{"took":324,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":104,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10910706","_score":15.713352,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Regarding Equifax Data Breach To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally submit a complaint regarding the data breach that occurred at Equifax in 2017, which has resulted in the exposure of my personal information. This breach has led to the creation of wrongful accounts on my credit report and I am requesting immediate action to have theses accounts deleted. \n\nDetails of the Breach : I was made aware of the Equifax data breach through from an email Equifax had sent on XX/XX/year>. The breach has potentially compromised sensitive personal information, including my name, address, Social Security number, and other identifying information. \n\nImpact : As a result of this breach, I am concerned about the risk of identity theft and fraud. I have taken steps to mitigate this risk. However, I still feel vulnerable and seek further assistance. I am requesting the CFPB to investigate and delete all the wrongful accounts. I believe Equifax has a legal obligation to rectify this situation and protect consumers from the consequences of their data breach. \n\nRequest for Action : I am requesting that the CFPB investigate Equifax 's handling of this data breach and the subsequent impact on consumers like myself. I believe that Equifax has a responsibility to protect consumer information and to provide timely notifications and support to those affected by such breaches. I'm demanding that the following accounts be taken off my credit report immediately Accounts : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response and any assistance you can provide regarding this complaint.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-23T18:25:06.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77047","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10910706","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-11-23T17:11:17.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The breach has potentially compromised sensitive personal information, including my name, address, Social <em>Security</em> number, and <em>other</em> <em>identifying</em> information. \n\nImpact : As a <em>result</em> of this breach, I am concerned about the risk of identity theft and fraud. I have taken steps to mitigate this risk. However, I still feel vulnerable and seek further assistance. I am requesting the CFPB to investigate and delete all the <em>wrongful</em> accounts."],"product":["Credit reporting or <em>other</em> personal consumer reports"]},"sort":[15.713352,"10910706"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21233289","_score":15.658426,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On or about XX/XX/XXXX, Navy Federal Credit Union froze my bank account without prior notice, preventing me from accessing my funds. When I contacted the bank, I was told the restriction was due to suspected fraud involving someone with the same name as me who either has an account or attempted to open one.\n\nI explained that I am not involved in any fraudulent activity and that a name match alone should not be enough to restrict my account. I requested more specific information, including what personal identifiers ( such as my Social Security number, date of birth, or address ) were used to justify this action, but I was not given a clear explanation. \n\nAs a result of this freeze, I have been unable to access my money to pay essential living expenses, including rent, utilities, and other bills. This has caused significant financial hardship. \n\nOn XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX I contacted Navy Federal to resolve the issue and requested that they verify my identity and remove the restriction. I also asked for written documentation explaining the reason for the freeze and what steps are required to restore access to my account. As of today, the issue has not been resolved. \n\nI believe my account has been wrongfully restricted due to an error or misidentification, and I am requesting immediate action to correct this issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-14T18:33:18.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Savings account","zip_code":"60652","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21233289","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2026-04-14T18:10:42.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I requested more specific information, including what personal <em>identifiers</em> ( such as my Social <em>Security</em> number, date of birth, or address ) were used to justify this action, but I was not given a clear explanation. \n\nAs a <em>result</em> of this freeze, I have been unable to access my money to pay essential living expenses, including rent, utilities, and <em>other</em> bills. This has caused significant financial hardship."]},"sort":[15.658426,"21233289"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4311694","_score":12.705166,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"At all times pertinent hereto, consumer is /was a consumer as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ). \n\nAt all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned credit reports were consumer reports as that term deemed by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( d ). \n\nExperian sold Plaintiffs ' and Class Members ' highly sensitive, confidential ( i ) actual identity theft and identity fraud ( ii ) invasion of privacy ( iii ) failure and refusal to safeguard and protect consumer. \n\nExperian failure to safeguard and protect privacy of the ; consumer credit information including encryption ; electronic and procedural safeguards to protect Plaintiffs personal information to date. \n\nConsumer invoking said action for actual damages ; statutory damages and punitive damages brought by consumer, against Experian Information Solutions , Inc., Experian Holdings, Experian Financial Services ; Experian Background. \n\nExperian has been reporting derogatory and inaccurate statements and information relating to Plaintiffs credit history to third parties ( hereafter the inaccurate information ). \n\nExperian access, sold ; aggregate consumer protected members highly sensitive and confidential information and regulated consumer, financial, and personal records including consumer credit information ; social security numbers ( collectively, PII ) were sold PII to other identity theft. \n\nExperian accountable for his/her conduct for failure to ensure Experian never engages in this egregious conduct again. ( CRA ) shall redress defendants faulty process, mixing the credit of consumer files and credit information with other consuming identifying information causing Security Lapse. \n\n\nExperian admonition Security Lapse incurred when permitted a known convicted identity thief or black market PII trafficker, and computer hacker to access, sold ; aggregate consumer protected members highly sensitive and confidential information and regulated consumer, financial, and personal records including consumer credit information ; social security numbers ( collectively, PII ) and sold. The data security lapses willfully and wrongfully disclosed highly sensitive and confidential information of consumer compromised rights of privacy. \n\nExperian accurate reporting of information negatively reflected upon consumer credit repayment history ; financial responsibility as a debtor adversely impacted his credit worthiness. The inaccurate information consists of accounts and/or tradelines that do not belong to the consumer to date Experian and Experian Holdings, Experian Financial Services ; Experian Information Solutions ; Experians ( hereafter Experian ) a person and a consumer reporting agency deemed by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( b ) and ( f ) engaged in pattern or practice of Mixing Consumers Credit Report and Reporting False Accounts violated or in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( hereinafter the FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681, et seq for {$15000.00}. Agency repeatedly and persistently data-file sharing or reciprocity agreement between XXXX  and XXXX. \n\nCRA failure to follow reasonable procedures which assure that the previous and current consumer reports disclose to date met the standard of maximum possible accuracy. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) in violation of Fourth Amendment [ Boyd vs United States ]. \n\nCRA failure to safeguard and protect consumer credit information or report accuracy of information timely ; 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) undermine the public trust or confidence entrusted upon said agency .Experian and Experian Holdings , Experian Financial Services ; Experian Information Solutions having stewardship of Plaintiffs personal information having partnership with known convicted identity thief or black market trafficking of protected service member ( PII ) when computer hacker access ; aggregate ; repacked and sold ( protected member ) highly sensitive information to be collected through underground websites or web scraping violated or in violation of consumer rights of privacy to date. \n\n\nExperian admonition having actual or advance knowledge that merger of ( XXXX ; XXXX ) compromised consumer personal information when entered willfully into reciprocity agreement that granted or facilitated black marketer in willfully and wrongfully obtain and access my ( PII ) ; collected through underground websites or web scraping that violated my rights of privacy. Experian actions or inactions when failure to notify consumer of Security Lapse ; a breach of data that made known or publication of inaccurate or false information ; malign the consumer information to date. \n\nExperian is liable to consumer for willfully and negligently failing to comply with the requirements imposed on a consumer reporting agency of information pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681e and 1681i and 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 15 U.S.C. 1681o. \n\nExperian failure to employ adequate customer data security measures recover FCRA statutory and punitive damages ; pursuant to 15 U.S.C 1681 n ( a ) [ a ] ny person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer for actual, statutory, or punitive damages. See Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods , Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1306 ( XXXX Cir.XX/XX/XXXX ). \n\nThe Supreme Court has held that any reckless disregard of any consumer/subscriber protected rights under FCRA does qualify as willful violation of 1681n ( a ). XXXX, 551 U.S. at 71, 127 S. Ct. at 2216 ; See also XXXX , 564 F.3d at 1310 ( A violation is willful for the purposes of the FCRA ; whe Experian knowingly and willfully violated the terms of the Act with actual or personal knowledge is reckless disregard for the law. \n\nThe above describe parties made an admonition its agents ; Experian and Experian Holdings, Experian Financial Services ; Experian Information Solutions ; Experians agents, subsidiaries, successors, predecessors ; subsidiaries and its parents having controlling interests or ownership ; current and former employees, officers, directors having enjoyed the benefits ; services ; privileges of using consumer ( PII ) through Experian reciprocity agreement shared between XXXX and XXXX. \n\nExperian deficient policies was the moving force behind the constitutional violations to date. \n\nExperian admitting having unlawfully obtain consumers ( PII ) were mixed during Security Lapse. Security Lapse arose during Experian data-file sharing or reciprocity agreement between XXXX  and XXXX  admitted before courts consumer was the victim of criminal impersonation. ( Johnson v. County of Dakota, 510 N.W.2d 237, 240 ( Minn. Ct. App. XX/XX/XXXX). [ XXXX  and XXXX  ]. \n\nCRA and its agents, subsidiaries, successors, predecessors ; subsidiaries of Experian or its parents having controlling interests or ownership ; current and former employees ; officers ; directors and other ( third party/parties ) facilitated cybercriminal acquisition. The cybercriminal acquisition aggregated, repackaged, resell and distributed my ( PII ) through data base-file sharing or reciprocity agreement between failure to protect and safeguard consumer ( PII ). \n\nCOUNT I I EXPERIAN VIOLATIONS OF FCRA CALIFORNIA UNFAIR LAW CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE 17200, 17300 et seq. ) 46. California Unfair Competition Law, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE 17200,17300 et seq ; ( UCL ), prohibits any false or misleading advertisement, unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business ; acts or practices ; known to be unfair, deceptive or untrue prohibited by Chapter 1 Section 17200 defined by UCL. \n\nConsumer invoking Ga. Code Ann . 10-1-910 to -912 as result of CRA above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, want of ordinary care. \n\nPursuant to 1681i ( a ) consumer reporting agency ( Experian ) failure to conduct an unbiased reasonable reinvestigation of Petitioners written complaints ( s ) during XXXX XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX ; failure to remove false reporting about the consumers credit reports or consumer reports resulted in derogatory account ( s ) on his credit report to public shall be culpable for a consumer to recover actual damages. \n\nExperian knew or reasonably known the account was fraudulent date of reported but kept reporting as accurate ; such false reporting violated Section 13 ( b ) of ( FTC Act ) ; 15 U.S.C. 53 ( b ), Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information ( Safeguards Rule ) ; 16 C.F.R. Part 314 ; Sections 501-504 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLB Act ) ; 15 U.S.C. 6801- 6804 ; 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ). \n\nExperian and Experian Holdings, Experian Financial Services ; Experian Information Solutions ; Experians agents, subsidiaries, successors, predecessors ; subsidiaries XXXX XXXX XXXX herein ( XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX ) which Experian or its parents having controlling interests or ownership ; current and former employees, officers, directors and registered agent XXXX XXXX on formal notice my previous FTC complaint ; mixing of files and data information file sharing agreement to date, went unresponsive. \n\nComplaint Against Experian for Mixing Credit Files and Information, False Credit Reporting COUNT III Experian Violated Section 1681g Deficient Disclosures and Fraudulent Concealment Experian actors ; failed to disclose known breach of data timely or concealment of Security Lapse violated or in violation of Plaintiffs trust, violated Section 1681g ( a ) ( l ). \n\nExperian had advance knowledge of concealment of agency above-describe violation of the Plaintiffs trust or disclosures that shown an inaccurate account of the consumer credit worthiness ; when known in fact consumer credit worthiness ; was gross fabrication about the consumer to date. \n\nExperian ; Experian Senior General Counsel ; Experian 's agents and directors ; entrusted with the stewardship over my ( PII ) violated that chain of trust, when failed to disclose such breach of data timely ; violated Section 1681g ( a ) ( l ) .The deficient disclosures shown an inaccurate account of consumer credit worthiness, specifically misled banks and lenders into believing that the information disclose by Experian was accurate when in fact was gross fabrication about the consumer to date. \n\nExperian took active steps to conceal its above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, want of ordinary care, nondisclosures of the Security Lapse. Experian went so far to exclude consumer from discovery of the data-file sharing agreement and concealment of its above-described unlawful conduct to date from consumer would have shown Experian failure to exercised due diligence by not vetting XXXX during merger. \n\nIV. Harm Suffered by Consumer Experians arbitrary decision to remain silent of the breach of data ; prohibited consumer from discovery of these failures and afforded the opportunity to independently investigate the negative information in his file for completeness, accuracy and potential fraud. \n\nExperian 's failures subjected consumer to injury and the deprivation of his right to privacy and accuracy or afforded the opportunity to exercise his right to object under FCRA Section 1681 b ( e ) or the sharing of his data between ( XXXX  ) and ( XXXX  ) under Section l68la ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii ). \n\nExperian deficient procedures and practices arose during merger of ( XXXX cause the mismatching of consumer credit information and files belonging to another subscriber or consumer ; resulted in identity theft/fraud pursuant to 1681 ( a ) ( d ). \n\nExperian intentionally concealed its above-described wrongful conduct ; proven their motives were pretext for non-disclosure of material information that would reveal to consumer and the public ; failure to exercised due diligence or care by not vetting XXXX during the merger met all applicable statutes under the fraudulent concealment doctrine. \n\nExperian took active steps to conceal its above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, want of ordinary care, nondisclosures, and the resulting Security Lapse. Such concealment of Experian above-described unlawful conduct in its possession, custody and control excluded consumer in discovery of data-file sharing agreement revealed timely to consumer ; supports and substantiates Experian failure to exercised due diligence resulting in Security Lapse. Experian conceal its above-described unlawful conduct are in its possession, custody, and control, to the exclusion of consumer and further discovery. \n\nExperian repeatedly and persistently violated Section 1681g Disclosures and Section 168la ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ) and ( ii ) disclosing information collected from XXXX XXXX and verify the accuracy of furnisher information despite knowingly the consumer was the subject of mixing of files and information. \n\nExperian violated Section 1681g Disclosures ( 1 ) failure to notify consumer that XXXX aggregated, repackage and distributed erroneous information about him from Consumer View database ; XXXX XXXX and other databases Experian owns, controls and/or maintains. CRA made it functionally impossible for consumer to discover or take advantage of the self-policing remedies provided to him under the FCRA, therefore violated consumer 's statutory and constitutional right to privacy under Section 1681g. \n\nV. Experian Cause Fraud by using Consumer PII Without Authorization Experian admitted intended to use and did used consumer PII to obtain good and services in consumer name through websites supports and substantiates criminal fraud. \n\nGa. Code Ann . 10-1-910 to -912 defines any unauthorized acquisition that compromises the security, confidentiality or integrity of the covered info by transmitting or otherwise communicating information concerning individuals for the primary purpose of furnishing personal information to nonaffiliated third parties for purpose not permissible. \n\nExperian willfully and recklessly violated 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( b ), 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( d ) ( 3 ), 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( a ) ; ( g ) and 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 6 ) failing to identify ; implement ; maintain and monitor proper data security measures, policies, procedures ; software and hardware systems to safeguard and protect consumer PII. \n\nExperian above-described wrongful actions, inaction and omissions whether directly and proximately caused Security Lapse resulted in the willful and wrongful dissemination of consumer PII into the public domain for no permissible purpose under FCRA. \n\nExperian above-described actions violated ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( a ) ( 3 ) ) ( a ) ( 4 ) failure to ensure accountability and transparency in protection of consumer 's right to privacy. The failure to safeguard and protect consumer PII ; ( ii ) properly conduct its due diligence prior to acquiring XXXX and XXXX ; ( iii ) properly investigate the hacker or black marketer XXXX and his fraudulent operations after learning about him ; ( iv ) not promptly notify consumer PII was wrongly accessed and/or obtained without authorization cause Security Lapse. Such willful conduct and reckless behavior prevented consumer timely notification about the Security Lapse which, in turn, inflicted additional economic damages and other actual injury and harm on consumer. \n\nExperian willful and wanton negligence violated or in violation of Section 1681 ( e ) ; Section1681 ( i ) ; Section1681 ( g ) and Section1681 ( o ).","date_sent_to_company":"2021-04-22T13:32:20.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30157","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4311694","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2021-04-21T01:10:02.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Code Ann . 10-1-910 to -912 as <em>result</em> of CRA above-described <em>wrongful</em> actions, inaction, omissions, want of ordinary care."],"product":["Credit reporting, credit repair services, or <em>other</em> personal consumer reports"]},"sort":[12.705166,"4311694"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17311200","_score":12.668726,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/XXXX, I financed my vehicle through OneMain Financial. From the date of purchase to the present, I had continuous full-coverage auto insurance with no lapses. The only issue was an administrative error, OneMain was not listed as the lienholder on my first 6-month policy term. This was never a lapse in required insurance, and I never missed a loan payment. Despite this, OneMain added over {$800.00} in insurance charges and reported me as past due based entirely on those improper charges.\n\nFor several months leading up to the repossession, I contacted OneMain repeatedly to understand why my account reflected a delinquent balance. Every call resulted in transfers between departments, long hold times, and conflicting explanations. No one could clearly identify the issue. I made every effort to resolve the problem, but I was repeatedly given inaccurate or incomplete information. It was not until much later that someone finally told me the problem was related to insurance verification. Even after being told that, I still received misinformation about what documents were needed. About a week before the repossession, I finally succeeded in getting one of my two 6-month insurance terms verified. The second term was still pending verification when OneMain repossessed my car. TThe day after my vehicle was taken, OneMain finished verifying the remaining insurance period and removed all late charges and force-placed insurance fees. In other words, they corrected the mistake after repossessing my car even though the documentation I provided proved I had continuous coverage all along. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX around XXXX, OneMain wrongfully repossessed my vehicle while I was visiting my partner in XXXX XXXX which is more than 40 miles away from my home in XXXX XXXX My house keys, work phone, XXXX XXXX, reading glasses, and other personal belongings were in the vehicle when it was taken. Because my house keys were inside the car, I could not return home that night and was forced into XXXX unplanned overnight stays at my partners home. Being stranded far from home without keys, medication, or transportation created both safety and financial concerns. \n\nThe repossession also caused a serious health risk. I have XXXX, and my XXXX  was locked inside the vehicle. Because the repo yard delayed access until the following day, I went more than XXXX hours without my medication and experienced difficulty XXXX  and XXXX-related symptoms. This was entirely preventable and directly caused by the wrongful repossession and the mishandling of the situation. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX around XXXX, OneMain instructed me to retrieve my vehicle and belongings from XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXX but the yard refused to answer calls from me, OneMain, or XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX When I showed up they delayed access by stating they only operated by appointment, and they to pushed my retrieval to the next day, despite the fact that I needed my XXXX, phone, and keys. This delay prolonged the unsafe and stressful situation caused by the wrongful repossession. \n\nWhen I arrived at the repo yard to pick up my car on XX/XX/XXXX, staff members forced me to sign paperwork stating that all of my belongings were present and that the vehicle was in good condition before they would allow me to see either the car or its contents. I specifically asked to inspect the vehicle first, and they told me I was not allowed to do that. Under pressure, I signed the form, but I wrote under my signature that I had been forced to sign without seeing the vehicle or belongings first. This is an improper and coercive practice. \n\nOnce I was finally given access to my belongings, it was clear that my property had been mishandled. Items were thrown into bags with no care. My XXXX XXXX, valued at more than {$400.00}, were scratched. My prescription reading glasses, valued at more than {$200.00}, were bent and scratched. Several hats had their brims bent out of shape. Personal photos were crumpled and damaged. Shoes were shoved on top of clothes ruining them, Gifts that had been adhered to my car were torn off and tossed into bags. I spent hours sorting through damaged, dirty, disorganized items to locate my XXXX, work phone, glasses, and other necessary belongings. \n\nWhen I finally received my vehicle, multiple tire pressure warning lights were illuminated, even though these lights were not on before the repossession. This raises concerns that the vehicle may have been damaged during towing or storage. I now need diagnostic work to determine whether any mechanical or safety issues were caused by the repossession.