to learn of those rights ; and ( E ) a statement that a consumer reporting agency is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from the file of a consumer, unless the information is outdated under section 1681c of this title or can not be verified.\n\n( d ) Summary of rights of identity theft victims ( 1 ) In general The Commission,2 in consultation with the Federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration , shall prepare a model summary of the rights of consumers under this subchapter with respect to the procedures for remedying the effects of fraud or identity theft involving credit, an electronic fund transfer, or an account or transaction at or with a financial institution or other creditor.\n\n( 2 ) Summary of rights and contact information Beginning 60 days after the date on which the model summary of rights is prescribed in final form by the Bureau pursuant to paragraph ( 1 ), if any consumer contacts a consumer reporting agency and expresses a belief that the consumer is a victim of fraud or identity theft involving credit, an electronic fund transfer, or an account or transaction at or with a financial institution or other creditor, the consumer reporting agency shall, in addition to any other action that the agency may take, provide the consumer with a summary of rights that contains all of the information required by the Bureau under paragraph ( 1 ), and information on how to contact the Bureau to obtain more detailed information.\n\n( e ) Information available to victims ( 1 ) In general For the purpose of documenting fraudulent transactions resulting from identity theft, not later than 30 days after the date of receipt of a request from a victim in accordance with paragraph ( 3 ), and subject to verification of the identity of the victim and the claim of identity theft in accordance with paragraph ( 2 ), a business entity that has provided credit to, provided for consideration products, goods, or services to, accepted payment from, or otherwise entered into a commercial transaction for consideration with, a person who has allegedly made unauthorized use of the means of identification of the victim, shall provide a copy of application and business transaction records in the control of the business entity, whether maintained by the business entity or by another person on behalf of the business entity, evidencing any transaction alleged to be a result of identity theft to ( A ) the victim ; ( B ) any Federal, State, or local government law enforcement agency or officer specified by the victim in such a request ; or ( C ) any law enforcement agency investigating the identity theft and authorized by the victim to take receipt of records provided under this subsection.\n\n( 2 ) Verification of identity and claim Before a business entity provides any information under paragraph ( 1 ), unless the business entity, at its discretion, otherwise has a high degree of confidence that it knows the identity of the victim making a request under paragraph ( 1 ), the victim shall provide to the business entity ( A ) as proof of positive identification of the victim, at the election of the business entity ( i ) the presentation of a government-issued identification card ; ( ii ) personally identifying information of the same type as was provided to the business entity by the unauthorized person ; or ( iii ) personally identifying information that the business entity typically requests from new applicants or for new transactions, at the time of the victims request for information, including any documentation described in clauses ( i ) and ( ii ) ; and ( B ) as proof of a claim of identity theft, at the election of the business entity ( i ) a copy of a police report evidencing the claim of the victim of identity theft ; and ( ii ) a properly completed ( I ) copy of a standardized affidavit of identity theft developed and made available by the Bureau ; or ( II ) an [ 3 ] affidavit of fact that is acceptable to the business entity for that purpose.\n\n( 3 ) Procedures The request of a victim under paragraph ( 1 ) shall ( A ) be in writing ; ( B ) be mailed to an address specified by the business entity, if any ; and ( C ) if asked by the business entity, include relevant information about any transaction alleged to be a result of identity theft to facilitate compliance with this section including ( i ) if known by the victim ( or if readily obtainable by the victim ), the date of the application or transaction ; and ( ii ) if known by the victim ( or if readily obtainable by the victim ), any other identifying information such as an account or transaction number.\n\n( 4 ) No charge to victim Information required to be provided under paragraph ( 1 ) shall be so provided without charge.\n\n( 5 ) Authority to decline to provide information A business entity may decline to provide information under paragraph ( 1 ) if, in the exercise of good faith, the business entity determines that ( A ) this subsection does not require disclosure of the information ; ( B ) after reviewing the information provided pursuant to paragraph ( 2 ), the business entity does not have a high degree of confidence in knowing the true identity of the individual requesting the information ; ( C ) the request for the information is based on a misrepresentation of fact by the individual requesting the information relevant to the request for information ; or ( D ) the information requested is Internet navigational data or similar information about a persons visit to a website or online service.\n\n( 6 ) Limitation on liability Except as provided in section 1681s of this title, sections 1681n and 1681o of this title do not apply to any violation of this subsection.\n\n( 7 ) Limitation on civil liability No business entity may be held civilly liable under any provision of Federal, State, or other law for disclosure, made in good faith pursuant to this subsection.\n\n( 8 ) No new recordkeeping obligation Nothing in this subsection creates an obligation on the part of a business entity to obtain, retain, or maintain information or records that are not otherwise required to be obtained, retained, or maintained in the ordinary course of its business or under other applicable law.\n\n( 9 ) Rule of construction ( A ) In general No provision of subtitle A of title V of Public Law 106102 [ 15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq. ], prohibiting the disclosure of financial information by a business entity to third parties shall be used to deny disclosure of information to the victim under this subsection.