\n\nThe wrongful repossession and the delays caused significant financial harm. I earn {$27.00} per hour and work 10-hour days, and I missed a full day of work dealing with this situation. My partner had to miss an 8-hour shift to transport me because I had no access to transportation, and she earns {$30.00} per hour. We also incurred gas and transportation costs from multiple XXXX trips between XXXX, the OneMain branch, and the repo yard. My work phone was inside the vehicle, which prevented me from performing my job duties and worsened the disruption to my employment. Because my house keys were inside the repossessed vehicle, the security of my home was compromised, and I now may need to rekey my locks. Additionally, I lost hours of time dealing with OneMains misinformation, long hold times, repeated transfers, the repo yards lack of communication, and the process of retrieving and sorting through damaged property.\n\nOverall, this situation resulted from months of incorrect information from OneMain, improper servicing of my account, incorrect insurance charges, and a wrongful repossession. The conduct of both OneMain and the repossession agent created financial loss, safety risks, health risks, property damage, home-security problems, work disruptions, and significant hardship. OneMain has acknowledged the repossession was an error by removing the charges, but the harm caused by their actions has been substantial and requires resolution.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-17T04:45:47.000Z","issue":"Repossession","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"91335","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17311200","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"OneMain Finance Corporation","date_received":"2025-11-17T04:11:43.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Damage caused or loss of personal items in vehicle during the actual repossession"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Overall, this situation <em>resulted</em> from months of incorrect information from OneMain, improper servicing of my account, incorrect insurance charges, and a <em>wrongful</em> repossession. The conduct of both OneMain and the repossession agent created financial loss, safety risks, health risks, property damage, home-<em>security</em> problems, work disruptions, and significant hardship."]},"sort":[12.668726,"17311200"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9573438","_score":12.64876,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"My Personal Sworn Statement & Declaration : I declare under penalty of perjury ( under the laws of the United States. if executed outside of the United States ) that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Furthermore, I certify that I am permitted by federal and state law to follow this dispute. I also understand that knowing and willful misstatement of omissions of material facts constitutes a federal criminal violation punishable under the 18 U.S.C. 1001. Additionally, these misstatements are punishable as perjury under 18 U.S.C 1621. The items found within my credit report that I listed on the following pages are not related to any transaction that I made. I am alleging that a person or company -without my authorization- used my personal identifying information to apply for goods, services, or money ; and, was successful in creating some accounts. I have filed a formal report with the federal trade commission which I have attached to this letter. In addition, I have also corresponded with the agencies and Creditors listed. The respective agencies have been very cooperative with me and guided me to the point of taking this step to write you directly. I understand that you reserve the right to not delete and block the items. Im requesting you to do so for. I want to make it clear that Im not making this request an error. I have not misrepresented myself with the allegations aforementioned, and I did not obtain any goods, services, or money as a result of the transactions. I attempted to file a police report, but I was informed by my county that it did not constitute an emergency. Furthermore, they informed me that they wouldnt file the report because I didnt have any information on the individual or company who used my information, nor do I know how my information was wrongfully obtained. I want to personally thank you for taking the time to review my grievance and I look forward to your continued assistance. FOR SECURITY I HAVE INCLUDED MY IDENTIFICATION ON ANOTHER PAGE I WANT THE CFPB TO PUBLISH THIS DESCRIPTION ON CONSUMERFINANCE.GOV SO THAT OTHERS CAN LEARN FROM MY EXPERIENCE. \n\nThe CFPB will take steps to remove my personal information from this description but someone may still be able to identify me. Learn how it works. I consent to publishing this description after the CFPB has taken these steps.\n\nInactive modal Inactive modalEdit this section What would be a fair resolution to this issue?\n\nMy Personal Sworn Statement & Declaration : I declare under penalty of perjury ( under the laws of the United States. if executed outside of the United States ) that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Furthermore, I certify that I am permitted by federal and state law to follow this dispute. I also understand that knowing and willful misstatement of omissions of material facts constitutes a federal criminal violation punishable under the 18 U.S.C. 1001. Additionally, these misstatements are punishable as perjury under 18 U.S.C 1621. The items found within my credit report that I listed on the following pages are not related to any transaction that I made. I am alleging that a person or company -without my authorization- used my personal identifying information to apply for goods, services, or money ; and, was successful in creating some accounts. I have filed a formal report with the federal trade commission which I have attached to this letter. In addition, I have also corresponded with the agencies and Creditors listed. The respective agencies have been very cooperative with me and guided me to the point of taking this step to write you directly. I understand that you reserve the right to not delete and block the items. Im requesting you to do so for. I want to make it clear that Im not making this request an error. I have not misrepresented myself with the allegations aforementioned, and I did not obtain any goods, services, or money as a result of the transactions. I attempted to file a police report, but I was informed by my county that it did not constitute an emergency. Furthermore, they informed me that they wouldnt file the report because I didnt have any information on the individual or company who used my information, nor do I know how my information was wrongfully obtained. I want to personally thank you for taking the time to review my grievance and I look forward to your continued assistance. FOR SECURITY I HAVE INCLUDED MY IDENTIFICATION ON ANOTHER PAGE","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-21T18:44:41.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"11216","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9573438","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-07-21T18:38:59.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["FOR <em>SECURITY</em> I HAVE INCLUDED MY IDENTIFICATION ON ANOTHER PAGE"],"sub_product":["<em>Other</em> debt"],"sub_issue":["Debt was <em>result</em> of identity theft"]},"sort":[12.64876,"9573438"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9850478","_score":11.2517395,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Early Warning Services is a XXXX XXXX practicing unethical and predatory practices. These practices include the selling or trading of one my consumer report, consumer disclosure file, and nonpublic personal information to persons who create securities. I am witnessing securities fraud in real time. Early Warning is not concerned with the fact that having any type of consumer report securitized exposes peoples ' nonpublic personal information to security breaches and data breaches which increases the risk of identity theft and fraud. Early Warning is not concerned with the fact that regulators have implemented rules and regulations to protect consumer data and prevent misuse. Early Warning steals our information and then deny people the right to a security freeze, their consumer report, and their right to their consumer disclosure file, not to be confused with the credit/consumer report, but the consumer disclosure file. I never gave them authorization to give, sell, or trade my nonpublic personal information, my consumer report, or my consumer disclosure file. Also, I never received a privacy notice, nor will they supply the original one with my signature. \nI never gave Permission to Early Warning Services, XXXX, any parent company, co-owner, or subsidiary to securitize, sell or trade my consumer report, consumer disclosure file, and nonpublic personal information. Show me where I said you could sell or trade my reports, my files, and my nonpublic personal information and not give me the proceeds from the millions of dollars that are profited off of these securities. By trading these securities on the secondary market, the persons who traded these securities become guilty of securities fraud, tax evasion, racketeering, money laundering and others. This scheme that Early Warning took part in, with the intent to defraud, was intentional, deliberate, and voluntary, rather than by mistake, accident, or carelessness which makes them liable u\n\nnder 18 USC 1348. Indiana Code Section 24-5-24 of the Indiana Code allows Indiana residents to place a security freeze on their consumer reports. FCRA 605A 15 U.S.C. 1681c-1 (\ni ) ( 2 ) ( A ) says you must put a security freeze on consumer reports.\n\nEarly Warning Services credit reporting agency is operating in accordance with the FCRA according to your website. web page XXXX XXXXwww.earlywarning.comXXXX  : This is a direct quote takin from your website. \n\" Early Warning supports consumers ' rights to dispute and correct inaccurate or incomplete information that has been furnished to Early Warning in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). '' I demand Early Warning, and its subsidiaries put a Security Freeze on any and all credit reports and any and all Consumer Disclosure Files that is in my name. To be effective immediately and indefinitely. A confirmation will be sent by mail or email. Security Freeze restricts credit bureaus, creditors, potential employers, XXXX, subsidiaries, parent companies, co-owners ect. Under the Fair Credit Report Act you are required to comply. \nIndiana Code Section 24-5-24 shall place a security freeze on the consumer 's consumer report not later than five ( 5 ) business days after receipt of the request. Not later than ten ( 10 ) business days after receiving a request for a security freeze shall issue to the consumer a written confirmation that a security freeze has been placed on the consumer 's consumer report. \nFCRA 605A Identity theft prevention ; fraud alerts and active duty alerts 15 U.S.C. 1681c-1 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( A ) In general. Upon receiving a direct request from a consumer that a consumer reporting agency place a security freeze, and upon receiving proper identification from the consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall, free of charge, place the security freeze not later than - ( ii ) in the case of a request that is by mail, XXXX business days after receiving the request directly from the consumer. \nFCRA 605A 15 U.S.C. 1681c-1 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( B ) Confirmation and additional information. Not later than XXXX business days after placing a security freeze under subparagraph ( A ), a consumer reporting agency shall - ( i ) send confirmation of the placement to the consumer. \n15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply is liable to that consumer in an amount of ( 1 ) ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00}.\n\nI Opt Out of any future information reporting. I rescind and revoke any and all authorization I may have given whether the authorization were implied, directly given, indirectly given, or otherwise per 16 CFR 313.7, 15 USC 6802, 12 CFR 1016.7. To be effective immediately and indefinitely. \nThe FBI defines Identity theft : Wrongfully obtaining and using another person 's personal data ( e.g., name, date of birth, Social Security number, driver 's license number, credit card number ). \nThe US Department of Justice defines Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person 's personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic gain. \nXXXX Indiana Code \" Identity Theft '' IN Code 35-40-14-1 ( 2023 ) Sec . 1. As used in this chapter, \" identity theft '' means : ( 1 ) identity deception ( IC 35-43-5-3.5 ) ; or ( 2 ) synthetic identity deception ( IC 35-43-5-3.8 ) identity deception ( IC 35-43-5-3.5 ) -a person with intent to harm or defraud another person, knowingly or intentionally obtains, possesses, transfers, or uses identifying information to profess to be another person, a Level 6 felony.\n\n18 U.S. Code 1028A - Aggravated identity theft, Public Law 108-275 ( 118 STAT. 831 ) ( a ) ( 1 ) In general - Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection ( c ), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years. \nI WILL ONLY RESPOND MY MAIL OR EMAIL SO I CAN HAVE A PAPER TRAIL OF NON-COMPLIANCE.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-19T21:33:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"46619","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9850478","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Early Warning Services, LLC","date_received":"2024-08-19T20:39:23.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Show me where I said you could sell or trade my reports, my files, and my nonpublic personal information and not give me the proceeds from the millions of dollars that are profited off of these <em>securities</em>. By trading these <em>securities</em> on the secondary market, the persons who traded these <em>securities</em> become guilty of <em>securities</em> fraud, tax evasion, racketeering, money laundering and <em>others</em>."],"product":["Credit reporting or <em>other</em> personal consumer reports"],"issue":["Problem with fraud alerts or <em>security</em> freezes"]},"sort":[11.2517395,"9850478"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2692815","_score":11.222388,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"Today I found out my citibank ( XXXX ) credit card was cancelled by citibank. My husband who travels for work tried using it while out of state and it was declined. Note : it is the only credit card he had with him as a result I had to wire him emergency funds. \nAs soon as my husband informed me I called Citibank to see what was going on. I had a credit line of {$8000.00}, have never owed more than 20 % of that and typically pay off the entire balance each month, and I have abided by all agreement terms. \nA Citi representative informed me that they did a random credit check and due to my high balances with other creditors they closed my Citi credit card without notice. I tried telling them I dont carry high balances on any of my credit cards and I only have a few credit cards which I am aware of. XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Sears and one other I cant recall which bank at this moment. \nAs far as Citis claim of a RANDOM credit check, that is an untrue statement. I can assure you and if this ever goes to court, I can prove without doubt Citi pulling my credit report information was not random. However, the information the Citi representative provided me with as a result of pulling my XXXX report, alerted me to more unauthorized use of my personal information. I have placed security alerts with XXXX, XXXX and XXXX  months ago, including on XX/XX/17 and XX/XX/2017 due to accounts being opened and accessed in my name without my permission. However, and incredibly unscrupulous XXXX  has refused to add the Security Freeze or Alert. Get this ; they demand a copy of my drivers license and social security card. Would anyone in their right mind provide any personal documents to them? I have provided them with the identical information I provided to XXXX and XXXX, which was accepted to place security freezes and the information provided matches info. that has been on all my credit reports for over a decade. Additionally, XXXX has no problem using similar information to allow crooks to open accounts in my name. Further and even more absurb, XXXX sends me these letters to my home address the identical address I provided to them denying my request and demanding personal documentation. I even provided XXXX with an affidavit that i am XXXX XXXX and this affidavit was notarized. \nTo prevent any confusion due to the length of this complaint, here is my specific claim with respect to Citibank The Citi card account ending in XXXX is an unauthorized account, nearly every transaction is unauthorized. I believe this to be an account I did open a few years ago but have not used in a few years. Somehow someone got hold of it, changed information and has been using it for a long time. \nMy XXXX Citi account is mine and has always been in compliance There is a huge separation between the spending patterns of My XXXX account and the fraud account. Citibank should have recognized this difference Citibank stated the reason my XXXX credit card account was closed is due to high credit limits I have with other creditors and returned payments with the unauthorized Citibank credit card. Therefore, I pulled my credit report and there are numerous accounts I can identify as NOT mine.As I did inform the representative over the phone, I do NOT carry credit limits on the 4 credit accounts that are legally mine. Citibank wrongly closed my XXXX card and are willingly reporting inaccurate information to the credit bureaus. \nI have dispute my Citibank account ending in XXXX and the wrongful closure of my XXXX account with XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. Letters being mailed out today. \n\n*Please Note : I have a XXXX XXXX which also affects my XXXX, Citi witnessed my XXXX during our conversation on XX/XX/XXXX. As a result I am not comfortable speaking over the phone. I typically have to see the person ( read lips and facial/body expressions to help me understand sounds ) Otherwise, I have my daughter or husband speak for me. If this is the case I can provide a limited power of attorney. The other alternative is to have all correspondence written, either by email, USPS, XXXX whichever platform Citi prefers In the meantime, I am requesting Citibank follow the law and remove all information on my credit reports with respect the the account ending in XXXX, until after a completed investigation. By removing the reporting of these account to the credit bureaus immediately until an investigation can be completed does not in anyway harm Citibank. \nHowever, not removing this account and closure of XXXX account can and likely will have serious and life changing consequences with me. Most concerning is the fact I could lose my job. My employer monitors our credit and if it is below standard I will be fired. Being in my mid XXXX, the ability to get another similar job would be very difficult. If Citi does not take these precautions it could very well destroy my life. \n\nFurther, I will be retaining a law firm to represent me, I am not well versed on the law and need to be sure I am properly represented. \nWhen I filed my request for security freezes with XXXX they informed me there was nothing else i needed to do. Please see following including attachments from XXXX. \nXXXX states : NO MORE WORK FOR YOU Once your selected alert is placed on your credit file, we will forward your alert request to XXXX  and XXXX  so you do n't need to contact each of them separately. \n\nXXXX  giving people runaround when trying to get copies or freeze their credit report. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Tens of thousands have trouble freezing their credit report with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2017-10-04T12:43:31.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"48322","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2692815","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2017-10-04T12:31:13.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["However, the information the Citi representative provided me with as a <em>result</em> of pulling my XXXX report, alerted me to more unauthorized use of my personal information. I have placed <em>security</em> alerts with XXXX, XXXX and XXXX  months ago, including on XX/XX/17 and XX/XX/2017 due to accounts being opened and accessed in my name without my permission. However, and incredibly unscrupulous XXXX  has refused to add the <em>Security</em> Freeze or Alert."]},"sort":[11.222388,"2692815"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17877410","_score":10.939594,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am the account holder for a business account ( XXXX relationship ) ending [ # # # # ]. On XX/XX/year>, while XXXX XXXX was still in Florida, I reported fraud to AmEx. Despite that notice, AmEx did not promptly stop or reverse pending items; multiple authorizations were allowed to settle. Later, after XXXX XXXX had traveled to XXXX, AmEx appears to have canceled only his return flightand I received no written notice from AmEx identifying what was canceled/credited versus allowed to post. I learned of the return-flight cancellation from other sources, not AmEx. \n\nA criminal investigation is active ( XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) and is referenced in XXXX Report XXXX. XXXX. AmEx has filed a civil action ( American Express National Bank XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Div. XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). I have moved for a stay and extension. \nTo reiterate the facts : XXXX XXXX was NOT an authorized account holder. He was issued a business card under my company, XXXX XXXX, but the account is solely under my name and linked to my personal Social Security Number ( SSN ). He was never granted full account access, yet he was able to make unauthorized personal charges on both his assigned card and mine. \n->I never authorized these charges. XXXX XXXX used my business account for personal, non-business-related expenses, which is a clear abuse of access and a fraudulent misuse of my account. \n->American Express failed to act on my fraud report. Upon discovering these unauthorized transactions, I immediately called American Express around XX/XX/year>, to report them. Instead of taking action to protect me, American Express ignored my report and has since attempted to shift the blame onto me. \n->American Express falsely claims I requested changes to account access. I have received letters from American Express sta ng that, based on my request, it removed XXXX XXXX full account access, concierge access, and travel access. This is a blatant lieI never made such a request, nor was I ever informed that XXXX XXXX had these accesses in the first place. How was he granted these permissions without my knowledge? Who approved them? This represents a severe breach of account security by American Express. \nAmerican Express wrongfully closed all my accounts. Instead of properly investigating the fraud, American Express canceled all my accounts under the false pretense of returned payments. This reckless ac on directly resulted from XXXX XXXX fraudulent transac ons, yet I am the one suffering the consequences. \n->I have paid a {$700.00} annual fee for fraud protec on that American Express has completely failed to provide. I paid this premium for the American Express Pla num Card with the understanding that I would receive elite service, fraud protec on, and account security. Instead, I have been le paying for fraudulent charges with no support from American Express.\n\n-> American Express failure to act has caused me severe financial harm. Your negligence has placed me in financial distress, forcing me to bear the burden of unauthorized charges, the unjust closure of my accounts, and ongoing damage to my financial reputation.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-25T23:36:37.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33625","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17877410","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2025-10-16T21:48:30.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This represents a severe breach of account <em>security</em> by American Express. \nAmerican Express <em>wrongfully</em> closed all my accounts. Instead of properly investigating the fraud, American Express canceled all my accounts under the false pretense of returned payments. This reckless ac on directly <em>resulted</em> from XXXX XXXX fraudulent transac ons, yet I am the one suffering the consequences. \n->I have paid a {$700.00} annual fee for fraud protec on that American Express has completely failed to provide."]},"sort":[10.939594,"17877410"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9802481","_score":10.763827,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Wells Fargo NA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Iowa XXXX XX/XX/XXXX PLEASE NOTE : This notice is being provided for rebuttal of information provided in your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. The purpose is to show and reveal that Wells Fargo NA has manipulated documents, as a result, to continue its fraud of wrongfully FORECLOSURE ON MY PROPERTY located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, GA XXXX on or after XX/XX/XXXX. As a result of at least one bankruptcy case filed by [ Former Wife XXXX XXXX XXXX ]. On XX/XX/XXXX, my former wife, filed XXXX  XXXX Bankruptcy, [ without notice to me ] which escalated Wells Fargo to start foreclosure on the aforesaid property. \n\nIssues in order of your letter aforementioned above. \nThe account 's origination of the origination Lender was XXXX  XXXX XXXX  XXXX. The Security Deed, or security instrument, was dated XX/XX/XXXX. The account 's servicing was transferred to Wells Fargo, per the guidelines of the Security Deed, as detailed in Section 20, on Page 11 of that origination document. \n\nRebuttal Yes, the document provided states XXXX  XXXX XXXX  XXXX. \nWells Fargo NA FAILED to provide any documentation showing the property was transferred to Wells Fargo NA. This establishes, that Wells Fargo NA, had the NO legal right to fraudulently FORECLOSE on the property aforementioned above. Through and by its attorneys ; XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX attorneys for Wells Fargo, NA. by and through XXXX XXXX, XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, local agents attorneys for Wells Fargo NA. \n\nMy attorney through XXXX XXXX, XXXX local agents attorneys for Wells Fargo NA. fraudulently canceled said document my application for refinancing based on previous statements by Wells Fargo NA well over thirteen years ago, which exceeds the record retention guidelines of Wells Fargo, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Office of Comptroller of Currency. We are unable to comment about your claims about the request for a refinance.\n\nWells Fargo NA further states the following, the application in question would have been submitted well over thirteen years ago, which exceeds the record retention guidelines of Wells Fargo, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Office of Comptroller of Currency. We are unable to comment on your claims about the request for a refinance.\n\nYet Wells Fargo NA was able to miraculously [ Listed below ] find other documents that pre-dated my request for REFINANCING the property. Submitted through XXXX XXXX, XXXX local agents attorneys for Wells Fargo NA. \n\nList of documents. \n1. The Security Deed, or security instrument, was dated XX/XX/XXXX. Twenty-two years to date.\n\n2. Letter ( s ) of default dated XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, that far exceeds their claim for retention requirements. [ Copies provided in their response ]. \nI never received this offer IF it was made. As stated earlier I was involved in a divorce from my previous wife, who occupied the property. Such a document is required to be sent by Certified Mail, as stated The Security Deed, instrument, was dated XX/XX/XXXX. This is obvious since no such declaration was made in the letter ( s ) sent to me. \n\nThe letter dated XX/XX/XXXX [ miraculously ] found shows and details my effort to refinance my property, again Wells Fargo NA intentionally concealed my attempt to refinance my property, since I was able to get my former wife to agree to a Quit Claim Deed to refinance my property. \n\nI reinstall my claim for compensation for fraudulent foreclosure on my property XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, GA XXXX. And be compensated {$24000.00} + legal fees as stipulated of {$4000.00} as retribution for Wells Fargo NA through its attorney. \n\nWells Fargo 's reputation is undoubtedly corrupt, not mine. BASED on the following. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the Bureau issued an order against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which is a national bank headquartered in XXXX XXXX, South Dakota. Wells Fargo is the third largest bank in the United States, with nearly {$1.00} XXXX in assets, and the largest provider of consumer financial products. The Bureau identified multiple violations across several of the banks largest consumer product lines, which led to billions of dollars in financial harm and, in thousands of cases, the loss of customers vehicles and homes. Specifically, with respect to auto loan servicing Wells Fargo engaged in unfair acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by incorrectly applying consumer payments; charging borrowers incorrect fees, interest, or other amounts ; wrongly repossessing borrowers vehicles ; and failing to refund consumers who had paid certain fees upfront to automobile dealers when warranted. Wells Fargo also engaged in unfair practices by improperly denying mortgage loan modifications, miscalculating fees, and other charges, and assessing unwarranted charges and fees. With respect to deposit accounts, Wells Fargo : unfairly froze multiple consumer accounts in instances of suspected fraud when lesser restraints were available ; made deceptive claims as to the availability of waivers of monthly service fees ; and unfairly charged overdraft fees even if the consumer had enough funds available in their account to cover the amount of the transaction at the time they made it. The order requires Wells Fargo to come into compliance with federal consumer financial law, pay more than {$2.00} XXXX in consumer redress, and pay a {$1.00} XXXX penalty. \n\nAND STATED by CFPB One in three American households is a Wells Fargo customer and is affected by its business practices and \" corporate culture, '' the CFPB says. More specifically, Wells Fargo customers who had either an auto loan, mortgage loan, or bank account between XXXX and XXXX were affected and may be eligible for a payout. \n\nPlease govern yourselves accordingly, Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-14T17:39:20.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"30043","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9802481","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-08-14T17:31:40.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Delays in the application process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The purpose is to show and reveal that Wells Fargo NA has manipulated documents, as a <em>result</em>, to continue its fraud of <em>wrongfully</em> FORECLOSURE ON MY PROPERTY located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, GA XXXX on or after XX/XX/XXXX. As a <em>result</em> of at least one bankruptcy case filed by [ Former Wife XXXX XXXX XXXX ]. On XX/XX/XXXX, my former wife, filed XXXX  XXXX Bankruptcy, [ without notice to me ] which escalated Wells Fargo to start foreclosure on the aforesaid property."]},"sort":[10.763827,"9802481"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10325396","_score":10.705091,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/year> WITHOUT PREJUDICE Subject : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX complaint to CFPB. \n\nUpon examining the response from Wells Fargo on XX/XX/year>, I have concluded that it is inadequate and unjust.The investigation process appears to be biased against me as the victim, and lacks knowledge of good industry practices and compassion towards me as a customer. \nYour response seems to be based on a flawed understanding of my situation, and crucial information that contradicts your position. The decision made in relation to the issue I raised did not consider my vulnerability as a victim of financial crime and XXXX XXXX to protect its clients from such crimes. \nFinancial institutions have a duty to conduct business with due skill, care, and diligence, and Wells Fargo 's subpar intervention in my case clearly falls short of reasonable business conduct.I am not looking for a debate about what could have been done, but rather a transparent, evidence-based investigation that considers my vulnerability, the sophistication of the scam, the shortcomings of FSMA to identify fraudulent companies, and Wells Fargo 's failure to identify suspicious transactions in a timely manner.\n\nWhen determining what is reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability and consider the following common queries : whether Wells Fargo neglected any rule, law, or regulation that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; whether they owed a fiduciary duty to me and breached it ; whether they promoted the questionable transaction despite being aware of its nature ; whether they were in compliance with their own policies and procedures ; whether they owed duties to me, the scope of those duties, and whether they failed to uphold them ; whether their conduct was unfair ; and whether they have the ability and should compensate me for the harm that has occurred. \n\nI hope that you will take these key points into account to reach a fair outcome.Wells Fargo had sufficient information available to justify and had the capability of stopping these payments altogether, but chose not to.\n\n1. Educate clients : Banks can provide educational resources to their clients to help them identify and avoid scams.\n\nThis can include tips on how to recognize phishing emails, how to protect personal information, and how to avoid fraudulent investment schemes.\n\n2. Implement security measures : Banks should have robust security measures in place, such as multi-factor authentication, to prevent unauthorized access to client accounts. They should also regularly monitor client accounts for any suspicious activity and notify clients immediately if any suspicious activity is detected.\n\n3. Increase fraud detection : Banks should invest in advanced fraud detection systems to detect and prevent scams. This can include using artificial intelligence and machine learning to identify patterns of fraudulent activity.\n\n4. Collaborate with law enforcement : Banks can work with law enforcement agencies to identify and prosecute scammers. They can also share information about scams to help prevent future incidents.\n\n5. Provide immediate assistance : In the event that a client falls victim to a scam, banks should provide immediate assistance to help mitigate the impact. This can include freezing accounts, cancelling transactions, and providing financial support to clients.\n\nMisplaced Accountability : Victims of scams are often limited in their ability to react, as they instinctively and immediately respond to the demands of the perpetrator. It can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to consciously refrain from such reactions. Giving off signals that make us vulnerable to these schemes is not the same as being grossly negligent, given the increasingly sophisticated nature of scams that are pervasive in society.\n\nIn my case, personal circumstances made me particularly vulnerable during the victimization period, as I was financially illiterate and inexperienced in the finance sector. This made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field. Since then, I have gained a greater understanding of the scope and nature of these crimes and the operations of the financial services sector on an international level.\n\nFinancial institutions are well aware of the risks posed by these crimes to their clients, who may have limited knowledge of these dangers. It is important to note that victims of scams are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions, but rather individuals who have been tricked, lied to, deceived, and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated and aggressive sales techniques can trap unsuspecting victims who are unable to escape until most or all of their funds have been lost or stolen by the scammers. A good comparison is to a perpetrator who \" grooms '' their victim while also assaulting them and preventing them from escaping.\n\nThe grounds upon which you refute my claim : Upon scrutiny, it is evident that your claims are flawed in attempting to thoroughly investigate the available facts, let alone provide an accurate portrayal of the role of Financial Institutions in fighting financial crime and fraud, your organization 's services, and other pertinent details regarding our relationship and its historical context. By focusing on inadequate due diligence checks, inconsequential references, and one-dimensional thinking, you present a distorted view of my fundamental rights as a customer, and offer a poor model for comprehending the issue in a well-reasoned and objective manner.\n\nThis approach also serves as a deficient guide to determining whether any wrongdoing occurred on your part.\n\nRegarding the \" authorization '' argument, you argue that statements such as \" the transaction has been authorized '' and \" the duty of care has been breached '' are incompatible.\n\nHowever, you have not demonstrated that these statements are logically contradictory or improbable with regard to each other. They are not mutually exclusive when considered in the broader context.\n\nThe view that my authorization of the transaction renders me fully liable oversimplifies the situation and overlooks other relevant factors related to the breach of duty of care. Clearly, there are additional facts that must be taken into account beyond what initially appears.\n\nConclusion : Finally, as the foregoing analysis shows, Wells Fargos grossly negligent failure to stop the fraud in question played a key role in causing my damages. Wells Fargo compounded such failures by making improper factual determinations and wrongfully rejecting the allegations made. Wells Fargos failure to propose remedial action to achieve a just outcome in my case, as well as their ineffective assistance has resulted in my incurring staggering losses and runs contrary to their purported longstanding commitment to protecting the integrity and fairness of the market against any abuses.\n\nI formally request, in the name of justice as well as the points made above, that my case proceed with mediation/arbitration so that no party ends up suffering as a result of unjust actions and the refusal of anyone to take the basic responsibilities for enabling this to happen/doing nothing to set things right.\n\nThe information provided should meet the criteria for these reconsiderations.\n\nIf despite these objections, my concerns are not appropriately taken into consideration and are instead simply dismissed, you can be assured that alternative action will be taken, and I will make it a point to share our exchanges with the public so that at least pre-emptive action can be taken by other potential clients to avoid any dealings with organizations where customer security is not a priority. \nThank you. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-02T01:25:40.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"32967","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10325396","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-10-02T00:54:51.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Educate clients : Banks can provide educational resources to their clients to help them <em>identify</em> and avoid scams.\n\nThis can include tips on how to recognize phishing emails, how to protect personal information, and how to avoid fraudulent investment schemes.\n\n2. Implement <em>security</em> measures : Banks should have robust <em>security</em> measures in place, such as multi-factor authentication, to prevent unauthorized access to client accounts."]},"sort":[10.705091,"10325396"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11559075","_score":10.604583,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Date : XX/XX/XXXX Subject : Denial of Credit Access, Unfair Demands, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Discriminatory Practices, Violation of Privacy, and Exploitation of Personal Information for Profit. \n\nComplaint Details : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, acting as the fiduciary XXXX for the beneficiary XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is filing this grievance against Capital One for unjustly denying credit access, demanding excessive and arbitrary requirements, and failing to honor fiduciary responsibilities. Capital One 's actions have resulted in fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and significant harm to the financial stability and privacy of the beneficiary. \nUnreasonable Demands and Discriminatory Practices in Denying Credit Approval : Despite providing Capital One with sufficient documentation, including : One month of bank statements. \nA {$4000.00} down payment offer. \nA XXXX of XXXX for collateral to facilitate leveraging for a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). \nCapital One insisted on an additional {$8000.00} down payment, two years worth of tax summaries, and three months of bank statements. These excessive demands are both unnecessary and discriminatory, particularly as the documentation provided meets standard financial verification procedures. Capital Ones refusal to process the credit application undermines the beneficiarys ability to access financial products and violates consumer protection laws. \nBreach of Fiduciary Duty and Fraudulent Practices : Capital One, as a financial institution, had a fiduciary duty to protect the beneficiarys sensitive information. Instead, Capital One used the beneficiarys personal and financial detailsincluding Social Security numbers, bank account information, signatures, and other confidential datafor their own financial advantage. This constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, as Capital One exploited this information to generate profits without fulfilling their obligations to process the beneficiary 's credit application. They have made profits off of the beneficiarys data, effectively leveraging it for financial gain, without granting the requested credit. \nViolation of Privacy Rights : Capital Ones demand for unnecessary documentation, despite having access to sufficient information, constitutes an unlawful violation of privacy. The signature, Social Security number, and other private details have been mishandled, violating federal privacy laws, including the Right to Financial Privacy Act ( RFPA ). Capital Ones actions demonstrate a disregard for the beneficiary 's privacy rights, with significant legal ramifications for improper use of personal data. \nExploitation of Personal Information for Profit : Capital Ones actions suggest that they have profited from the XXXX information, including his Social Security number, signature, and XXXX XXXX XXXX. Heres how Capital One could potentially profit : Securitization : Financial institutions like Capital One often engage in securitizing personal information and loans. The XXXX XXXX of XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX of XXXX could be used as collateral to create tradable securities or financial instruments. These instruments are sold in financial markets, and the capital derived from these securities could result in unjust enrichment for Capital One. \nLeveraging Personal Data : Institutions like Capital One might use an applicant 's signature and personal identifiers ( e.g., Social Security number ) to create financial products. This could include leveraging the beneficiarys creditworthiness to generate profits through various lending and investment mechanisms, such as bond issuance, debt creation, or securitized loan pools. \nFinancial Product Issuance : By using the Standby Letter of Credit as collateral, Capital One could leverage it to issue other financial products, such as bonds, guaranteed loans, or other securities, effectively generating profits from the XXXX private data and collateral. These financial instruments can be resold to other investors or institutions, creating multiple layers of profit. \nLegal Violations : The actions of Capital One, as described, are in clear violation of several laws : XXXX XXXX ( Fourth and Fifth Amendments ) : Capital Ones demand for additional unnecessary documentation constitutes an unlawful search and XXXX of private information, as well as a violation of due process by denying access to credit without just cause. \nFair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : Capital One has failed to comply with FCRA standards in the processing of the credit application, denying the beneficiary access to credit without a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. \nRight to Financial Privacy Act ( RFPA ) : The improper use of the beneficiarys financial information constitutes a violation of RFPA protections, which safeguard individuals from unauthorized use of their financial data. \nSecurities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) Regulations : As a registered financial institution, Capital One is bound by SEC regulations regarding transparency and fiduciary responsibility. Using the beneficiarys financial information to generate profits through securities issuance and other financial instruments constitutes a violation of SEC regulations. \nUniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) : Capital One has acted in bad faith, violating provisions of the XXXX that require fair dealing and transparency in financial transactions. The XXXX XXXX of XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX of XXXX should have been honored as valid financial instruments for securing the credit application. \nFederal Reserve XXXX : Capital One, as a financial institution under the regulation of the Federal Reserve, has failed to adhere to proper financial standards in handling the beneficiary 's credit application and personal information. \nVicarious Liability and Insurance Bond Claim : Capital One is vicariously liable for its actions and any misconduct committed by its employees or agents. As such, we demand that XXXX Ones insurance bond be activated to cover damages resulting from their breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and the denial of credit access. The forensic audit will help to uncover any profits made by Capital One from the improper use of the beneficiarys personal and financial information, and any such profits must be returned and the associated practices terminated. \nAdditional Laws Violated : Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) Violation : Capital One may have violated the Truth in Lending Act by failing to provide clear and accurate disclosures about the terms of the loan, the down payment requirements, and the total cost of credit. This Act mandates lenders to provide full transparency regarding loan costs and terms to consumers, and the excessive and arbitrary demands for documentation and down payment may be considered deceptive or discriminatory. \nEqual Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) Violation : Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, lenders must make credit decisions without regard to race, XXXX, religion, national origin, XXXX, marital status, or age ( unless applicable for credit ). The complaint highlights discriminatory practices in the form of excessive demands for documentation and down payments that could be construed as a form of discrimination based on the beneficiarys financial status or other protected class characteristics. \nFair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) Violation : If Capital One is using aggressive tactics to demand large down payments or otherwise harassing the beneficiary regarding the credit applica\n\ntion, it may violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This law prohibits unfair or abusive practices when collecting debts or seeking payment for credit-related transactions.\n\nConsumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ) Violation : As part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Act holds financial institutions accountable for unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. Capital One 's actionsdenying credit and making unreasonable demands for documentationmay fall under this category, especially as it involves an unjust denial of credit and exploitation of personal data for profit.\n\nBank Secrecy Act ( BSA ) / Anti-Money Laundering ( AML ) Laws Violation : The Bank Secrecy Act requires financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering procedures, report suspicious activities, and maintain accurate records of financial transactions. If Capital One failed to ensure that the beneficiary 's information was used appropriately and in compliance with anti-money laundering laws, there could be a violation of these provisions. \nFinancial Privacy Protection Act ( FPPA ) Violation : The Financial Privacy Protection Act limits the ability of financial institutions to disclose personal financial information and requires consumer consent. If Capital One used the beneficiary 's private information without proper consent or for purposes not clearly outlined, such as securitizing personal data or leveraging it for profit, this could violate privacy protections under the FPPA.