\n\n( B ) Limitation Except as provided in subparagraph ( A ), nothing in this subsection permits a business entity to disclose information, including information to law enforcement under subparagraphs ( B ) and ( C ) of paragraph ( 1 ), that the business entity is otherwise prohibited from disclosing under any other applicable provision of Federal or State law.\n\n( 10 ) Affirmative defense In any civil action brought to enforce this subsection, it is an affirmative defense ( which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence ) for a business entity to file an affidavit or answer stating that ( A ) the business entity has made a reasonably diligent search of its available business records; and ( B ) the records requested under this subsection do not exist or are not reasonably available.\n\n( 11 ) Definition of victim For purposes of this subsection, the term victim means a consumer whose means of identification or financial information has been used or transferred ( or has been alleged to have been used or transferred ) without the authority of that consumer, with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, an identity theft or a similar crime.\n\n( 12 ) Effective date This subsection shall become effective 180 days after XX/XX/2003. \n\n( XXXX ) Effectiveness study Not later than 18 months after XX/XX/2003, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a report to Congress assessing the effectiveness of this provision.\n\n( f ) Disclosure of credit scores ( 1 ) In general Upon the request of a consumer for a credit score, a consumer reporting agency shall supply to the consumer a statement indicating that the information and credit scoring model may be different than the credit score that may be used by the lender, and a notice which shall include ( A ) the current credit score of the consumer or the most recent credit score of the consumer that was previously calculated by the credit reporting agency for a purpose related to the extension of credit ; ( B ) the range of possible credit scores under the model used; ( C ) all of the key factors that adversely affected the credit score of the consumer in the model used, the total number of which shall not exceed 4, subject to paragraph ( 9 ) ; ( D ) the date on which the credit score was created ; and ( E ) the name of the person or entity that provided the credit score or credit file upon which the credit score was created.\n\n( 2 ) Definitions For purposes of this subsection, the following definitions shall apply : ( A ) Credit score The term credit score ( i ) means a numerical value or a categorization derived from a statistical tool or modeling system used by a person who makes or arranges a loan to predict the likelihood of certain credit behaviors, including default ( and the numerical value or the categorization derived from such analysis may also be referred to as a risk predictor or risk score ) ; and ( ii ) does not include ( I ) any mortgage score or rating of an automated underwriting system that considers one or more factors in addition to credit information, including the loan to value ratio, the amount of down payment, or the financial assets of a consumer ; or ( II ) any other elements of the underwriting process or underwriting decision.\n\n( B ) Key factors The term key factors means all relevant elements or reasons adversely affecting the credit score for the particular individual, listed in the order of their importance based on their effect on the credit score.\n\n( 3 ) Timeframe and manner of disclosure The information required by this subsection shall be provided in the same timeframe and manner as the information described in subsection ( a ).\n\n( 4 ) Applicability to certain uses This subsection shall not be construed so as to compel a consumer reporting agency to develop or disclose a score if the agency does not ( A ) distribute scores that are used in connection with residential real property loans; or ( B ) develop scores that assist credit providers in understanding the general credit behavior of a consumer and predicting the future credit behavior of the consumer.\n\n( 5 ) Applicability to credit scores developed by another person ( A ) In general This subsection shall not be construed to require a consumer reporting agency that distributes credit scores developed by another person or entity to provide a further explanation of them, or to process a dispute arising pursuant to section 1681i of this title, except that the consumer reporting agency shall provide the consumer with the name and address and website for contacting the person or entity who developed the score or developed the methodology of the score.\n\n( B ) Exception This paragraph shall not apply to a consumer reporting agency that develops or modifies scores that are developed by another person or entity.\n\n( 6 ) Maintenance of credit scores not required This subsection shall not be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to maintain credit scores in its files.\n\n( 7 ) Compliance in certain cases In complying with this subsection, a consumer reporting agency shall ( A ) supply the consumer with a credit score that is derived from a credit scoring model that is widely distributed to users by that consumer reporting agency in connection with residential real property loans or with a credit score that assists the consumer in understanding the credit scoring assessment of the credit behavior of the consumer and predictions about the future credit behavior of the consumer; and ( B ) a statement indicating that the information and credit scoring model may be different than that used by the lender.\n\n( 8 ) Fair and reasonable fee A consumer reporting agency may charge a fair and reasonable fee, as determined by the Bureau, for providing the information required under this subsection.\n\n( 9 ) Use of enquiries as a key factor If a key factor that adversely affects the credit score of a consumer consists of the number of enquiries made with respect to a consumer report, that factor shall be included in the disclosure pursuant to paragraph ( 1 ) ( C ) without regard to the numerical limitation in such paragraph.