\n\nGramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) Violation : The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act mandates that financial institutions safeguard consumer information, disclose privacy practices, and ensure that consumer data is not misused. If Capital One improperly used the beneficiary 's Social Security number, signature, or other personal data to create financial products or profit, this would be a direct violation of GLBA. \nF\n\nair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) Violation : The Fair Credit Billing Act protects consumers from unfair billing practices. If Capital One attempted to force the beneficiary to pay excessive fees or chargessuch as an unjustifiable {$8000.00} down paymentthis may be considered a violation under the Fair Credit Billing Act, especially if these charges were not disclosed or justified properly. Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) - Article 9 Violation : Capital Ones refusal to accept the Bill of Exchange and Standby Letter of Credit for collateral might also breach provisions under UCC Article 9 concerning secured transactions. The UCC mandates that financial institutions properly accept and secure collateral when a borrower offers it for a loan. Capital One 's rejection of these valid forms of security could be a violation of UCC provisions regarding secured transactions. \nCivil Rights Act of 1964 - Title VI Violation : The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. If Capital One, as a federally regulated financial institution, engages in discriminatory credit practices based on race or other protected classes, they may be in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.\n\nPrivacy Act of 1974 Violation : The Privacy Act of 1974 protects individuals from the improper collection, maintenance, use, or dissemination of personal data by federal agencies and contractors. If Capital One used the beneficiarys personal data inappropriately, such as by leveraging it to secure financial products, this could constitute a violation under the Privacy Act of 1974. \n\nHow Capital One Can Make Money/Profit from the Application and Personal Information : Securitization of Personal Information : Financial institutions often engage in securitization of consumer loans. By using the beneficiarys Social Security number, signature, and other sensitive data, Capital One can create loan-backed securities ( such as mortgage-backed securities or asset-backed securities ). These securities can be sold to investors, allowing Capital One to generate profits from the beneficiarys application and personal data. \nUse of the Bill of Exchange and Standby Letter of Credit ( SBLC ) : When the beneficiary presented the Bill of Exchange and Standby Letter of Credit ( SBLC ), Capital One could have used these financial instruments as collateral to generate funds. These instruments can be leveraged in capital markets to create tradable financial products or guarantees. By using the beneficiarys information to facilitate these financial products, Capital One stands to make profits without extending credit or granting the requested financing. \nSale of Credit-Related Products : By analyzing the applicants creditworthiness and other financial data, Capital One could potentially create and sell financial products such as loans, credit lines, or bonds that are based on the beneficiarys credit application. These products, derived from the beneficiary 's information, could be resold to other investors for a significant profit. \nData Monetization : Financial institutions, especially large banks, may monetize personal information through data-sharing agreements with other corporations or financial institutions. Capital One could be profiting by selling the beneficiary 's personal and financial data to other entities for marketing, risk analysis, or credit-related transactions. \n\nConclusion : In total, the actions of Capital One represent numerous violations of privacy, fiduciary duty, consumer protection laws, and financial regulations. The use of personal data for profit and the unjust denial of credit access violates a number of key consumer protection laws, including TILA, ECOA, FCRA, and GLBA, among others. These legal violations, coupled with the potential for unjust enrichment from the beneficiary 's information, demand immediate attention and action from the CFPB and relevant regulatory authorities. \n\nDemands : A full forensic audit into the processing of the credit application, including the use of the Standby Letter of Credit, the Bill of Exchange, and any profits generated from the beneficiary 's personal data. \nActivation of Capital Ones insurance bond to cover damages arising from the breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and wrongful denial of credit access. \nA formal explanation from Capital One as to why the application was denied, despite the provision of sufficient documentation and collateral. \nA commitment from Capital One to cease the exploitation of the beneficiarys private data and provide assurances that such actions will not be repeated. \nA full disclosure of any profits or financial instruments generated from the beneficiarys information and personal data. \n\nConclusion : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, acting on behalf of the beneficiary, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, reserves all rights to pursue legal action for violations of privacy, fiduciary duty, fraud, discrimination, and unjust enrichment. We call on the CFPB to investigate Capital One 's practices thoroughly and ensure that they are held accountable for their wrongful actions. \nWe look forward to your prompt investigation into this matter. \nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, On behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; BENEFICIARY","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-17T15:02:08.000Z","issue":"Getting a loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"482XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11559075","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-01-17T14:52:40.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit denial"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["These instruments are sold in financial markets, and the capital derived from these <em>securities</em> could <em>result</em> in unjust enrichment for Capital One. \nLeveraging Personal Data : Institutions like Capital One might use an applicant 's signature and personal <em>identifiers</em> ( e.g., Social <em>Security</em> number ) to create financial products."]},"sort":[10.604583,"11559075"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7209796","_score":10.511696,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"[ Your Name ] [ Your Address ] [ City, State, ZIP ] [ Email Address ] [ Phone Number ] [ Date ] PayPal Customer Service [ Address ] [ City, State, ZIP ] Subject : Appeal for Assistance as an Identity Theft Victim and Unauthorized Access to PayPal Account Dear PayPal Customer Service, I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to inform you of a XXXX incident that occurred on XX/XX/XXXX, where I became a victim of identity theft and subsequently suffered unauthorized access to my PayPal account on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX as well as XX/XX/XXXX. There were cards added to my PayPal account that arent mines or affiliated with me and the perpetrator extracted all of my funds from my PayPal account. I am reaching out to PayPal, a trusted and reputable financial service provider, for assistance and resolution regarding the unauthorized activity on my account. \n\nI have reached out to PayPal Disputes Department Account Specialist Supervisor ; XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and what he stated to me was a cause for concern. XXXX stated to me that PayPal did not and will not review my police report and identity theft affidavit and that my claim will remain denied and disconnected the call on me. Despite me being an identity theft victim. I am horrified that he would make such a statement and go against regulations and compliance. \n\nOn the aforementioned date, I unfortunately lost my wallet, which contained various personal identification documents, along with my mobile device. This loss has left me vulnerable to potential fraudulent activities, and unfortunately, my PayPal account was accessed without my consent or authorization. As a result, funds were removed from my account without my knowledge or approval, causing significant financial loss and hardship. \n\nI immediately took the necessary steps to report the incident to the local authorities, as well as to other relevant financial institutions to mitigate any further damages. However, given the unauthorized access to my PayPal account and the subsequent unauthorized transactions, I believe it is crucial to bring this matter to PayPal 's attention and seek assistance in resolving the issue. \n\nAs a loyal PayPal customer, I understand that your platform is designed with security measures in place to protect users from unauthorized access and fraudulent activities. I kindly request your immediate attention and action to investigate this incident thoroughly, identify the perpetrators involved, and take appropriate measures to secure my account. Furthermore, i request that any unauthorized transactions in the amount of {$4000.00} made on my account be refunded promptly to restore the funds that were wrongfully taken from my account. \n\nI have taken proactive measures to secure my other accounts and monitor my credit reports. However, the unauthorized access to my PayPal account has caused significant XXXX and financial hardship. I am relying on PayPal 's expertise and resources to assist me in resolving this matter,","date_sent_to_company":"2023-07-05T19:35:01.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"30319","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7209796","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2023-07-05T19:13:06.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As a <em>result</em>, funds were removed from my account without my knowledge or approval, causing significant financial loss and hardship. \n\nI immediately took the necessary steps to report the incident to the local authorities, as well as to <em>other</em> relevant financial institutions to mitigate any further damages."],"sub_product":["<em>Other</em> banking product or service"]},"sort":[10.511696,"7209796"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2848046","_score":10.505796,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   XXXX, IA XXXX Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Securities and Exchange Commissions Customer Assistance Group Office of the Whistleblower XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX Washington, DC XXXX Dear Governmental Agencies, I am disputing and filing a complaint that Select Portfolio Servicing ( SPS ), XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( Attorney for Debt Collectors ) refusal to fully validate the alleged debt. I have sent various validation of debt the past few years and they have not provided the key proof of claim elements requested. Additionally, the validation requires SPS and XXXX and XXXX to provide evidence ( contract ) that they are working on behalf of XXXX XXXX  XXXX. XXXX transfers the responsibility to XXXX XXXX XXXX and claims that its their issue but on the notice of sale issued by XXXX XXXX it states that they are working on behalf of the allege creditor ( XXXX XXXX   XXXX ). \n\nAfter completing extensive research into the mortgage loan situation conducted by my legal research team, they have identified evidence of tax fraud, tax evasion, insurance fraud, securities fraud, insurance fraud, wrongful foreclosure, failure to disclose material facts, fraudulent assignments and a variety fraudulent assignments and a variety of other regulatory violations. \n\nSPS obtained the servicing rights from XXXX XXXX XXXX of bad debt that was predicated on massive fraud that originated from the XXXX XXXX XXXX situation. My loan was initiated in XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX and was part of the pool of home mortgages that were securitized into XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ). \n\nAs a result, there was massive fraud and range of lending violations that negatively impacted the United States housing market that caused a collapse. Homeowners and the investors throughout the United States basically were damaged in the process and the Department of Justice ( DOJ ) sued XXXX  XXXX XXXX for financial fraud on a variety of levels. In XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) sold bad debt and servicing rights to SPS with both parties knowing that the old XXXX debt that originated between XX/XX/XXXX was predicated on fraudulent transactions and lending violations. \n\nI repeatedly asked both XXXX XXXX XXXX and SPS to verify my alleged debt multiple times and they consistently provided conflicting information or lack of to this point. XXXX ended up settling the law suit for {$16.00} XXXX dollars with the DOJ and acknowledged their fraudulent conduct. There is massive fraud involved with my loan including chain of title issues, XXXX XXXX XXXX violations, fraudulent assignments and a range of other lending violations. SPS has never satisfied the proof of claim. \n\nI have enclosed a verified complaint ( short version without the evidence exhibits ) for all parties to review. If some type of solution or settlement is not provided upon receipt of this notice I will file the full complaint with all the collected evidence over the past ( 5 ) years in the US District Court. \n\nIn summary, SPS is trying to illegally defraud my family out of our property as a third party debt collector that lacks standing and the ability to verify the debt. They were aware of XXXX and XXXX past conduct and the debt that they purchased in XX/XX/XXXX. I have attached with this dispute the debt verification request and default notices that I sent to SPS and XXXX XXXX. \n\nAdditionally, I am prepared to begin litigating against all parties that are associated with this fraudulent matter unless the attempted debt collection is resolved. \n\nThe following transcript below summarizes the XXXX/XXXX situation : Best Regards, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2018-03-20T14:02:26.000Z","issue":"Written notification about debt","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"30214","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2848046","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","date_received":"2018-03-19T22:55:22.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["After completing extensive research into the mortgage loan situation conducted by my legal research team, they have <em>identified</em> evidence of tax fraud, tax evasion, insurance fraud, <em>securities</em> fraud, insurance fraud, <em>wrongful</em> foreclosure, failure to disclose material facts, fraudulent assignments and a variety fraudulent assignments and a variety of <em>other</em> regulatory violations."]},"sort":[10.505796,"2848046"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7820172","_score":10.422403,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"The Department of Education/OSLA continues to report a debt not owed. Under the UCC any simple contract when presented with legal tender must be XXXX outed or there is room for discharge. The Department of Education never loaned me anything therefore there was nothing of value exchanged. If there is evidence to prove that this allege debt is actually owed provide me with the book entry that proves it was a debit and not a credit upon the books of the BANK. Please note I am NOT asking for the simple contract that I signed obligating me to perform but the accounting ledger from the bank that proves this debt is actually valid and due. \n\n3-601. DISCHARGE AND EFFECT OF DISCHARGE.\n\nPrimary tabs ( a ) The obligation of a party to pay the instrument is discharged as stated in this Article or by an act or agreement with the party which would discharge an obligation to pay money under a simple contract.\n\n( b ) Discharge of the obligation of a party is not effective against a person acquiring rights of a holder in due course of the instrument without notice of the discharge.\n\n3-602. PAYMENT.\n\n( a ) Subject to subsection ( b ), an instrument is paid to the extent payment is made ( i ) by or on behalf of a party obliged to pay the instrument, and ( ii ) to a person entitled to enforce the instrument. To the extent of the payment, the obligation of the party obliged to pay the instrument is discharged even though payment is made with knowledge of a claim to the instrument under Section 3-306 by another person.\n\n( b ) Subject to subsection ( e ) a note is paid to the extent payment is made by or on behalf of a party obliged to pay the note to a person that formerly was entitled to enforce the note only if at the time of the payment the party obliged to pay has not received adequate notification that the note has been transferred and that payment is to be made to the transferee. A notification is adequate only if it is signed by the transferor or the transferee ; reasonably identifies the transferred note ; and provides an address at which payments subsequently can be made. Upon request, a transferee shall seasonably furnish reasonable proof that the note has been transferred. Unless the transferee complies with the request, a payment to the person that formerly was entitled to enforce the note is effective for purposes of subsection ( c ) even if the party obliged to pay the note has received a notification under this paragraph.\n\n( c ) Subject to subsection ( e ), to the extent of a payment under subsections ( a ) and ( b ), the obligation of the party obliged to pay the instrument is discharged even though payment is made with knowledge of a claim to the instrument under Section 3-306 by another person.\n\n( d ) Subject to subsection ( e ), a transferee, or any party that has acquired rights in the instrument directly or indirectly from a transferee, including any such party that has rights as a holder in due course, is deemed to have notice of any payment that is made under subsection ( b ) after the date that the note is transferred to the transferee but before the party obliged to pay the note receives adequate notification of the transfer.\n\n( e ) The obligation of a party to pay the instrument is not discharged under subsections ( a ) through ( d ) if : ( 1 ) a claim to the instrument under Section 3-306 is enforceable against the party receiving payment and ( i ) payment is made with knowledge by the payor that payment is prohibited by injunction or similar process of a court of competent jurisdiction, or ( ii ) in the case of an instrument other than a cashier 's check, teller 's check, or certified check, the party making payment accepted, from the person having a claim to the instrument, indemnity against loss resulting from refusal to pay the person entitled to enforce the instrument; or ( 2 ) the person making payment knows that the instrument is a stolen instrument and pays a person it knows is in wrongful possession of the instrument.\n\n( f ) As used in this section, \" signed, '' with respect to a record that is not a writing, includes the attachment to or logical association with the record of an electronic symbol, sound, or process to or with the record with the present intent to adopt or accept the record.\n\n( a ) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract.\n\n( b ) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.\n\n( c ) If tender of payment of an amount due on an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the obligation of the obligor to pay interest after the due date on the amount tendered is discharged. If presentment is required with respect to an instrument and the obligor is able and ready to pay on the due date at every place of payment stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemed to have made tender of payment on the due date to the person entitled to enforce the instrument.\n\n3-604. DISCHARGE BY CANCELLATION OR RENUNCIATION.\n\n( a ) A person entitled to enforce an instrument, with or without consideration, may discharge the obligation of a party to pay the instrument ( i ) by an intentional voluntary act, such as surrender of the instrument to the party, destruction, mutilation, or cancellation of the instrument, cancellation or striking out of the party 's signature, or the addition of words to the instrument indicating discharge, or ( ii ) by agreeing not to sue or otherwise renouncing rights against the party by a signed record.\n\n( b ) Cancellation or striking out of an indorsement pursuant to subsection ( a ) does not affect the status and rights of a party derived from the indorsement.\n\n( c ) As used in this section, \" signed, '' with respect to a record that is not a writing, includes the attachment to or logical association with the record of an electronic symbol, sound, or process to or with the record with the present intent to adopt or accept the record.\n\n8-501. SECURITIES ACCOUNT ; ACQUISITION OF SECURITY ENTITLEMENT FROM SECURITIES INTERMEDIARY.\n\n( a ) \" Securities account '' means an account to which a financial asset is or may be credited in accordance with an agreement under which the person maintaining the account undertakes to treat the person for whom the account is maintained as entitled to exercise the rights that comprise the financial asset.\n\n( b ) Except as otherwise provided in subsections ( d ) and ( e ), a person acquires a security entitlement if a securities intermediary : ( 1 ) indicates by book entry that a financial asset has been credited to the person 's securities account ; ( 2 ) receives a financial asset from the person or acquires a financial asset for the person and, in either case, accepts it for credit to the person 's securities account ; or ( 3 ) becomes obligated under other law, regulation, or rule to credit a financial asset to the person 's securities account.\n\n( c ) If a condition of subsection ( b ) has been met, a person has a security entitlement even though the securities intermediary does not itself hold the financial asset.\n\n( d ) If a securities intermediary holds a financial asset for another person, and the financial asset is registered in the name of, payable to the order of, or specially indorsed to the other person, and has not been indorsed to the securities intermediary or in blank, the other person is treated as holding the financial asset directly rather than as having a security entitlement with respect to the financial asset.\n\n( e ) Issuance of a security is not establishment of a security entitlement.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-11-15T21:14:55.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"94513","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7820172","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","date_received":"2023-11-08T21:57:30.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["accepted, from the person having a claim to the instrument, indemnity against loss <em>resulting</em> from refusal to pay the person entitled to enforce the instrument; or ( 2 ) the person making payment knows that the instrument is a stolen instrument and pays a person it knows is in <em>wrongful</em> possession of the instrument"]},"sort":[10.422403,"7820172"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9969062","_score":10.3302355,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Wells Fargo NA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Companys Response he , again has misrepresented the TRUTH 1. The account had a foreclosure sale held on XX/XX/XXXX. \n2. He refuses to address the issue that WF, has no documentation to address the REAL ISSUE and ( WF ) FAILED TO PROVIDE a TIMELY RESPONSE FOR MY REQUEST FOR REFINANCING.