\n\n( g ) Disclosure of credit scores by certain mortgage lenders ( 1 ) In general Any person who makes or arranges loans and who uses a consumer credit score, as defined in subsection ( f ), in connection with an application initiated or sought by a consumer for a closed end loan or the establishment of an open end loan for a consumer purpose that is secured by 1 to 4 units of residential real property ( hereafter in this subsection referred to as the lender ) shall provide the following to the consumer as soon as reasonably practicable : ( A ) Information required under subsection ( f ) ( i ) In general A copy of the information identified in subsection ( f ) that was obtained from a consumer reporting agency or was developed and used by the user of the information.\n\n( ii ) Notice under subparagraph ( D ) In addition to the information provided to it by a third party that provided the credit score or scores, a lender is only required to provide the notice contained in subparagraph ( D ).\n\n( B ) Disclosures in case of automated underwriting system ( i ) In general If a person that is subject to this subsection uses an automated underwriting system to underwrite a loan, that person may satisfy the obligation to provide a credit score by disclosing a credit score and associated key factors supplied by a consumer reporting agency.\n\n( ii ) Numerical credit score However, if a numerical credit score is generated by an automated underwriting system used by an enterprise, and that score is disclosed to the person, the score shall be disclosed to the consumer consistent with subparagraph ( C ).\n\n( iii ) Enterprise defined For purposes of this subparagraph, the term enterprise has the same meaning as in paragraph ( 6 ) of section 4502 of title 12.\n\n( C ) Disclosures of credit scores not obtained from a consumer reporting agency A person that is subject to the provisions of this subsection and that uses a credit score, other than a credit score provided by a consumer reporting agency, may satisfy the obligation to provide a credit score by disclosing a credit score and associated key factors supplied by a consumer reporting agency.\n\n( D ) Notice to home loan applicants A copy of the following notice, which shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each consumer reporting agency providing a credit score that was used : notice to the home loan applicant In connection with your application for a home loan, the lender must disclose to you the score that a consumer reporting agency distributed to users and the lender used in connection with your home loan, and the key factors affecting your credit scores.\n\nThe credit score is a computer generated summary calculated at the time of the request and based on information that a consumer reporting agency or lender has on file. The scores are based on data about your credit history and payment patterns. Credit scores are important because they are used to assist the lender in determining whether you will obtain a loan. They may also be used to determine what interest rate you may be offered on the mortgage. Credit scores can change over time, depending on your conduct, how your credit history and payment patterns change, and how credit scoring technologies change.\n\nBecause the score is based on information in your credit history, it is very important that you review the credit-related information that is being furnished to make sure it is accurate. Credit records may vary from one company to another.\n\nIf you have questions about your credit score or the credit information that is furnished to you, contact the consumer reporting agency at the address and telephone number provided with this notice, or contact the lender, if the lender developed or generated the credit score. The consumer reporting agency plays no part in the decision to take any action on the loan application and is unable to provide you with specific reasons for the decision on a loan application.\n\nIf you have questions concerning the terms of the loan, contact the lender..\n\n( E ) Actions not required under this subsection This subsection shall not require any person to ( i ) explain the information provided pursuant to subsection ( f ) ; ( ii ) disclose any information other than a credit score or key factors, as defined in subsection ( f ) ; ( iii ) disclose any credit score or related information obtained by the user after a loan has closed ; ( iv ) provide more than 1 disclosure per loan transaction ; or ( v ) provide the disclosure required by this subsection when another person has made the disclosure to the consumer for that loan transaction.\n\n( F ) No obligation for content ( i ) In general The obligation of any person pursuant to this subsection shall be limited solely to providing a copy of the information that was received from the consumer reporting agency.\n\n( ii ) Limit on liability No person has liability under this subsection for the content of that information or for the omission of any information within the report provided by the consumer reporting agency.\n\n( G ) Person defined as excluding enterprise As used in this subsection, the term person does not include an enterprise ( as defined in paragraph ( 6 ) of section 4502 of title 12 ).\n\n( 2 ) Prohibition on disclosure clauses null and void ( A ) In general Any provision in a contract that prohibits the disclosure of a credit score by a person who makes or arranges loans or a consumer reporting agency is void.\n\n( B ) No liability for disclosure under this subsection A lender shall not have liability under any contractual provision for disclosure of a credit score pursuant to this subsection.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-09T03:40:33.