\n\n3. I RESTATE THAT SINCE MY FORMER WIFE FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY, SHE WAS REQUIRED BY LAW TO CONTINUE PAYING THE MORTGAGE TO WF. \nXXXX. NOTICE WAS NEVER SENT TO ME THAT THE MORTGAGE WAS IN DEFAULT [ ACCORDING ] TO WF! WHICH BY THE CONTRACT CERTIFIED SERVICE WAS REQUIRED. \n5. AFTER PROVIDING [ BELOW THE LOCAL ATTORNEYS FOR WF ] 6. WF HAS NOT PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION CONTRARY TO MY STATED FACT I DID FILE THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY MY REQUEST, AS DIRECTED BY WF AND THE ATTORNEY! \n\nI RESTATE THE BELOW PLEASE NOTE : This notice is being provided for rebuttal of information provided in your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. The purpose is to show and reveal that Wells Fargo NA has manipulated documents, as a result, to continue its fraud of wrongfully FORECLOSURE ON MY PROPERTY located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, GA XXXX on or after XX/XX/XXXX. As a result of at least one bankruptcy case filed by [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ]. On XX/XX/XXXX, my former wife, filed XXXX  XXXX Bankruptcy, [ without notice to me ] which escalated Wells Fargo to start foreclosure on the aforesaid property. \n\nIssues in order of your letter aforementioned above. \nThe account 's origination of the origination Lender was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX The Security Deed, or security instrument, was dated XX/XX/XXXX. The account 's servicing was transferred to Wells Fargo, per the guidelines of the Security Deed, as detailed in Section XXXX, on XXXX XXXX of that origination document. \n\nResubmitted [ XX/XX/XXXX ], Rebuttal Yes, the document provided states XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nWells Fargo NA FAILED to provide any documentation showing the property was transferred to Wells Fargo NA. This establishes, that Wells Fargo NA, had the NO legal right to fraudulently FORECLOSE on the property aforementioned above. Through and by its attorneys ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX attorneys for Wells Fargo, NA. by and through XXXX XXXX, XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, local agents attorneys for Wells Fargo NA. \n\nMy attorney through XXXX XXXX, XXXX local agents attorneys for Wells Fargo NA. fraudulently canceled said document my application for refinancing based on previous statements by Wells Fargo NA well over XXXX years ago, which exceeds the record retention guidelines of Wells Fargo, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Office of Comptroller of Currency. We are unable to comment about your claims about the request for a refinance.\n\nWells Fargo NA further states the following, the application in question would have been submitted well over XXXX years ago, which exceeds the record retention guidelines of Wells Fargo, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Office of Comptroller of Currency. We are unable to comment on your claims about the request for a refinance. \n\nYet Wells Fargo NA was able to miraculously [ Listed below ] find other documents that pre-dated my request for REFINANCING the property. Submitted through XXXX XXXX, XXXX local agents attorneys for Wells Fargo NA. \n\nList of documents. \n1. The Security Deed, or security instrument, was dated XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX years to date. \n2. Letter ( s ) of default dated XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, that far exceeds their claim for retention requirements. [ Copies provided in their response ]. \nI never received this offer IF it was made. As stated earlier I was involved in a divorce from my previous wife, who occupied the property. Such a document is required to be sent by Certified Mail, as stated The Security Deed, instrument, was dated XX/XX/XXXX. This is obvious since no such declaration was made in the letter ( XXXX ) sent to me. \n\nThe letter dated XX/XX/XXXX [ miraculously ] found shows and details my effort to refinance my property, again Wells Fargo NA intentionally concealed my attempt to refinance my property, since I was able to get my former wife to agree to a Quit Claim Deed to refinance my property. \n\nI reinstall my claim for compensation for fraudulent foreclosure on my property XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. And be compensated {$24000.00} + legal fees as stipulated of {$4000.00} as retribution for Wells Fargo NA through its attorney.\n\nWells Fargo 's reputation is undoubtedly corrupt, not mine. BASED on the following. \n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, the Bureau issued an order against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which is a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, South Dakota. Wells Fargo is the third largest bank in the United States, with nearly {$1.00} XXXX in assets, and the largest provider of consumer financial products. The Bureau identified multiple violations across several of the banks largest consumer product lines, which led to billions of dollars in financial harm and, in thousands of cases, the loss of customers vehicles and homes. Specifically, with respect to auto loan servicing Wells Fargo engaged in unfair acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of XXXX by incorrectly applying consumer payments; charging borrowers incorrect fees, interest, or other amounts ; wrongly repossessing borrowers vehicles ; and failing to refund consumers who had paid certain fees upfront to automobile dealers when warranted. Wells Fargo also engaged in unfair practices by improperly denying mortgage loan modifications, miscalculating fees, and other charges, and assessing unwarranted charges and fees. With respect to deposit accounts, Wells Fargo : unfairly froze multiple consumer accounts in instances of suspected fraud when lesser restraints were available ; made deceptive claims as to the availability of waivers of monthly service fees ; and unfairly charged overdraft fees even if the consumer had enough funds available in their account to cover the amount of the transaction at the time they made it. The order requires Wells Fargo to come into compliance with federal consumer financial law, pay more than {$2.00} XXXX in consumer redress, and pay a {$1.00} XXXX penalty. \n\nAND STATED by CFPB One in three American households is a Wells Fargo customer and is affected by its business practices and \" corporate culture, '' the CFPB says. More specifically, Wells Fargo customers who had either an auto loan, mortgage loan, or bank account between XXXX and XXXX were affected and may be eligible for a payout. \n\nPlease govern yourselves accordingly, Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX I want the CFPB to publish this description on consumerfinance.gov so that others can learn from my experience. The CFPB will take steps to remove my personal information from this description but someone may still be able to identify me. Learn how it works. I consent to publishing this description after the CFPB has taken these steps. \n\nPublishing this description will not affect how the CFPB handles your complaint.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-30T20:54:53.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"30043","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9969062","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-08-30T20:45:30.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Delays in the application process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The purpose is to show and reveal that Wells Fargo NA has manipulated documents, as a <em>result</em>, to continue its fraud of <em>wrongfully</em> FORECLOSURE ON MY PROPERTY located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, GA XXXX on or after XX/XX/XXXX. As a <em>result</em> of at least one bankruptcy case filed by [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ]. On XX/XX/XXXX, my former wife, filed XXXX  XXXX Bankruptcy, [ without notice to me ] which escalated Wells Fargo to start foreclosure on the aforesaid property."]},"sort":[10.3302355,"9969062"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18275062","_score":10.279376,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX  contracts with a company that, following a software update on a device, attempts to automatically install a variety of apps that pay to try to be installed. A user may not realize these are first of all checked because the check mark is very light gray on a white background, and second of all, some of these applications are financial products and services applications. One such is Chime, an online bank, credit service, credit repair service, investment account, and other financial services account operator. This is automatically checked for users to install and again easily missed and installed against a user 's wishes due to the intentionally deceptive light colored check marks on a bright background. This is a major problem because not only is it fraudulently attempting to inflate install numbers of their applications on the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a direct violation of the XXXX XXXX terms and conditions ), but it also is putting an application that gathers device identifiers and information that ends up in the hands of the financial service regardless of wether you even open or hold an account with them by the simple act of installing the application. Just installing an application results in the creation of metadata unique to an individual device and user including the XXXX XXXX  that installed the application, which in turn leads to manipulation of the user 's advertising profile and ID and will result in the user seeing more advertisements from financial services such as Chime, in addition to Chime then also receiving access to the user 's advertising profile overall. This all ocurrs starting from an intentionally deceptive practice. \n\nThe XXXX XXXX  application that XXXX uses is by a company who has already been found to have fraudulently and deceptively installed applications on users devices in such a manner. \n\nIn fact XXXX, the company that is responsible for partnering with Chime and XXXX has even been in recent headlines. \n\nAccording to XXXX, \" XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX on Wednesday confirmed it has shuttered a mobile software product that was allegedly enabling downloads of apps onto user devices without consent. \n\nA company spokesperson said in a statement shared with XXXX that XXXX eliminated Array last quarter. The product enabled device makers like XXXX and service carriers like XXXX to surface on-device app recommendations and allow seamless direct app downloads. '' XXXX responded by attempting to remove the XXXX XXXXXXXX application on users devices without warning in early XXXX on XX/XX/year>. Users came across a notification on their devices that either the app was successfully removed or unsuccessfully removed. They did not initiative the removal of this application. Furthermore at least one user, myself, reached out to XXXX customer service via XXXX XXXX XXXX As soon as I mentioned the XXXX  name from the notification I received, XXXX suspended my account wrongfully accusing me of perpetuating a XXXX XXXX incident because the app XXXX  had been added to the malicious application files of most XXXX XXXX XXXX. However I was not committing an offense against XXXX security but trying to determine if I was safe from such an incident myself as this was not something I initiated. It took days to remedy and the only reason it was remedied is because I have a business account with which I was able to contact XXXX customer service through. Otherwise there was no option to appeal on my personal account. That suspension was overturned by XXXX, but not before it interfered with my ability to communicate with others during an election in which I was an active and engaged volunteer and patient advocate. Not to mention it cut off access to multiple mental and physical health support groups, a form of treatment prescribed by physicians. \n\nIn all, this amounts to a major issue that covers the involvement of multiple companies. However, Chime is the company paying the othere to commit the fraudulent, of at least nefarious and ethically questionable practice of unintentional install action on devices granting them unique information about users who never intended to grant Chime or their third party vendors any of their information whatsoever including their device metadata and identifiers, XXXX account information, and other information transmitted through a chain of actions that ocurr automatically upon installation of an application. This in addition to attempting to gain an unfair advantage over competitors by inflating app install numbers to climb the XXXX XXXX  for more exposure via both paid advertisements for placement in app stores and other targeted ads, but also via automatic categorization meant to influence the trust of users and potential users by showing that the application is more widely used than it truly is. Many unintentionally installed applications remain on users devices further creating concerns and tracking issues on top of unfair advantages and quite frankly engaging in legally dubious practices. \n\nDespite XXXX removing or attempting to remove the XXXX XXXX array application, it continues on many users devices without their ability to uninstall the app on their own either, and this app continued to push financial services to devices of users following a system software update on their device. This occurred again on XX/XX/year> upon successful updates of a XXXX XXXX device, on a service that is supposedly shut down by XXXX, further creating an even more nefarious and potentially misleading and illegal abuse of consumer trust and privacy while inflating a company 's image, and image of an online bank that can use app installs to demonstrate to potential investors that their company and financial interests are in a better position or are more widely used or engaged with leading to a fraudulent portrayal of the online bank application. This is very multifaceted and will likely need to involve a multi agency investigation and action including but not limited to the FTC, CFPB, FDIC, FCC, and other governmental agencies and third party organizations. In addition, XXXX has simply changed the name of Array and instead are using the same service under the name now of XXXX XXXX instead of XXXX  XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-24T18:39:35.000Z","issue":"Opening an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"14616","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18275062","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-12-24T17:51:33.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Confusing or missing disclosures"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["However, Chime is the company paying the othere to commit the fraudulent, of at least nefarious and ethically questionable practice of unintentional install action on devices granting them unique information about users who never intended to grant Chime or their third party vendors any of their information whatsoever including their device metadata and <em>identifiers</em>, XXXX account information, and <em>other</em> information transmitted through a chain of actions that ocurr automatically upon installation of"],"sub_product":["<em>Other</em> banking product or service"]},"sort":[10.279376,"18275062"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9010315","_score":10.247797,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX United States The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Washington , DC XXXX XX/XX/year> WITHOUT PREJUDICE Subject : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to CFPB. \nCase Reference : XXXX Upon examining the response from BoA on XX/XX/year>, I have concluded that it is inadequate and unjust. \nThe investigation process appears to be biased against me as the victim, and lacks knowledge of good industry practices and compassion towards me as a customer. \nYour response seems to be based on a flawed understanding of my situation, and crucial information that contradicts your position. The decision made in relation to the issue I raised did not consider my vulnerability as a victim of financial crime and BoA 's responsibility to protect its clients from such crimes. \nFinancial institutions have a duty to conduct business with due skill, care, and diligence, and BoA 's subpar intervention in my case clearly falls short of reasonable business conduct. \nI am not looking for a debate about what could have been done, but rather a transparent, evidence-based investigation that considers my vulnerability, the sophistication of the scam, the shortcomings of XXXX to identify fraudulent companies, and BoA 's failure to identify suspicious transactions in a timely manner. \nWhen determining what is reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability and consider the following common queries : whether BoA neglected any rule, law, or regulation that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; whether they owed a fiduciary duty to me and breached it ; whether they promoted the questionable transaction despite being aware of its nature ; whether they were in compliance with their own policies and procedures ; whether they owed duties to me, the scope of those duties, and whether they failed to uphold them ; whether their conduct was unfair ; and whether they have the ability and should compensate me for the harm that has occurred. \nFurthermore, it is completely preposterous that Bank of America stated in their statement that they would be happy to provide me with a provisional credit for the transactions of {$6.00} and {$11.00}. If I had known about the risks, which Bank of America never informed me about, I never would have sent the money. \n\nBank of America would have seen that this is a fraud if they had questioned me further at the time and asked how I had originally gotten in touch with this fraudster. \nThese kinds of frauds, in my opinion, happen on a daily basis, and financial institutions are more aware than their clients that this might happen to them. \nI hope that you will take these key points into account to reach a fair outcome. \n\nBoA had sufficient information available to justify and had the capability of stopping these payments altogether, but chose not to. \nXXXX. Educate clients : Banks can provide educational resources to their clients to help them identify and avoid scams. \nThis can include tips on how to recognize phishing emails, how to protect personal information, and how to avoid fraudulent investment schemes. \nXXXX. Implement security measures : Banks should have robust security measures in place, such as multi-factor authentication, to prevent unauthorized access to client accounts. They should also regularly monitor client accounts for any suspicious activity and notify clients immediately if any suspicious activity is detected. \nXXXX. Increase fraud detection : Banks should invest in advanced fraud detection systems to detect and prevent scams. This can include using artificial intelligence and machine learning to identify patterns of fraudulent activity. \nXXXX. Collaborate with law enforcement : Banks can work with law enforcement agencies to identify and prosecute scammers. They can also share information about scams to help prevent future incidents. \nXXXX. Provide immediate assistance : In the event that a client falls victim to a scam, banks should provide immediate assistance to help mitigate the impact. This can include freezing accounts, cancelling transactions, and providing financial support to clients. \nMisplaced Accountability : Victims of scams are often limited in their ability to react, as they instinctively and immediately respond to the demands of the perpetrator. It can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to consciously refrain from such reactions. Giving off signals that make us vulnerable to these schemes is not the same as being grossly negligent, given the increasingly sophisticated nature of scams that are pervasive in society. \nIn my case, personal circumstances made me particularly vulnerable during the victimization period, as I was financially illiterate and inexperienced in the finance sector. This made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field. Since then, I have gained a greater understanding of the scope and nature of these crimes and the operations of the financial services sector on an international level. \nFinancial institutions are well aware of the risks posed by these crimes to their clients, who may have limited knowledge of these dangers. It is important to note that victims of scams are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions, but rather individuals who have been tricked, lied to, deceived, and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated and aggressive sales techniques can trap unsuspecting victims who are unable to escape until most or all of their funds have been lost or stolen by the scammers. A good comparison is to a perpetrator who \" grooms '' their victim while also assaulting them and preventing them from escaping. \nThe grounds upon which you refute my claim : Upon scrutiny, it is evident that your claims are flawed in attempting to thoroughly investigate the available facts, let alone provide an accurate portrayal of the role of Financial Institutions in fighting financial crime and fraud, your organization 's services, and other pertinent details regarding our relationship and its historical context. By focusing on inadequate due diligence checks, inconsequential references, and one-dimensional thinking, you present a distorted view of my fundamental rights as a customer, and offer a poor model for comprehending the issue in a well-reasoned and objective manner. \nThis approach also serves as a deficient guide to determining whether any wrongdoing occurred on your part. \nRegarding the \" authorization '' argument, you argue that statements such as \" the transaction has been authorized '' and \" the duty of care has been breached '' are incompatible. However, you have not demonstrated that these statements are logically contradictory or improbable with regard to each other. \nThey are not mutually exclusive when considered in the broader context. \nThe view that my authorization of the transaction renders me fully liable oversimplifies the situation and overlooks other relevant factors related to the breach of duty of care. Clearly, there are additional facts that must be taken into account beyond what initially appears. \nConclusion : Finally, as the foregoing analysis shows, BoAs grossly negligent failure to stop the fraud in question played a key role in causing my damages. BoA compounded such failures by making improper factual determinations and wrongfully rejecting the allegations made. BoAs failure to propose remedial action to achieve a just outcome in my case, as well as their ineffective assistance has resulted in my incurring staggering losses and runs contrary to their purported longstanding commitment to protecting the integrity and fairness of the market against any abuses. \nI formally request, in the name of justice as well as the points made above, that my case proceed with mediation/arbitration so that no party ends up suffering as a result of unjust actions and the refusal of anyone to take the basic responsibilities for enabling this to happen/doing nothing to set things right. \nThe information provided should meet the criteria for these reconsiderations. \nIf despite these objections, my concerns are not appropriately taken into consideration and are instead simply dismissed, you can be assured that alternative action will be taken, and I will make it a point to share our exchanges with the public so that at least pre-emptive action can be taken by other potential clients to avoid any dealings with organizations where customer security is not a priority. \nThank you. \nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-16T16:12:57.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"339XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9010315","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-05-14T19:35:24.000Z","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":["Educate clients : Banks can provide educational resources to their clients to help them <em>identify</em> and avoid scams. \nThis can include tips on how to recognize phishing emails, how to protect personal information, and how to avoid fraudulent investment schemes. \nXXXX. Implement <em>security</em> measures : Banks should have robust <em>security</em> measures in place, such as multi-factor authentication, to prevent unauthorized access to client accounts."]},"sort":[10.247797,"9010315"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10570836","_score":10.05593,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Dear Equifax : I am writing to formally dispute certain entries on my credit report that are the result of documented identity theft and to demand their immediate removal in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and related federal statutes. \n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, my wallet, drivers license, Social Security card, and credit cards were stolen, pursuant to a XXXX XXXX Police Report, Case Number XXXX. Since then, my personal identifying information has been used repeatedly to commit fraud, open fraudulent credit accounts, and obtain unauthorized loans. I have taken extensive measures to address these identity theft events, but criminals continue to misuse my personal information, as detailed below. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, I was also falsely implicated in a shoplifting incident at XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX, Maryland, when a woman XXXX  me. This resulted in a summons to court to face grand larceny charges. After investigation, the XXXX XXXX XXXX Police Department verified that I was the victim of identity theft and the criminal case ( Case No. XXXX ) was expunged. \n\nAdditionally, XXXX  XXXX data breach ( and numerous breaches thereafter ) revealed that my personal information had been compromised since XX/XX/XXXX and was made available on the internet for illicit use. \n\nAs a result of these incidents, fraudulent entries have appeared on my credit report despite my best efforts to protect my identity. The disputed items listed below must be removed as they were fraudulently created without my knowledge or consent. \n\nDisputed Items to Be Removed XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Account Number : XXXX XXXX, Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX. This account was fraudulently opened using my stolen personal information and must be removed immediately. \n\nLegal Basis for Removal Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2, credit reporting agencies are required to block and remove fraudulent accounts when provided with proof of identity theft. I have previously provided the following documentation to support my dispute : Police Reports from XXXX XXXX documenting the theft of my identity. \nExpungement Records from XXXX XXXX XXXX confirming I was wrongfully charged with a crime due to identity theft. \nEvidence of Ongoing Data Compromise via the XXXX data breach, indicating that my personal information was made available for fraudulent activities. \n\nRequested Action In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ), I hereby request that Equifax : XXXX. Conduct a reinvestigation of the disputed items and remove the fraudulent accounts from my credit report. \nXXXX. Provide a written statement confirming the removal of the disputed entries. \nXXXX. Notify all third parties who have accessed my credit report in the past six months that the entries were removed and the report has been corrected, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( d ).\n\nFailure to promptly correct these issues may constitute willful non-compliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n, which entitles me to pursue damages, attorneys fees, and other remedies.\n\nIMPORTANT! Please note that under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( often referred to as Section 605B ), credit reporting agencies are required to block the reporting of information resulting from identity theft within four business days of receiving appropriate documentation.\n\nThis 4-day block requirement is crucial, as it ensures that I, as a victim of identity theft, do not continue to suffer from inaccurate credit reports for an extended period while the dispute is being resolved. If Equifax fails to meet this obligation, it may be held liable for non-compliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1681o, which provide for damages, attorneys fees, and other relief.\n\nAgain, Section 605B mandates them to block and remove the fraudulent items within four business days of receiving my identity theft report and supporting documentation. I understand that XXXX failure to act in accordance with the statute could result in legal action for willful or negligent non-compliance with the FCRA. \n\nI trust that you will handle this matter expeditiously and in compliance with federal law. Please respond immediately.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-25T02:49:55.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33021","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10570836","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-10-25T02:22:52.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Dear Equifax : I am writing to formally dispute certain entries on my credit report that are the <em>result</em> of documented identity theft and to demand their immediate removal in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and related federal statutes. \n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX, my wallet, drivers license, Social <em>Security</em> card, and credit cards were stolen, pursuant to a XXXX XXXX Police Report, Case Number XXXX."],"product":["Credit reporting or <em>other</em> personal consumer reports"]},"sort":[10.05593,"10570836"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7819562","_score":9.964609,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Specialized Loan Servicing continues to try and collect an alleged debt that is not owed. Under the XXXX when a consumer who signed a simple contract presents legal tender and it is refused under federal law the debt is discharged. Specialized Loan Service did not actually loan anything of value to me therefore there is no loss. If they have proof of loaning me money please provide me with the ORIGINAL book entry for this consumer transaction.\n\n3-203. TRANSFER OF INSTRUMENT ; RIGHTS ACQUIRED BY TRANSFER. \nPrimary tabs ( a ) An instrument is transferred when it is delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the instrument. \n\n( b ) Transfer of an instrument, whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument, including any right as a holder in due course, but the transferee can not acquire rights of a holder in due course by a transfer, directly or indirectly, from a holder in due course if the transferee engaged in fraud or illegality affecting the instrument. \n\n( c ) Unless otherwise agreed, if an instrument is transferred for value and the transferee does not become a holder because of lack of indorsement by the transferor, the transferee has a specifically enforceable right to the unqualified indorsement of the transferor, but negotiation of the instrument does not occur until the indorsement is made. \n\n( d ) If a transferor purports to transfer less than the entire instrument, negotiation of the instrument does not occur. The transferee obtains no rights under this Article and has only the rights of a partial assignee.\n\n3-601. DISCHARGE AND EFFECT OF DISCHARGE.\n\n( a ) The obligation of a party to pay the instrument is discharged as stated in this Article or by an act or agreement with the party which would discharge an obligation to pay money under a simple contract.\n\n( b ) Discharge of the obligation of a party is not effective against a person acquiring rights of a holder in due course of the instrument without notice of the discharge. 3-602. PAYMENT. \n( a ) Subject to subsection ( b ), an instrument is paid to the extent payment is made ( i ) by or on behalf of a party obliged to pay the instrument, and ( ii ) to a person entitled to enforce the instrument. To the extent of the payment, the obligation of the party obliged to pay the instrument is discharged even though payment is made with knowledge of a claim to the instrument under Section 3-306 by another person.\n\n( b ) Subject to subsection ( e ) a note is paid to the extent payment is made by or on behalf of a party obliged to pay the note to a person that formerly was entitled to enforce the note only if at the time of the payment the party obliged to pay has not received adequate notification that the note has been transferred and that payment is to be made to the transferee. A notification is adequate only if it is signed by the transferor or the transferee ; reasonably identifies the transferred note ; and provides an address at which payments subsequently can be made. Upon request, a transferee shall seasonably furnish reasonable proof that the note has been transferred. Unless the transferee complies with the request, a payment to the person that formerly was entitled to enforce the note is effective for purposes of subsection ( c ) even if the party obliged to pay the note has received a notification under this paragraph. \n( c ) Subject to subsection ( e ), to the extent of a payment under subsections ( a ) and ( b ), the obligation of the party obliged to pay the instrument is discharged even though payment is made with knowledge of a claim to the instrument under Section 3-306 by another person.\n\n( d ) Subject to subsection ( e ), a transferee, or any party that has acquired rights in the instrument directly or indirectly from a transferee, including any such party that has rights as a holder in due course, is deemed to have notice of any payment that is made under subsection ( b ) after the date that the note is transferred to the transferee but before the party obliged to pay the note receives adequate notification of the transfer. \n( e ) The obligation of a party to pay the instrument is not discharged under subsections ( a ) through ( d ) if : ( 1 ) a claim to the instrument under Section 3-306 is enforceable against the party receiving payment and ( i ) payment is made with knowledge by the payor that payment is prohibited by injunction or similar process of a court of competent jurisdiction, or ( ii ) in the case of an instrument other than a cashier 's check, teller 's check, or certified check, the party making payment accepted, from the person having a claim to the instrument, indemnity against loss resulting from refusal to pay the person entitled to enforce the instrument; or ( 2 ) the person making payment knows that the instrument is a stolen instrument and pays a person it knows is in wrongful possession of the instrument. \n\n( f ) As used in this section, \" signed, '' with respect to a record that is not a writing, includes the attachment to or logical association with the record of an electronic symbol, sound, or process to or with the record with the present intent to adopt or accept the record. \n\n3-603. TENDER OF PAYMENT. \nPrimary tabs ( a ) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract. \n\n( b ) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates. \n\n( c ) If tender of payment of an amount due on an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the obligation of the obligor to pay interest after the due date on the amount tendered is discharged. If presentment is required with respect to an instrument and the obligor is able and ready to pay on the due date at every place of payment stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemed to have made tender of payment on the due date to the person entitled to enforce the instrument. \n\n3-604. DISCHARGE BY CANCELLATION OR RENUNCIATION.\n\nPrimary tabs ( a ) A person entitled to enforce an instrument, with or without consideration, may discharge the obligation of a party to pay the instrument ( i ) by an intentional voluntary act, such as surrender of the instrument to the party, destruction, mutilation, or cancellation of the instrument, cancellation or striking out of the party 's signature, or the addition of words to the instrument indicating discharge, or ( ii ) by agreeing not to sue or otherwise renouncing rights against the party by a signed record. \n\n( b ) Cancellation or striking out of an indorsement pursuant to subsection ( a ) does not affect the status and rights of a party derived from the indorsement. \n\n( c ) As used in this section, \" signed, '' with respect to a record that is not a writing, includes the attachment to or logical association with the record of an electronic symbol, sound, or process to or with the record with the present intent to adopt or accept the record. \n8-501. SECURITIES ACCOUNT ; ACQUISITION OF SECURITY ENTITLEMENT FROM SECURITIES INTERMEDIARY. \n( a ) \" Securities account '' means an account to which a financial asset is or may be credited in accordance with an agreement under which the person maintaining the account undertakes to treat the person for whom the account is maintained as entitled to exercise the rights that comprise the financial asset. \n\n( b ) Except as otherwise provided in subsections ( d ) and ( e ), a person acquires a security entitlement if a securities intermediary : ( 1 ) indicates by book entry that a financial asset has been credited to the person 's securities account ; ( 2 ) receives a financial asset from the person or acquires a financial asset for the person and, in either case, accepts it for credit to the person 's securities account ; or ( 3 ) becomes obligated under other law, regulation, or rule to credit a financial asset to the person 's securities account. \n\n( c ) If a condition of subsection ( b ) has been met, a person has a security entitlement even though the securities intermediary does not itself hold the financial asset. \n\n( d ) If a securities intermediary holds a financial asset for another person, and the financial asset is registered in the name of, payable to the order of, or specially indorsed to the other person, and has not been indorsed to the securities intermediary or in blank, the other person is treated as holding the financial asset directly rather than as having a security entitlement with respect to the financial asset. \n\n( e ) Issuance of a security is not establishment of a security entitlement.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-11-08T20:01:22.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"94513","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7819562","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","date_received":"2023-11-08T19:35:33.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["accepted, from the person having a claim to the instrument, indemnity against loss <em>resulting</em> from refusal to pay the person entitled to enforce the instrument; or ( 2 ) the person making payment knows that the instrument is a stolen instrument and pays a person it knows is in <em>wrongful</em> possession of the instrument"]},"sort":[9.964609,"7819562"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17275584","_score":9.584951,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT SYSTEMIC SERVICING FAILURE, DATA CORRUPTION, WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE RISK, AND MULTI-BORROWER HARM Consumer : XXXX XXXX Servicer : NewRez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing Parent Company : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nProduct : VA Mortgage Issue : Systemic misapplication of payments, data corruption, false delinquency, contradictory federal representations, imminent harm to borrowers I. Summary of Complaint I am filing this complaint to report system-wide data corruption, misapplied funds, false delinquency reporting, contradictory corporate representations, and imminent harm to consumers, including myself as a XXXX veteran with a VA-backed loan . \n\nMy account has been corrupted since XXXX. \nPayments disappear, reappear, shift between months, or get placed into suspense. \nI have received another borrowers foreclosure letter, and I am now receiving correspondence from a Florida address that does not match Shellpoints declared headquarters, consistent with multi-system contamination. \n\nAt the same time, the parent company, XXXX XXXX XXXX, is telling the CFPB that complaints naming XXXX are directed to the wrong company, while filing SEC disclosures that state the exact opposite : that XXXX owns, consolidates, controls, and profits from NewRez/Shellpoint .\n\nThese contradictions create a high-risk, multi-borrower crisis requiring urgent CFPB action.\n\nII. Findings 1. My loan servicing data is corrupted Payments are not credited when received. \nUnapplied funds have accumulated for years. \nConflicting ledgers produce different balances depending on the portal or department. \nEscrow values change without explanation. \nA {$3900.00} payment was moved to XX/XX/XXXX, then removed from the ledger entirely. \nFunds placed in suspense contradict the servicers own call recordings. \n\n2. I received a foreclosure notice belonging to another borrower This is not a clerical error.\n\nThis proves that borrower data and foreclosure processing streams are contaminated.\n\n3. My mail is now being routed through XXXX XXXX, Florida a location that does not match Shellpoints declared headquarters Shellpoints operations are based in South Carolina.\n\nNewRezs operations are in Pennsylvania. \nYet I received official correspondence from : Shellpoint XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX This is consistent with : legacy routing tables, corrupted system identifiers, and cross-database contamination. \n\nThis is a hallmark indicator of platform-wide data instability. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX is denying ownership of NewRez to regulators while affirming ownership to the SEC In at least XXXX CFPB responses, XXXX stated the complaint does not belong to us. \nBut in its SEC filings ( Form XXXX, Form XXXX, Form XXXX, Form XXXX, and insider transactions ), XXXX : consolidates NewRez revenue and assets, describes NewRez as a wholly-owned subsidiary, grants executive compensation based on servicing-platform earnings, and states it ultimately owns a number of subsidiaries, including the entities involved in my servicing. \n\nThese contradictory statements create what I call the Orphan Company Paradox : XXXX is enriched by NewRezs servicing income while disowning NewRez to avoid regulatory accountability for servicing failures. \n\n\n\nIII. Evidence A. Ledger corruption and payment manipulation Multiple ledgers showing different balances.\n\nSuspense funds acknowledged on recorded calls.\n\nThe servicer claims error, but errors of this magnitude indicate systemic failure. \n\nXXXX XXXX foreclosure letter I received foreclosure documents for an entirely different consumer. \nThis demonstrates : cross-borrower contamination, privacy breaches, wrongful foreclosure risk. \n\nC. Contradictory addresses ( SC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX print routing ) This indicates a fragmented and corrupted data environment. \n\nD. Public borrower reports showing the same failures I submitted XXXX screenshots documenting years of identical harm to other consumers, including reports that parents and seniors are experiencing the same failures. \n\nE. SEC contradictions XXXX executives sell stock based on subsidiary earnings ( Forms XXXX and XXXX ). \nXXXX asserts ownership in every securities filing. \nYet XXXX denies association to the CFPB. \n\nThis is a cross-jurisdiction contradiction with consumer harm implications. \n\n\n\nIV. Legal Interpretation XXXX. RESPA Regulation X Violations ( XXXX C.F.R. XXXX, XXXX ) Failure to correct errors. \nFailure to apply payments when received. \nFailure to respond properly to Notices of Error.\n\nFailure to investigate borrower disputes.\n\nSending another borrowers foreclosure documents.\n\n2. TILA / Regulation Z Violations ( 12 C.F.R. 1026.36 ( c ) ( 1 ) ) Misapplication of payments and inaccurate statements constitute direct violations.\n\n3. UDAP / UDAAP Violations ( 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ) It is deceptive to : consolidate and profit from servicing operations in SEC filings, while denying ownership and responsibility in the CFPB portal to avoid accountability for servicing abuses.\n\n4. Federal foreclosure-process violations Wrong-borrower foreclosure notices implicate wrongful-foreclosure doctrines across all jurisdictions. \n\nXXXX. VA XXXX Protections As a XXXX veteran, mishandling of a VA loan constitutes heightened federal concern, particularly when : data is corrupted, payments vanish, foreclosure risk is created. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX has : XXXX knowledge of its ownership of NewRez, CFPB-facing denials of that ownership, and an operational platform inflicting widespread consumer harm.\n\nThis is a classic breach of oversight duty under Delaware law.\n\nV. Risk Impact Imminent, escalating, multi-borrower harm. \nThe system is : corrupting ledgers, misrouting data, mixing borrower files, generating false foreclosure risk, violating federal mortgage-servicing law, and endangering veterans, seniors, and families. \n\nThis is no longer a dispute. \nIt is a platform failure with national risk. \n\n\n\nVI. Requested CFPB Action 1. Immediate supervisory investigation of NewRez LLC and Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, including full data-governance review.\n\n2. Referral to the SEC for cross-jurisdiction contradictions involving XXXX ownership claims in securities filings vs wrong company claims in CFPB responses. \n3. Order a forensic audit of my loan, including : full reconstruction of my ledger, correction of unapplied funds, reversal of false delinquency reports, verification of escrow accounting.\n\n4. Immediate stop of any foreclosure activity due to platform instability.\n\n5. Mandate a system-wide audit across all borrowers due to multi-year, multi-consumer evidence of identical harm.\n\n6. Order monetary relief for damages sustained and escalating daily due to continued non-correction : {>= $1,000,000} in damages, and payoff of my mortgage, consistent with federal consumer-protection statutes, RESPA remedies, UDAAP penalties, data-governance failures, and case law involving systemic servicing misconduct.\n\nVII. Harm to Other Borrowers ( Systemic and Widespread ) The servicing failures documented in my account are not isolated.\n\nI have reviewed hundreds of public borrower reports, including historical data going back to XXXX, and the same patterns appear repeatedly across consumers in multiple states : Misapplied payments Suspense account dumping Conflicting ledgers False delinquency Manufactured foreclosure risk Missing payments Escrow miscalculations Inability to obtain accurate account histories Borrowers receiving one anothers documents Veterans and seniors being placed into delinquency despite making full payments These borrowers include : Elderly individuals on fixed incomes, XXXX veterans like myself, Families with children at risk of wrongful foreclosure, Parents reporting the same errors I am experiencing, Borrowers whose accounts show unexplained increases, Borrowers whose ledgers do not match their statements or portals, Borrowers who have lost homes or nearly lost them due to misapplied funds. \n\nI submitted screenshots demonstrating these patterns spanning multiple years and multiple servicing platforms within NewRez/Shellpoint. These are not customer-service lapses. They represent a structural failure of the underlying data environment, affecting thousands of consumers. \n\nBecause the same errors repeat across states, loan types, and consumer profiles, this constitutes : System-wide risk to every borrower serviced by NewRez and Shellpoint. \n\nThese patterns are identical to those observed in past federal enforcement actions against large servicers for : systemic misapplication of funds, incorrect delinquency reporting, wrongful foreclosure practices, and UDAAP violations under 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536.\n\nThis is not an individual mistake. It is a replicated servicing defect affecting consumers nationally. \n\nAs a XXXX veteran, my own risk is severe. But the harm is not limited to me. \nBorrowers across the country are being placed in danger through : corrupted records, inaccurate balances, loss of payment history integrity, and cross-account contamination that results in people receiving other borrowers documents, including foreclosure notices. \n\nThis creates foreseeable and imminent harm that rises to the level of systemic consumer-risk under CFPB supervisory standards.\n\nVIII. Requested Action for All Affected Borrowers Along with the corrective and monetary relief for my own loan, I request the CFPB initiate a platform-wide enforcement action requiring : 1. Full-servicer forensic audit A top-to-bottom examination of : payment application logic, suspense-account methodology, ledger integrity, servicing data governance, foreclosure processing, cross-borrower data contamination, and all system interfaces used by NewRez and Shellpoint. \n\n2. Mandatory remediation for every borrower Including : correction of misapplied funds, reconstruction of corrupted ledgers, reimbursement of wrongfully assessed fees, reversal of manufactured delinquencies, and full review of foreclosure activity to identify cases triggered by corrupted or inaccurate data.\n\n3. Protection for veterans, seniors, and vulnerable borrowers Many veterans report suffering from identical errors involving unapplied payments and escalation to foreclosure. \nGiven my own XXXX loan, I request the CFPB prioritize an immediate review of : all VA loan XXXX handled by NewRez/Shellpoint, all delinquency coding involving VA borrowers, and any foreclosure activity involving VA loans since XXXX XXXX \n\n4. Federal coordination with the SEC, FTC, VA, and state regulators Because the servicing failures overlap with : SEC-reporting contradictions ( Rithms ownership vs wrong company claims ), data-governance breakdowns, cross-account contamination, and multi-borrower harm across state lines, I request interagency coordination consistent with Dodd-Frank 112 and supervisory protocols for systemic consumer-finance risk.\n\n5. Enforcement orders preventing continued use of the wrong company defense Because these contradictions contribute directly to delayed remediation and consumer harm, the CFPB should require XXXX/NewRez/Shellpoint to cease using false corporate disassociation statements.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-15T14:36:51.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"37066","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17275584","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2025-11-15T14:29:31.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Borrowers across the country are being placed in danger through : corrupted records, inaccurate balances, loss of payment history integrity, and cross-account contamination that <em>results</em> in people receiving <em>other</em> borrowers documents, including foreclosure notices. \n\nThis creates foreseeable and imminent harm that rises to the level of systemic consumer-risk under CFPB supervisory standards.\n\nVIII."]