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"600XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8307946","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-02-09T03:40:28.000Z","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":["( 7 ) <em>Compliance</em> in certain cases In complying with this subsection, a consumer reporting agency shall ( A ) supply the consumer with a credit score that is derived from a credit scoring model that is widely distributed to users by that consumer reporting agency in connection with <em>residential</em> real property loans or with a credit score that assists the consumer in understanding the credit scoring assessment of the credit behavior of the consumer and predictions about the future credit behavior of"]},"sort":[5.4970584,"8307946"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8308091","_score":5.4915185,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX continues to report an alleged bankruptcy. I have asked for verification from XXXX that grants them permission to report this information about me. This is my consumer report and the information must be verified by me. XXXX sells consumer information for profit to various companies including the credit bureaus but the law that governs these companies say you need my permission to report this information. You do not have my permission and you do not have my permission to sell my information to anyone. Stop stalling by asking for my ID and SSC when I attach them to the complaint. Delete this bankruptcy. \n\n( a ) Identity and purposes of credit users Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 1681b of this title.\n\n( b ) Accuracy of report Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.\n\n( c ) Disclosure of consumer reports by users allowed A consumer reporting agency may not prohibit a user of a consumer report furnished by the agency on a consumer from disclosing the contents of the report to the consumer, if adverse action against the consumer has been taken by the user based in whole or in part on the report.\n\n( d ) Notice to users and furnishers of information ( 1 ) Notice requirement A consumer reporting agency shall provide to any person ( A ) who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to the agency with respect to any consumer ; or ( B ) to whom a consumer report is provided by the agency ; a notice of such persons responsibilities under this subchapter.\n\n( 2 ) Content of notice The Bureau shall prescribe the content of notices under paragraph ( 1 ), and a consumer reporting agency shall be in compliance with this subsection if it provides a notice under paragraph ( 1 ) that is substantially similar to the Bureau prescription under this paragraph.\n\n( e ) Procurement of consumer report for resale ( 1 ) Disclosure A person may not procure a consumer report for purposes of reselling the report ( or any information in the report ) unless the person discloses to the consumer reporting agency that originally furnishes the report ( A ) the identity of the end-user of the report ( or information ) ; and ( B ) each permissible purpose under section 1681b of this title for which the report is furnished to the end-user of the report ( or information ).\n\n( 2 ) Responsibilities of procurers for resale A person who procures a consumer report for purposes of reselling the report ( or any information in the report ) shall ( A ) establish and comply with reasonable procedures designed to ensure that the report ( or information ) is resold by the person only for a purpose for which the report may be furnished under section 1681b of this title, including by requiring that each person to which the report ( or information ) is resold and that resells or provides the report ( or information ) to any other person ( i ) identifies each end user of the resold report ( or information ) ; ( ii ) certifies each purpose for which the report ( or information ) will be used ; and ( iii ) certifies that the report ( or information ) will be used for no other purpose ; and ( B ) before reselling the report, make reasonable efforts to verify the identifications and certifications made under subparagraph ( A ).\n\n( 3 ) Resale of consumer report to a Federal agency or department Notwithstanding paragraph ( 1 ) or ( 2 ), a person who procures a consumer report for purposes of reselling the report ( or any information in the report ) shall not disclose the identity of the end-user of the report under paragraph ( 1 ) or ( 2 ) if ( A ) the end user is an agency or department of the United States Government which procures the report from the person for purposes of determining the eligibility of the consumer concerned to receive access or continued access to classified information ( as defined in section 1681b ( b ) ( 4 ) ( E ) ( i ) [ 1 ] of this title ) ; and ( B ) the agency or department certifies in writing to the person reselling the report that nondisclosure is necessary to protect classified information or the safety of persons employed by or contracting with, or undergoing investigation for work or contracting with the agency or department.\n\n( a ) Information on file ; sources ; report recipients Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, and subject to section 1681h ( a ) ( 1 ) of this title, clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer : ( 1 ) All information in the consumers file at the time of the request, except that ( A ) if the consumer to whom the file relates requests that the first 5 digits of the social security number ( or similar identification number ) of the consumer not be included in the disclosure and the consumer reporting agency has received appropriate proof of the identity of the requester, the consumer reporting agency shall so truncate such number in such disclosure; and ( B ) nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to disclose to a consumer any information concerning credit scores or any other risk scores or predictors relating to the consumer.\n\n( 2 ) The sources of the information ; except that the sources of information acquired solely for use in preparing an investigative consumer report and actually used for no other purpose need not be disclosed : Provided, That in the event an action is brought under this subchapter, such sources shall be available to the plaintiff under appropriate discovery procedures in the court in which the action is brought.\n\n( 3 ) ( A ) Identification of each person ( including each end-user identified under section 1681e ( e ) ( 1 ) of this title ) that procured a consumer report ( i ) for employment purposes, during the 2-year period preceding the date on which the request is made ; or ( ii ) for any other purpose, during the 1-year period preceding the date on which the request is made.\n\n( B ) An identification of a person under subparagraph ( A ) shall include ( i ) the name of the person or, if applicable, the trade name ( written in full ) under which such person conducts business ; and ( ii ) upon request of the consumer, the address and telephone number of the person.\n\n( C ) Subparagraph ( A ) does not apply if ( i ) the end user is an agency or department of the United States Government that procures the report from the person for purposes of determining the eligibility of the consumer to whom the report relates to receive access or continued access to classified information ( as defined in section 1681b ( b ) ( 4 ) ( E ) ( i ) [ 1 ] of this title ) ; and ( ii ) the head of the agency or department makes a written finding as prescribed under section 1681b ( b ) ( 4 ) ( A ) of this title.\n\n( 4 ) The dates, original payees, and amounts of any checks upon which is based any adverse characterization of the consumer, included in the file at the time of the disclosure.\n\n( 5 ) A record of all inquiries received by the agency during the 1-year period preceding the request that identified the consumer in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that was not initiated by the consumer.\n\n( 6 ) If the consumer requests the credit file and not the credit score, a statement that the consumer may request and obtain a credit score.\n\n( b ) Exempt information The requirements of subsection ( a ) respecting the disclosure of sources of information and the recipients of consumer reports do not apply to information received or consumer reports furnished prior to the effective date of this subchapter except to the extent that the matter involved is contained in the files of the consumer reporting agency on that date.\n\n( c ) Summary of rights to obtain and dispute information in consumer reports and to obtain credit scores ( 1 ) Commission [ 2 ] summary of rights required ( A ) In general The Commission2 shall prepare a model summary of the rights of consumers under this subchapter.\n\n( B ) Content of summary The summary of rights prepared under subparagraph ( A ) shall include a description of ( i ) the right of a consumer to obtain a copy of a consumer report under subsection ( a ) from each consumer reporting agency ; ( ii ) the frequency and circumstances under which a consumer is entitled to receive a consumer report without charge under section 1681j of this title ; ( iii ) the right of a consumer to dispute information in the file of the consumer under section 1681i of this title ; ( iv ) the right of a consumer to obtain a credit score from a consumer reporting agency, and a description of how to obtain a credit score ; ( v ) the method by which a consumer can contact, and obtain a consumer report from, a consumer reporting agency without charge, as provided in the regulations of the Bureau prescribed under section 211 ( c ) 1 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ; and ( vi ) the method by which a consumer can contact, and obtain a consumer report from, a consumer reporting agency described in section 1681a ( w ) 1 of this title, as provided in the regulations of the Bureau prescribed under section 1681j ( a ) ( 1 ) ( C ) of this title.\n\n( C ) Availability of summary of rights The Commission2 shall ( i ) actively publicize the availability of the summary of rights prepared under this paragraph ; ( ii ) conspicuously post on its Internet website the availability of such summary of rights ; and ( iii ) promptly make such summary of rights available to consumers, on request.\n\n( 2 ) Summary of rights required to be included with agency disclosures A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer, with each written disclosure by the agency to the consumer under this section ( A ) the summary of rights prepared by the Bureau under paragraph ( 1 ) ; ( B ) in the case of a consumer reporting agency described in section 1681a ( p ) of this title, a toll-free telephone number established by the agency, at which personnel are accessible to consumers during normal business hours ; ( C ) a list of all Federal agencies responsible for enforcing any provision of this subchapter, and the address and any appropriate phone number of each such agency, in a form that will assist the consumer in selecting the appropriate agency ; ( D ) a statement that the consumer may have additional rights under State law, and that the consumer may wish to contact a State or local consumer protection agency or a State attorney general ( or the equivalent thereof ) to learn of those rights ; and ( E ) a statement that a consumer reporting agency is not required to remove accurate derogatory information from the file of a consumer, unless the information is outdated under section 1681c of this title or can not be verified.\n\n( d ) Summary of rights of identity theft victims ( 1 ) In general The Commission,2 in consultation with the Federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration , shall prepare a model summary of the rights of consumers under this subchapter with respect to the procedures for remedying the effects of fraud or identity theft involving credit, an electronic fund transfer, or an account or transaction at or with a financial institution or other creditor.\n\n( 2 ) Summary of rights and contact information Beginning 60 days after the date on which the model summary of rights is prescribed in final form by the Bureau pursuant to paragraph ( 1 ), if any consumer contacts a consumer reporting agency and expresses a belief that the consumer is a victim of fraud or identity theft involving credit, an electronic fund transfer, or an account or transaction at or with a financial institution or other creditor, the consumer reporting agency shall, in addition to any other action that the agency may take, provide the consumer with a summary of rights that contains all of the information required by the Bureau under paragraph ( 1 ), and information on how to contact the Bureau to obtain more detailed information.\n\n( e ) Information available to victims ( 1 ) In general For the purpose of documenting fraudulent transactions resulting from identity theft, not later than 30 days after the date of receipt of a request from a victim in accordance with paragraph ( 3 ), and subject to verification of the identity of the victim and the claim of identity theft in accordance with paragraph ( 2 ), a business entity that has provided credit to, provided for consideration products, goods, or services to, accepted payment from, or otherwise entered into a commercial transaction for consideration with, a person who has allegedly made unauthorized use of the means of identification of the victim, shall provide a copy of application and business transaction records in the control of the business entity, whether maintained by the business entity or by another person on behalf of the business entity, evidencing any transaction alleged to be a result of identity theft to ( A ) the victim ; ( B ) any Federal, State, or local government law enforcement agency or officer specified by the victim in such a request ; or ( C ) any law enforcement agency investigating the identity theft and authorized by the victim to take receipt of records provided under this subsection.