},"sort":[9.584951,"17275584"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3362361","_score":9.477594,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/2018, Delivery Via CFPB, Board of Directors, TD Bank XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Maine XXXX - Dear Members of the Board, Please accept this as a Formal Notice of the following allegations and facts as they are known to me. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act ( SOX ) was designed to restore investor confidence in capital markets and help eliminate financial statement fraud in publicly traded companies, while at the same time significantly increasing the penalties for corporate accounting fraud. I have developed material fact, giving rise whereas it is alleged, TD Bank is currently benefiting from false liens followed by the entry of false and fictitious data into a state-maintained a database to falsely account for money. - TD Bank / Duty to Investigate - Several factors go into a Board of Director 's decision as to whether a fraud investigation should be performed. One of the most deciding factors is where applicable federal law would require an inquiry into the fraud or disclosure of known fraud to a government agency. Should TD Bank find the law imposes such a duty of the Board, its Directors, and Officers, and the company fails to comply, severe penalties can result. Several laws impose disclosure requirements on businesses, including 1 ) Monitoring and public reporting statutes, 2 ) The Sarbanes-Oakley Act, 3 ) False statement statutes, 4 ) Civil law duties to a company and its shareholders, 5 ) Accountants and internal auditors duties to investigate, 6 ) External auditors duty to investigate - The Securities and Exchange Commission - The SEC takes the position that senior management and corporate counsel who fail to investigate alleged misconduct and fail to establish appropriate procedures for limiting the prohibited conduct may be held liable for violation the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ( FCPA ). Similarly, directors and others specified in reporting statute are responsible for ensuring the accordance of required corporate public filings, such as prospectuses, proxy statements, and annual reports. The SEC has held directors liable for reporting violations may exist not only when responsible individuals actually know of misconduct, but also where they know of facts that indicate possible wrongdoing. The SEC has stated that it will not tolerate benign indifference to employee misconduct. Thus an internal investigation into XXXX XXXX XXXX as Trustee and or Custodian, counterparties of TD Bank seems appropriate and necessary under the well-documented circumstances to ensure that public statements and reports are accurate and or amended and, where required, to establish adequate procedures to prevent and limit the illegal conduct. The failure to investigate can lead a company to include inaccurate or misleading facts in public filings, for which the company and its directors and other senior management may be held liable even absent fraudulent intent or actual knowledge of the falsehoods. That having been stated, please consider yourself, as a member of the TD Bank, Board of Directors, hereby Noticed of Document Custody Errors due to the failure of TD Bank, its trustee ( s ), predecessor in interest, successor in interest, parents, affiliates,  subsidiarys, agents, employees, officers, directors, shareholders, and attorneys relating to the ongoing loss and harm, from certain obligations, debts, known to TD Bank, due to the failure to transfer accurately, under 12 CFR 1024.35. This failure has resulted in the assignment of False Liens and Clouded Title against 33 unknowing property owners resulting in Unmarketable Title to approximately {>= $1,000,000} of adjoining real property on XXXX XXXX. TD Bank, as Servicer has the duty with respect to document custody to monitor and oversee lien assignments, including the recording of assignments, which include document exceptions. TD Bank failed to oversee the assignment of False Liens against multiple properties located within the XXXX XXXX subdivision further described and recorded in Map Book 9, Page 27 of the XXXX XXXX County Register of Deeds. One such property is my home, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NORTH CAROLINA XXXX. My property was wrongfully encumbered due to, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Trustee allegedly conspiring with one or more third parties by Double-Pledging multiple unrelated contracts against my home and my neighbor 's homes. The underlying deed was returned to XXXX XXXX XXXX, and marked Paid in Full and Satisfied, recorded in Book 2439, Page 0236 at XXXX XXXX County Register of Deeds. This deed was further encumbered by and through the attachment of Seven un-constitutional hidden C-PACE liens. Upon information and belief, material issues exist with respect to the underlying contract, as most significant the custodian lacks possession. TD Bank having again been made formally aware of these continuing and ongoing errors under 12 CFR 1024.35. It is the understanding of the undersigned, XXXX XXXX XXXX trustee is responsible for enforcing the representation and warranties that the seller/depositor gave. As such, XXXX XXXX XXXX manufactured a \" SELLER '' affidavit titled Lost Note Affidavit wherein Mr. XXXX XXXX for Parcel Identifier No. XXXX, yet, Mr. XXXX XXXX lacked a valid interest in this deed, therefor Mr. XXXX XXXX could only sell what he had, which was nothing. XXXX XXXX XXXX remains in physical possession of this unencumbered deed recorded upon Book 5061, Page 653 upon the XXXX XXXX County Register of Deeds. Neither XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX have provided any representations or warranties to TD Bank or any other party with respect to these deeds. These deeds have not been sold by the fee simple owner nor has any interest been, granted to a trustee, or a third party for hypothecation or rehypothecate purposes. Here it appears TD Bank by and through other parties participated in a scheme of double pledging assets they did not own, and now are unable to deliver the treasury, causing a daisy chain of cumulative repo-fails. As has been explained to me, a repo fail occurs when one party steals an asset it does not own, therefor the thief is unable to return the treasury to the owner. To remove any ambiguity, at no time did XXXX XXXX XXXX, apply for, borrow or become obligated for loans in the sum ( s ) of {$560000.00} and {>= $1,000,000} respectfully for the benefit of TD Bank or a third party. XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX XXXX reserve all rights in common law, statutory law, both Federal and State and in equity resulting from ongoing ensuing losses by the failure of TD Bank and its Trustee, XXXX XXXX XXXX to properly oversee monitor and investigate these facts as they relate to the Foreclosure Action under a DOT from XXXX XXXX XXXX, including but not limited to any claims arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, the Truth In Lending Act, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Please take further notice, a self-described high bidder wrongfully took and carried away the personal property of the undersigned and his XXXX year old son without the consent of the Note Holder, ( The Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this Note is called the Note Holder. ) This as the note is not lost, it was correctly returned to the undersigned borrower marked paid in full and satisfied. Whereas, good and credible evidence exists in support of the above, respectful demand is hereby made upon, the Board of Directors of TD Bank, given the large sums involved, to facilitate an emergency board meeting allowing Board of Directors to  mitigate ongoing losses believed to cloud property titles, pledged with certain government entities, deeming each deed un-marketable and collectively having a value believed to exceed an {>= $1,000,000}, therefore notice is hereby provided to the Board of Directors to reserve accordingly. In the interim, a request made upon TD Bank to prioritize the physical return of the personal property to XXXX XXXX XXXX that was wrongfully taken and carried away without the consent of XXXX XXXX XXXX. I would invite the Board of TD Bank to contemplate the outcome of destroying the property rights and records of homeowners who never defaulted on the mortgage and are now forced to litigate boundary disputes and property rights with adjoining neighbors, along XXXX XXXX. Regards, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-09-03T23:17:58.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"284XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3362361","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY","date_received":"2019-09-03T23:11:42.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX XXXX for Parcel <em>Identifier</em> No. XXXX, yet, Mr. XXXX XXXX lacked a valid interest in this deed, therefor Mr. XXXX XXXX could only sell what he had, which was nothing. XXXX XXXX XXXX remains in physical possession of this unencumbered deed recorded upon Book 5061, Page 653 upon the XXXX XXXX County Register of Deeds. Neither XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX have provided any representations or warranties to TD Bank or any <em>other</em> party with respect to these deeds."],"sub_issue":["Debt was <em>result</em> of identity theft"]},"sort":[9.477594,"3362361"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10653636","_score":9.4747,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I. Introduction I am submitting this complaint against JPMorgan Chase Bank due to significant issues regarding my account, which have led to financial hardship, including eviction. The bank 's actionsor lack thereofhave not only impacted my creditworthiness but have also resulted in severe consequences for my livelihood. This complaint seeks to hold JPMorgan Chase accountable and requests your intervention to rectify these issues.\n\nII. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Disclosure Failures : Upon opening my account, I was required to provide my Social Security number and other personal information. Since that time, I have not received adequate disclosures related to the status of my account, including insurance claims, 1099-C forms for canceled debt, or details regarding any securities associated with my account. \nI request that JPMorgan Chase disclose any insurance claims, FDIC reports, and evidence of any alterations made to my account or related checks, including the specifics of any hacking incidents. \nNegative Impact on Credit Report : The lack of accurate reporting has resulted in negative marks on my credit report, which have prevented me from accessing necessary credit facilities. This has had a profound effect on my ability to secure housing and has contributed directly to my eviction.\n\nDiscriminatory Practices : I believe that the treatment I have received from JPMorgan Chase has been discriminatory. If there is evidence that other customers have been treated more favorably under similar circumstances, this could indicate a violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) and the Fair Housing Act. \nFailure to Address Errors : In a recent correspondence from Vice President XXXX XXXX, it was acknowledged that there are errors related to my account that need correction. Notwithstanding this acknowledgment, no remedial action has been undertaken following XXXX 's efforts to rectify these errors, thereby perpetuating the adverse effects on my financial standing. \nXXXX. Legal Basis for XXXX XXXX CFPB was established to ensure that consumers are treated fairly by financial institutions. Under the following regulations, I assert my rights as a consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX Reform and Consumer Protection Act : This act provides the CFPB with XXXX authority to enforce consumer protection laws and ensure that consumers have access to accurate information regarding their financial products. \n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : This law requires that consumers have access to accurate credit information and provides a framework for disputing inaccuracies. The failure of JPMorgan Chase to rectify negative reporting related to my account constitutes a violation of the FCRA. \n\nEqual Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) : This act prohibits discrimination in lending. If JPMorgan Chase has engaged in discriminatory practices regarding my account, they are in violation of this act. \n\nLEGAL VIOLATIONS Constitutional Violations : The actions of the Defendant may constitute violations of the due process rights enshrined in both the U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Constitution, particularly if adequate notice or opportunity to address negative account reporting was not provided.\n\nSecurities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) Violations : If the Defendant engaged in securities transactions that lacked proper disclosures or failed to comply with SEC regulations, this may constitute unlawful conduct subject to regulatory action.\n\nCode of Federal Regulations ( CFR ) Violations : The Defendant 's actions may be in violation of relevant provisions in the CFR governing banking practices and consumer protection, particularly with respect to disclosure requirements. \n\nFiduciary Duties and Common Law Breaches : The Defendant has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of its clients. Any failure to manage the account prudently or to rectify errors could result in a breach of this duty under common law. \n\nUniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) Violations : The Michigan UCC governs secured transactions and indicates that the Plaintiff, as a creditor, holds a perfected security interest in the collateral as described in the Security Agreement. The Defendants disregard for this agreement could expose them to liability under UCC provisions.\n\nIRS Forms 56 and 56F Compliance Issues : The Defendant has been provided IRS Form 56 and Form 56F, indicating the establishment of Power of Attorney. Failure to recognize the authority granted in these forms constitutes a breach of fiduciary responsibility.\n\nTRUST AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR RELATIONSHIP The Plaintiff asserts that the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is identified as a debtor and that XXXX XXXX , in his capacity as Power of Attorney, is the creditor with legal rights to collect on the debts owed. The Security Agreement purportedly covers all future debts and is supported by the collateral 's value. \n\nThe Defendants failure to honor the fiscal forms and POA authorizations supplied by the Plaintiff undermines the trust and estate 's legal standing.\n\nIV. Importance of Resolution The resolution of these issues is critical not only for my financial well-being but also for the integrity of the banking system. A failure to address the errors associated with my account could set a dangerous precedent for other consumers who may face similar issues. Ensuring accountability within financial institutions is vital for maintaining public trust and promoting fair lending practices.\n\nMichigan Consumer Protection Act ( MCPA ) MCL 445.901 et seq. : The MCPA protects consumers from unfair, deceptive, and misleading practices in trade and commerce. If Chases practices can be shown to violate this act, it could serve as a basis for a claim of misleading behavior. \nMichigan Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) MCL 440.1101 et seq. : The UCC governs commercial transactions in Michigan, including the sale of goods and secured transactions. Provisions related to the good faith requirement in commercial transactions and the obligation to act with reasonable care may support claims against Chase regarding their handling of the depository agreement.\n\nMichigan Truth in Lending Act MCL 493.1401 et seq. : While primarily aimed at loan transactions, if the depository agreement includes terms related to credit, this act may impose requirements that Chase failed to meet, leading to misleading practices.\n\nMichigan Debt Collection Practices Act MCL 445.251 et seq. : This act regulates debt collection practices and may apply if Chases actions in managing the account are construed as deceptive or unfair, particularly in how they report the principal 's credit history.\n\nMichigan Revised Judicature Act MCL 600.2919 : This law addresses the liability for wrongful acts and could support claims regarding harm caused by Chases actions.\n\nMichigan Administrative Code R 205.121 et seq. : These rules outline regulations concerning financial institutions, including prohibitions against unfair or deceptive acts in the context of consumer financial services.\n\nFiduciary Duty Principles The concept of fiduciary duty requires banks to act in the best interests of their clients. Any breach of this duty, such as failing to properly manage an account or adequately disclose terms in a depository agreement, could lead to claims of liability.\n\nTort Law Principles Under common law, a party can be held vicariously liable for the actions of its agents if those actions occur within the scope of employment. If employees of Chase engaged in misleading practices or failed to uphold their duties under the depository agreement, this could expose Chase to vicarious liability.\n\nRemedies and Enforcement MCL 445.903 : This section of the MCPA provides for remedies, including the ability for consumers to seek damages, which could be applicable in a case against Chase.\n\nSummary These laws could serve as the foundation for challenging the fairness and legality of JPMorgan Chase 's depository agreement.\n\nV. Request for Action I hereby request that the CFPB investigate this matter thoroughly. Specifically, I ask for : An investigation into JPMorgan Chases management of my account, including the handling of disclosures, insurance claims, and reporting practices.\n\nAssistance in rectifying any inaccuracies in my credit report that stem from the banks mismanagement.\n\nRecommendations for corrective actions that JPMorgan Chase must take to address these issues and ensure compliance with consumer protection laws. \n\nThank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response and assistance in resolving these serious concerns.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-01T23:38:53.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"482XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10653636","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2024-11-01T23:06:25.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem making or receiving payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The bank 's actionsor lack thereofhave not only impacted my creditworthiness but have also <em>resulted</em> in severe consequences for my livelihood. This complaint seeks to hold JPMorgan Chase accountable and requests your intervention to rectify these issues.\n\nII. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Disclosure Failures : Upon opening my account, I was required to provide my Social <em>Security</em> number and <em>other</em> personal information."]},"sort":[9.4747,"10653636"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11337642","_score":9.184956,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"on XX/XX/XXXX early am an unknown company damage my driveway while repo a vehicle without notices also refuse to provide driver insurance or contact information, I was told to sue them by the receptionist as result I have done following steps. \n\nXXXX XXXX RESURGENT CAPITAL LP /LLC COLLECTION DEBT COMPANY ORIGINAL XXXX XXXX, CHARGED OFF DEBT FAIL TO RESPOND TO BONAFIDE DISPUTE / XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX debt is sold to a collection agency. \nUnder UCC 3-301, the collection agency must be able to prove that they are entitled to collect the debt by providing proof that they are the holder of the debt or have the right to enforce it. \nIf they can not produce evidence of the assignment or demonstrate they are the rightful holder, you have a valid defense under UCC 3-301 that they do not have the legal right to enforce the debt. \nConclusion : UCC 3-301 ( 1 ) definitely applies when a third-party debt collector attempts to enforce a charged-off debt. The debt collector must be able to prove they are the holder of the debt or have the right to enforce the debt, typically through documentation of the debts transfer or assignment. If they can not provide such evidence, they may lack the legal standing to collect the debt, and you could successfully challenge their efforts. \nIf you are dealing with a third-party debt collector, you have the right to request proof of their entitlement to collect on the debt. If they fail to prove their right to collect, they may be violating the UCC and other consumer protection laws, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \nUCCC 3-301 ( 1 ) In the case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Oklahoma Supreme Court dealt with the issue of self-help repossession and the legal rights of parties involved in a repossession, particularly regarding the proper notice and procedures required before and after repossession. Although the case primarily concerns the legal standing of the creditor ( the bank ) and the debtor in a repossession scenario, it is highly relevant to your question about the repo of a car without notice. \nLets break it down to see how it applies : The Case : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, the bank has repossessed a vehicle from the debtor, XXXX XXXXXXXX, without providing prior notice. The key issue in the case was whether the bank had acted unlawfully in repossessing the car without giving the required notice or affording the debtor an opportunity to redeem the vehicle. \nThe Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that self-help repossession is only lawful if it does not breach the peace and if the repossession complies with the terms of the contract ( in this case, the security agreement ). However, in this case, the court found that the bank 's actions in repossessing the car without notice violated the debtor 's rights under the law. \nKey Points of the Case : Right to Notice Before Repossession : The case reinforced that the debtor is entitled to notice before a repossession occurs. This includes notice that the creditor intends to repossess the vehicle and provide an opportunity to cure the default ( if applicable ), especially when required by the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) or the security agreement. \nSelf-Help Repossession Must Not Breach the Peace : The ruling emphasizes that self-help repossession ( when the lender or creditor takes back the vehicle without involving law enforcement ) must not breach the peace. This means the creditor must avoid actions like taking the car in the middle of the night or forcibly entering the debtor 's property. A breach of peace could render the repossession illegal and subject the creditor to damages. \nDue Process and Fair Treatment : The case aligns with the notion that repossessions must be carried out in a manner that respects the debtors due process rights. This includes reasonable notice and an opportunity to address the default before drastic actions like repossession are taken. \nApplication to Your Example : Repossessed Car without Notice If your situation mirrors the example you gave where a company repossessed your car in the middle of the night without any prior notice XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX can be relevant in several ways : Breach of Peace : If the repo company took the car without providing notice and did so in a manner that disrupted your peace ( such as repossessing it while you were unaware, in the middle of the night, or in a threatening manner ), this could be considered a breach of peace under UCC 9-609 ( which governs repossessions ). The Supreme Court in XXXX XXXXXXXX highlighted that the repossession must not disturb the peace, and if it did, the repossession could be considered illegal. \nLack of Notice : If you did not receive notice of the repossession or any opportunity to redeem the car, this could also be a violation of your rights under UCC 9-611, which requires the secured party ( the lender or creditor ) to notify the debtor of the repossession and sale. In your case, if you didnt receive a pre-repossession notice, or notice of the intent to sell the vehicle, this could be a violation of UCC requirements and a breach of your rights. \nOpportunity to Cure : If there was no attempt to provide you with a chance to cure the default ( such as catching up on missed payments before the car was taken ), then the creditor may have violated the terms of the security agreement or failed to follow the proper process outlined in UCC 9-609 and 9-611. \nRemedies Available : If the repossession was deemed to have violated UCC provisions or was conducted in an unlawful manner, you could potentially seek remedies such as damages for the illegal repossession, return of the car, or even monetary compensation for any harm caused by the wrongful repossession. In XXXX XXXXXXXX, the court upheld the idea that a creditor must follow legal procedures to protect the debtors rights, and a failure to do so could result in liability for the creditor. \nWhat You Can Do in a Similar Situation : If you find yourself in a situation where a car has