\n\n( 2 ) Verification of identity and claim Before a business entity provides any information under paragraph ( 1 ), unless the business entity, at its discretion, otherwise has a high degree of confidence that it knows the identity of the victim making a request under paragraph ( 1 ), the victim shall provide to the business entity ( A ) as proof of positive identification of the victim, at the election of the business entity ( i ) the presentation of a government-issued identification card ; ( ii ) personally identifying information of the same type as was provided to the business entity by the unauthorized person ; or ( iii ) personally identifying information that the business entity typically requests from new applicants or for new transactions, at the time of the victims request for information, including any documentation described in clauses ( i ) and ( ii ) ; and ( B ) as proof of a claim of identity theft, at the election of the business entity ( i ) a copy of a police report evidencing the claim of the victim of identity theft ; and ( ii ) a properly completed ( I ) copy of a standardized affidavit of identity theft developed and made available by the Bureau ; or ( II ) an [ 3 ] affidavit of fact that is acceptable to the business entity for that purpose.\n\n( 3 ) Procedures The request of a victim under paragraph ( 1 ) shall ( A ) be in writing ; ( B ) be mailed to an address specified by the business entity, if any ; and ( C ) if asked by the business entity, include relevant information about any transaction alleged to be a result of identity theft to facilitate compliance with this section including ( i ) if known by the victim ( or if readily obtainable by the victim ), the date of the application or transaction ; and ( ii ) if known by the victim ( or if readily obtainable by the victim ), any other identifying information such as an account or transaction number.\n\n( 4 ) No charge to victim Information required to be provided under paragraph ( 1 ) shall be so provided without charge.\n\n( 5 ) Authority to decline to provide information A business entity may decline to provide information under paragraph ( 1 ) if, in the exercise of good faith, the business entity determines that ( A ) this subsection does not require disclosure of the information ; ( B ) after reviewing the information provided pursuant to paragraph ( 2 ), the business entity does not have a high degree of confidence in knowing the true identity of the individual requesting the information ; ( C ) the request for the information is based on a misrepresentation of fact by the individual requesting the information relevant to the request for information ; or ( D ) the information requested is Internet navigational data or similar information about a persons visit to a website or online service.\n\n( 6 ) Limitation on liability Except as provided in section 1681s of this title, sections 1681n and 1681o of this title do not apply to any violation of this subsection.\n\n( 7 ) Limitation on civil liability No business entity may be held civilly liable under any provision of Federal, State, or other law for disclosure, made in good faith pursuant to this subsection.\n\n( 8 ) No new recordkeeping obligation Nothing in this subsection creates an obligation on the part of a business entity to obtain, retain, or maintain information or records that are not otherwise required to be obtained, retained, or maintained in the ordinary course of its business or under other applicable law.\n\n( 9 ) Rule of construction ( A ) In general No provision of subtitle A of title V of Public Law 106102 [ 15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq. ], prohibiting the disclosure of financial information by a business entity to third parties shall be used to deny disclosure of information to the victim under this subsection.\n\n( B ) Limitation Except as provided in subparagraph ( A ), nothing in this subsection permits a business entity to disclose information, including information to law enforcement under subparagraphs ( B ) and ( C ) of paragraph ( 1 ), that the business entity is otherwise prohibited from disclosing under any other applicable provision of Federal or State law.\n\n( 10 ) Affirmative defense In any civil action brought to enforce this subsection, it is an affirmative defense ( which the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence ) for a business entity to file an affidavit or answer stating that ( A ) the business entity has made a reasonably diligent search of its available business records; and ( B ) the records requested under this subsection do not exist or are not reasonably available.\n\n( 11 ) Definition of victim For purposes of this subsection, the term victim means a consumer whose means of identification or financial information has been used or transferred ( or has been alleged to have been used or transferred ) without the authority of that consumer, with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, an identity theft or a similar crime.\n\n( 12 ) Effective date This subsection shall become effective 180 days after XX/XX/year>. \n\n( 13 ) Effectiveness study Not later than 18 months after XX/XX/year>, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit a report to Congress assessing the effectiveness of this provision.\n\n( f ) Disclosure of credit scores ( 1 ) In general Upon the request of a consumer for a credit score, a consumer reporting agency shall supply to the consumer a statement indicating that the information and credit scoring model may be different than the credit score that may be used by the lender, and a notice which shall include ( A ) the current credit score of the consumer or the most recent credit score of the consumer that was previously calculated by the credit reporting agency for a purpose related to the extension of credit ; ( B ) the range of possible credit scores under the model used; ( C ) all of the key factors that adversely affected the credit score of the consumer in the model used, the total number of which shall not exceed 4, subject to paragraph ( 9 ) ; ( D ) the date on which the credit score was created ; and ( E ) the name of the person or entity that provided the credit score or credit file upon which the credit score was created.\n\n( 2 ) Definitions For purposes of this subsection, the following definitions shall apply : ( A ) Credit score The term credit score ( i ) means a numerical value or a categorization derived from a statistical tool or modeling system used by a person who makes or arranges a loan to predict the likelihood of certain credit behaviors, including default ( and the numerical value or the categorization derived from such analysis may also be referred to as a risk predictor or risk score ) ; and ( ii ) does not include ( I ) any mortgage score or rating of an automated underwriting system that considers one or more factors in addition to credit information, including the loan to value ratio, the amount of down payment, or the financial assets of a consumer ; or ( II ) any other elements of the underwriting process or underwriting decision.\n\n( B ) Key factors The term key factors means all relevant elements or reasons adversely affecting the credit score for the particular individual, listed in the order of their importance based on their effect on the credit score.\n\n( 3 ) Timeframe and manner of disclosure The information required by this subsection shall be provided in the same timeframe and manner as the information described in subsection ( a ).\n\n( 4 ) Applicability to certain uses This subsection shall not be construed so as to compel a consumer reporting agency to develop or disclose a score if the agency does not ( A ) distribute scores that are used in connection with residential real property loans; or ( B ) develop scores that assist credit providers in understanding the general credit behavior of a consumer and predicting the future credit behavior of the consumer.\n\n( 5 ) Applicability to credit scores developed by another person ( A ) In general This subsection shall not be construed to require a consumer reporting agency that distributes credit scores developed by another person or entity to provide a further explanation of them, or to process a dispute arising pursuant to section 1681i of this title, except that the consumer reporting agency shall provide the consumer with the name and address and website for contacting the person or entity who developed the score or developed the methodology of the score.\n\n( B ) Exception This paragraph shall not apply to a consumer reporting agency that develops or modifies scores that are developed by another person or entity.\n\n( 6 ) Maintenance of credit scores not required This subsection shall not be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to maintain credit scores in its files.\n\n( 7 ) Compliance in certain cases In complying with this subsection, a consumer reporting agency shall ( A ) supply the consumer with a credit score that is derived from a credit scoring model that is widely distributed to users by that consumer reporting agency in connection with residential real property loans or with a credit score that assists the consumer in understanding the credit scoring assessment of the credit behavior of the consumer and predictions about the future credit behavior of the consumer; and ( B ) a statement indicating that the information and credit scoring model may be different than that used by the lender.\n\n( 8 ) Fair and reasonable fee A consumer reporting agency may charge a fair and reasonable fee, as determined by the Bureau, for providing the information required under this subsection.\n\n( 9 ) Use of enquiries as a key factor If a key factor that adversely affects the credit score of a consumer consists of the number of enquiries made with respect to a consumer report, that factor shall be included in the disclosure pursuant to paragraph ( 1 ) ( C ) without regard to the numerical limitation in such paragraph.\n\n( g ) Disclosure of credit scores by certain mortgage lenders ( 1 ) In general Any person who makes or arranges loans and who uses a consumer credit score, as defined in subsection ( f ), in connection with an application initiated or sought by a consumer for a closed end loan or the establishment of an open end loan for a consumer purpose that is secured by 1 to 4 units of residential real property ( hereafter in this subsection referred to as the lender ) shall provide the following to the consumer as soon as reasonably practicable : ( A ) Information required under subsection ( f ) ( i ) In general A copy of the information identified in subsection ( f ) that was obtained from a consumer reporting agency or was developed and used by the user of the information.\n\n( ii ) Notice under subparagraph ( D ) In addition to the information provided to it by a third party that provided the credit score or scores, a lender is only required to provide the notice contained in subparagraph ( D ).\n\n( B ) Disclosures in case of automated underwriting system ( i ) In general If a person that is subject to this subsection uses an automated underwriting system to underwrite a loan, that person may satisfy the obligation to provide a credit score by disclosing a credit score and associated key factors supplied by a consumer reporting agency.\n\n( ii ) Numerical credit score However, if a numerical credit score is generated by an automated underwriting system used by an enterprise, and that score is disclosed to the person, the score shall be disclosed to the consumer consistent with subparagraph ( C ).\n\n( iii ) Enterprise defined For purposes of this subparagraph, the term enterprise has the same meaning as in paragraph ( 6 ) of section 4502 of title 12.\n\n( C ) Disclosures of credit scores not obtained from a consumer reporting agency A person that is subject to the provisions of this subsection and that uses a credit score, other than a credit score provided by a consumer reporting agency, may satisfy the obligation to provide a credit score by disclosing a credit score and associated key factors supplied by a consumer reporting agency.\n\n( D ) Notice to home loan applicants A copy of the following notice, which shall include the name, address, and telephone number of each consumer reporting agency providing a credit score that was used : notice to the home loan applicant In connection with your application for a home loan, the lender must disclose to you the score that a consumer reporting agency distributed to users and the lender used in connection with your home loan, and the key factors affecting your credit scores.\n\nThe credit score is a computer generated summary calculated at the time of the request and based on information that a consumer reporting agency or lender has on file. The scores are based on data about your credit history and payment patterns. Credit scores are important because they are used to assist the lender in determining whether you will obtain a loan. They may also be used to determine what interest rate you may be offered on the mortgage. Credit scores can change over time, depending on your conduct, how your credit history and payment patterns change, and how credit scoring technologies change.\n\nBecause the score is based on information in your credit history, it is very important that you review the credit-related information that is being furnished to make sure it is accurate. Credit records may vary from one company to another.\n\nIf you have questions about your credit score or the credit information that is furnished to you, contact the consumer reporting agency at the address and telephone number provided with this notice, or contact the lender, if the lender developed or generated the credit score. The consumer reporting agency plays no part in the decision to take any action on the loan application and is unable to provide you with specific reasons for the decision on a loan application.\n\nIf you have questions concerning the terms of the loan, contact the lender..\n\n( E ) Actions not required under this subsection This subsection shall not require any person to ( i ) explain the information provided pursuant to subsection ( f ) ; ( ii ) disclose any information other than a credit score or key factors, as defined in subsection ( f ) ; ( iii ) disclose any credit score or related information obtained by the user after a loan has closed ; ( iv ) provide more than 1 disclosure per loan transaction ; or ( v ) provide the disclosure required by this subsection when another person has made the disclosure to the consumer for that loan transaction.\n\n( F ) No obligation for content ( i ) In general The obligation of any person pursuant to this subsection shall be limited solely to providing a copy of the information that was received from the consumer reporting agency.\n\n( ii ) Limit on liability No person has liability under this subsection for the content of that information or for the omission of any information within the report provided by the consumer reporting agency.\n\n( G ) Person defined as excluding enterprise As used in this subsection, the term person does not include an enterprise ( as defined in paragraph ( 6 ) of section 4502 of title 12 ).\n\n( 2 ) Prohibition on disclosure clauses null and void ( A ) In general Any provision in a contract that prohibits the disclosure of a credit score by a person who makes or arranges loans or a consumer reporting agency is void.\n\n( B ) No liability for disclosure under this subsection A lender shall not have liability under any contractual provision for disclosure of a credit score pursuant to this subsection.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-09T03:40:33.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"600XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8308091","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-02-09T03:40:28.000Z","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":["( 7 ) <em>Compliance</em> in certain cases In complying with this subsection, a consumer reporting agency shall ( A ) supply the consumer with a credit score that is derived from a credit scoring model that is widely distributed to users by that consumer reporting agency in connection with <em>residential</em> real property loans or with a credit score that assists the consumer in understanding the credit scoring assessment of the credit behavior of the consumer and predictions about the future credit behavior of"]},"sort":[5.4915185,"8308091"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":26,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":26}]}},"product":{"doc_count":26,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":12,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":5},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Conventional fixed mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":7}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":2}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":26,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":3,"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":3}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closing disclosure or other related disclosures","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Loan servicing, payments, escrow account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"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 enough information to verify debt","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":26,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":25},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":26,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":26}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":26,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":26}]}},"company":{"doc_count":26,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","doc_count":3},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"360 MORTGAGE GROUP LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CORELOGIC INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Guild Holdings Company","doc_count":1},{"key":"LD Holdings Group, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":26,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"IL","doc_count":6},{"key":"GA","doc_count":4},{"key":"FL","doc_count":3},{"key":"MI","doc_count":3},{"key":"CA","doc_count":2},{"key":"WA","doc_count":2},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"DC","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":26,"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":14},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":26,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":5},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":2}]}}},"_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":[5.4915185,"8308091"]}}}