been repossessed without notice, and especially if it was done in the middle of the night or under questionable circumstances, the principles of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX may apply to your case. Heres what you can do : Demand Proof of Notice : You can ask the creditor or the repossession company to provide proof that they properly notified you before the repossession took place. Under UCC 9-611, the creditor is required to give you notice of the intended sale of the vehicle before taking any action, and under UCC 9-609 , they can not repossess in a way that breaches the peace. \nCheck for Breach of Peace : If the repossession took place under circumstances that caused a disturbance or were carried out without your knowledge ( such as at night when you were not expecting it ), you might have grounds to claim a breach of peace. If the repossession was conducted in an aggressive, disruptive, or clandestine manner, this could be deemed unlawful. \nExamine the Security Agreement : Review the security agreement you signed when you took out the loan. Many agreements outline how and when a creditor can repossess the vehicle, what notices are required, and any potential penalties for non-payment. If the creditor violated any terms of that agreement ( e.g., failing to provide notice or not giving you an opportunity to cure the default ), you may have a case for wrongful repossession. \nSeek Legal Remedies : If the repossession was wrongful, you may be entitled to remedies such as : Return of the vehicle if it was wrongfully repossessed. \nDamages for any emotional distress, financial loss, or other harm caused by the wrongful repossession. \nA lawsuit for breach of contract or violation of your rights under the UCC. \nConsult an Attorney : If you believe your car was wrongfully repossessed in violation of your rights, it may be helpful to consult with an attorney who specializes in consumer protection, debt collection, or repossession laws. They can advise you on your legal rights, assist you in taking action against the repossession company, and help you seek compensation if applicable. \nConclusion : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX applies to your example by underscoring the requirements for repossession, particularly the need for notice and the prohibition against breach of peace. If the car was taken without notice, especially in the middle of the night, it could very well be considered a violation of both UCC requirements and your legal rights. You might have grounds to challenge the repossession and pursue legal action for damages or wrongful repossession, as the creditor is generally required to follow proper procedures. \nPER THE THIRD PARTY COLLECTING THE CAR WITHOUT NOTICE OF REPO OR ANY CONTRACT TO SHOW OWNERSHIP OR RIGHT OF REPO A LAWSUIT INEVITABLE Yes, if a third-party company repossesses your car without providing notice, without a valid contract, and without showing the right to repossess ( i.e., without demonstrating legal ownership or the right to act on behalf of the creditor ), there are strong grounds for a lawsuit. This is especially true if the repossession violates UCC provisions or consumer protection laws. \nLet 's break down why a lawsuit is inevitable under these circumstances and what the potential causes of action would be. \nKey Legal Issues in Your Scenario : Lack of Notice ( UCC and Consumer Protection ) : Under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), specifically UCC 9-609, a secured creditor ( or their authorized agent ) may repossess the vehicle, but notice is usually required before and after the repossession. \nNotice before repossession : While the UCC doesn't always require pre-repossession notice in every case ( if the contract allows for immediate repossession after default ), notice after repossession is almost always required especially if the car is going to be sold. \nIf the car was taken without any prior notice to you, and you didnt have an opportunity to cure the default, this could be a violation of UCC requirements. \nLack of Ownership or Right to Repossess : Third-Party Debt Collectors and Repo Agents : A third-party collector must prove they have the right to repossess the vehicle. If the repossession agent or debt collector can not produce evidence of ownership or a contract that clearly shows they have legal standing to repossess the vehicle, they may be violating your rights. \nIf they can not demonstrate they have the right to enforce the contract ( via a valid assignment or proof of ownership of the debt ), the repossession can be contested as unlawful. Under UCC 3-301, they must prove they have the right to enforce the debt. Without proper evidence, they may lack legal standing. \nBreach of Peace : Even if the third-party collector has the right to repossess, UCC 9-609 requires that repossession must be carried out without a breach of peace. If the repo occurred at an unreasonable time ( e.g., in the middle of the night ) or in a manner that caused disruption or fear, that could be considered a breach of peace. \nIn this case, repossession without notice, in the middle of the night, could be argued to constitute a breach of peace, which would make the repossession itself unlawful. \nPotential Causes of Action for a Lawsuit : Given the facts you've outlined, here are the potential legal claims or causes of action that could lead to a lawsuit against the third-party repo agent, the creditor, or both : 1. Wrongful Repossession ( Breach of Contract & UCC Violations ) Lack of Notice : If the repossession was carried out without proper notice as required under UCC 9-611 ( post-repossession notice of intent to sell the car ), or if there was no opportunity for you to cure the default, you may have grounds for wrongful repossession. \nLack of Standing : If the third-party repo agent can not prove that they have the legal right to repossess ( i.e., a valid assignment or proof that they own the debt ), they may not have had the legal right to take your car. In this case, you can sue for wrongful repossession. \n2. Breach of Peace ( UCC Violation ) Breach of Peace occurs when the repossession is conducted in a manner that disturbs the peace. This can include repossession at night, without warning, or in a manner that causes confrontation or distress. \nIf the repo was conducted improperly ( e.g., forcibly entering your property, taking the car without your knowledge or consent ), the creditor or repo company could be liable for damages due to breach of peace. \n3. Conversion ( Theft or Unauthorized Taking ) Conversion is the wrongful taking or control over another person 's property. If the third party took the car without legal authorization, and they are unable to prove that they had the right to take it, you could have a claim for conversion. This is especially relevant if the car was taken without notice, without a contract, and without the proper authority to do so. \n4. Violation of Consumer Protection Laws ( Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, UCC, etc. ) FDCPA Violations : If the repossession was carried out by a debt collector ( i.e., a third-party collection agency ), and they did so improperly, you might have grounds to bring a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The FDCPA protects consumers from harassment and abusive practices by debt collectors, including improper or illegal repossession tactics. \nThe UCC also protects consumers from creditors who act outside the bounds of the contract and the law. \n5. Emotional Distress ( Potential Tort Claim ) If the manner of repossession caused you significant emotional distress ( e.g., the stress of having your car taken unexpectedly at night or being wrongfully deprived of your vehicle ), you might have grounds for a claim of emotional distress. This is a more difficult claim to win, but if the repossession was done in an extremely inappropriate manner, it could potentially form the basis for damages. \nWhat You Can Do : Demand Proof : Send a formal demand letter to the creditor or repo company requesting proof of ownership and the right to repossess the car. They should provide you with a contract, proof of assignment, and any relevant documents that show they had the legal right to take the car. \n\nFile a Complaint : You can file a formal complaint with consumer protection agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), or your states attorney general office, if you believe the repossession violated consumer protection laws. \nConsider a Lawsuit : If the third-party repo company or creditor failed to follow the proper legal procedures ( notice, standing, etc. ), you may have a valid claim for wrongful repossession, conversion, breach of peace, or even emotional distress. Your attorney can assist in filing a lawsuit for damages. \nConclusion : Yes, based on the facts you've outlined, a lawsuit is highly likely and advisable. The third-party collector repossessing your car without notice, without showing proper ownership, and potentially in violation of the UCC and consumer protection laws creates significant legal exposure for them. You may have several potential claims, including wrongful repossession, breach of peace, conversion, and violations of consumer protection laws. \nIts important to act quickly and consult with an experienced consumer rights attorney who can help guide you through the process of seeking damages, return of the car, or other legal remedies. : REPO DRIVER DAMAGE PROPERTY TO REPO THE CAR THE REPO COMPANY STATES THEY ARE NOT LIABLE TO GIVE DRIVERS NAME OR INFORMATION IS THIS TRUE IF NOT STEPS TO ENFORCE RELEASE OF INFORMATION POLICE REPORT HAS BEEN FILED In your situation, where the repo driver damaged your property during the repossession of your car and the repo company is refusing to provide the driver 's name or any information, you do have legal avenues to pursue in order to enforce the release of that information and hold the responsible parties accountable. \nKey Legal Issues to Address : Property Damage During Repossession : If the repo driver caused damage to your property while attempting to repossess your car, this may constitute tortious conduct, such as negligence or even intentional damage. Depending on the circumstances, you may have grounds for a claim for property damage. \nRight to Know Who Caused the Damage : You are entitled to know the identity of the person who damaged your property during the repossession. The repossession company ( or the principal party responsible ) should not be withholding this information if a police report has been filed and if the damage is part of the repossession process. \nLiability of the Repossession Company : Even though the repossession driver may be the one who caused the damage, the repossession company is generally liable for the actions of its agents ( in this case, the driver ) while they are acting within the scope of their employment or job duties ( such as repossessing a vehicle ). \nIf the repossession was carried out by an independent contractor, there may be additional steps to take to identify and hold the contractor accountable, but the repossession company could still bear responsibility for ensuring that their contractors act within the law and do not damage property. \nSteps to Enforce Release of Information and Hold the Repo Company Accountable : 1. Reaffirm Your Right to the Information ( Legal Basis ) The repossession company is likely bound by state laws that require it to provide information about the incident, especially if a police report has been filed. If they are refusing to provide the driver 's name or contact information, you can take the following steps : State Law on Property Damage : Many states have consumer protection laws and tort laws that hold repossession companies liable for damages caused by their agents. The repossession company is obligated to assist you in pursuing any claims you have for damage caused during repossession. \nRequest in Writing : Formally request, in writing, that the repo company provide the driver 's information as part of the property damage claim. This letter should state the nature of the damage, the fact that a police report has been filed, and your demand for the driver 's identity. \n\nDONE Police Report : Since you've filed a police report, obtain a copy of the report if you haven't already. The police report should contain : Details about the incident ( the property damage ). \nThe repo companys information. \nAny witness statements or documentation related to the repossession. \nIdentifying details about the driver, if provided by the repo company or the driver himself. \nThe police report will help validate your claim of property damage and is often necessary to pursue legal action or to file a claim with your insurance. \n3. SENT Formal Demand Letter If the repossession company is unresponsive to your initial requests, send a formal demand letter requesting the driver 's information and any relevant documentation. You can include : Details about the damage ( photographs, estimates, etc. ). \nA reference to the police report. \nYour demand that they provide the driver 's name so you can proceed with your claim. \nThis letter should also specify a deadline for a response ( e.g., 10-15 business days ) and clearly state that if they do not respond, you will pursue further legal action, including the involvement of consumer protection agencies or litigation. \n4. Contact Consumer Protection Agencies ( If Repo Company Refuses ) If the repo company still refuses to provide information, consider escalating the matter by contacting relevant consumer protection agencies : State Attorney Generals Office : They may have specific guidelines or complaints related to repossession companies that are not complying with the law or are withholding information unlawfully. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Filing a complaint with the XXXX  can put public pressure on the company to resolve your issue. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : If the repossession was carried out by a debt collector, you can also file a complaint with the CFPB, which enforces the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n5. Small Claims Court or Lawsuit ( Legal Action ) If you are unable to resolve the matter through the repossession company or consumer protection agencies, filing a lawsuit or taking the matter to small claims court may be your next option : Sue for Property Damage : If the repossession company refuses to provide the driver 's name or cooperate, you can consider filing a lawsuit for property damage. The repossession company may be held liable for the actions of its agent ( the repo driver ). \nIn many states, you can file a small claims lawsuit for property damage ( often under a certain dollar amount, such as {$5000.00} or {$10000.00}, depending on the state ). \nSue for Breach of Contract : If the repo company violated terms of your agreement ( e.g., repossession was conducted improperly ), you may also have a breach of contract claim. \n\nDemand the Driver 's Information in writing, citing the police report and property damage. \nObtain the Police Report and use it as evidence to support your claim. \nFile a Complaint with the Attorney General or consumer protection agencies if the company continues to refuse to cooperate. \nConsider Small Claims Court or Legal Action if the company is uncooperative or refuses to provide the necessary information. \nYou have the legal right to know who caused the damage to your property and to seek compensation for the damages. If the repo company is refusing to provide that information, legal recourse is your next step. Consulting with an attorney who specializes in consumer protection or tort law could provide additional support to ensure your rights are protected. \n\nXXXX XXXX IS THE COMPANY THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH THERE WAS BONAFIDE DISPUTE SUBMITTED TO THEM VIA REGISTERED MAIL THEY NEVER REPLIED ENFORCEMENT ACCORDING TO SATISFACTION UCC 3-311 WAS XXXXXXXX XXXX ABLE TO SELL THE DEBT AFTER CHARGING IT OFF AND NOT REPLYING TO BONAFIDE DISPUTE? \n\nUnder the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), particularly UCC 3-311, the situation you've described involves some important legal principles regarding disputes and charge-offs, as well as the sale of a debt after a Bonafide dispute has been raised. Lets break this down step-by-step : 1. Bonafide Dispute Under UCC 3-311 : UCC 3-311 specifically addresses disputes and the right of the debtor to dispute the validity of a debt. When a debtor raises a Bonafide dispute ( a legitimate, good faith dispute about the debt or its amount ), the creditor is required to acknowledge and respond to the dispute in a reasonable manner. If a dispute is raised and the creditor fails to respond or resolve it, they may be in violation of certain provisions of the UCC and other applicable consumer protection laws. \nUCC 3-311 states that if a debtor sends a dispute ( such as a registered mail notice, which you did ), the creditor is required to respond or provide a resolution. A failure to respond to a bona fide dispute could affect the creditor 's ability to enforce the debt or take certain actions, including selling the debt or charging it off. \n2. Charging Off the Debt : Charge-off is an accounting action that the lender ( in this case, XXXX XXXX ) takes to declare the debt as unlikely to be collected. A charge-off does not extinguish the debt ; it is simply an accounting procedure that moves the debt off the creditors balance sheet. It is still a valid debt that the creditor ( or a third party ) can attempt to collect, unless there is some legal reason why the debt can not be enforced ( such as a Bonafide dispute or a failure to respond to the dispute ). \nIn your case, if XXXX XXXX charged off the debt after receiving your dispute and without responding to it, they may have violated UCC 3-311. Charging off the debt without addressing the dispute could mean that the creditor has waived their right to enforce the debt or sell the debt, depending on the nature of the dispute. \n3. Selling the Debt After Charge-Off : After a charge-off, the creditor ( in this case, XXXX XXXX ) has the right to sell the debt to a third-party collection agency or debt buyer. However, there are specific conditions under the UCC and related laws that govern this process : Failure to Respond to a Bona Fide Dispute : If XXXX XXXX did not respond to your Bonafide dispute, they could have violated UCC 3-311, which requires them to address the dispute and offer a resolution before continuing with collection efforts. If they ignored the dispute, they might not have been legally able to sell the debt or attempt to enforce it while the dispute remains unresolved. \nConsumer Protection Laws : In addition to the UCC, there are consumer protection laws, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), that require creditors and debt collectors to act fairly and respond to disputes. If the debt was sold to a third party after the dispute, the third-party collector must still adhere to these same laws, including validating the debt before attempting to collect it. \n4. Legal Impact of Not Responding to a Bonafide Dispute : Under UCC 3-311, creditors are not allowed to enforce or transfer a debt for collection if there is an unresolved Bonafide dispute. This means that if XXXX XXXX failed to address your bona fide dispute, they may not have been legally allowed to sell the debt or continue to attempt collection. Their failure to respond to your dispute could have prevented them from enforcing the debt, and any subsequent actions, such as selling the debt to a third-party collection agency, could be legally questionable. \n5. What Can You Do? \nHere are your options to enforce your rights under UCC 3-311 and other applicable laws : a. I HAVE DocumentED Everything : Keep copies of the dispute letter you sent to XXXX XXXX ( via registered mail ). \nEnsure you have proof of the failure to respond from XXXX XXXX. If they didn't reply to your dispute, this could be an important piece of evidence that they violated UCC provisions. \nRequest copies of any communication or documentation related to the sale of the debt. If they sold the debt, they should have informed you of the sale and the new holder of the debt.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-31T19:11:05.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"374XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11337642","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","date_received":"2024-12-31T17:18:14.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Seized or attempted to seize your property"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Seek Legal Remedies : If the repossession was <em>wrongful</em>, you may be entitled to remedies such as : Return of the vehicle if it was <em>wrongfully</em> repossessed. \nDamages for any emotional distress, financial loss, or <em>other</em> harm caused by the <em>wrongful</em> repossession. \nA lawsuit for breach of contract or violation of your rights under the UCC."]},"sort":[9.184956,"11337642"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8696245","_score":9.17371,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"I've sent a instrument of payment to XXXX XXXX who is the trustee for First Data Merchant services and they have rejected my instrument ( paymment ) and are still deducting payments from my Regions bank bank acount daily. According to the Indenture Act of 1939, Section 303, PREFERENTIAL COLLECTION OF CLAIMS AGAINST OBLIGOR it states that ( XXXX ) The term paying agent, when used with respect to any such indenture security, means any person authorized by an obligor thereon ( A ) to pay the principal of or interest on such security on behalf of such obligor, or ( B ) if such security is a certificate of interest or participation, equipment trust certificate, or like security, to make such payment on behalf of the trust. \n\nThis is a billing error and a Notice of Default Opportunity to Cure because they kept the security and have not discharged it.\n\nFirst Data Marchant is violating federal laws 3-601 1-4. DISCHARGE AND EFFECT OF DISCHARGE. \nPrimary tabs ( a ) The obligation of a party to pay the instrument is discharged as stated in this Article or by an act or agreement with the party which would discharge an obligation to pay money under a simple contract.\n\n( b ) Discharge of the obligation of a party is not effective against a person acquiring rights of a holder in due course of the instrument without notice of the discharge. \n\nXXXX. PAYMENT. \n( a ) Subject to subsection ( b ), an instrument is paid to the extent payment is made ( i ) by or on behalf of a party obliged to pay the instrument, and ( ii ) to a person entitled to enforce the instrument. To the extent of the payment, the obligation of the party obliged to pay the instrument is discharged even though payment is made with knowledge of a claim to the instrument under Section 3-306 by another person.\n\n( b ) Subject to subsection ( e ) a note is paid to the extent payment is made by or on behalf of a party obliged to pay the note to a person that formerly was entitled to enforce the note only if at the time of the payment the party obliged to pay has not received adequate notification that the note has been transferred and that payment is to be made to the transferee. A notification is adequate only if it is signed by the transferor or the transferee ; reasonably identifies the transferred note ; and provides an address at which payments subsequently can be made. Upon request, a transferee shall seasonably furnish reasonable proof that the note has been transferred. Unless the transferee complies with the request, a payment to the person that formerly was entitled to enforce the note is effective for purposes of subsection ( c ) even if the party obliged to pay the note has received a notification under this paragraph. \n\n( c ) Subject to subsection ( e ), to the extent of a payment under subsections ( a ) and ( b ), the obligation of the party obliged to pay the instrument is discharged even though payment is made with knowledge of a claim to the instrument under Section 3-306 by another person.\n\n( d ) Subject to subsection ( e ), a transferee, or any party that has acquired rights in the instrument directly or indirectly from a transferee, including any such party that has rights as a holder in due course, is deemed to have notice of any payment that is made under subsection ( b ) after the date that the note is transferred to the transferee but before the party obliged to pay the note receives adequate notification of the transfer.\n\n( e ) The obligation of a party to pay the instrument is not discharged under subsections ( a ) through ( d ) if : ( XXXX ) a claim to the instrument under Section 3-306 is enforceable against the party receiving payment and ( i ) payment is made with knowledge by the payor that payment is prohibited by injunction or similar process of a court of competent jurisdiction, or ( ii ) in the case of an instrument other than a cashier 's check, teller 's check, or certified check, the party making payment accepted, from the person having a claim to the instrument, indemnity against loss resulting from refusal to pay the person entitled to enforce the instrument; or ( XXXX ) the person making payment knows that the instrument is a stolen instrument and pays a person it knows is in wrongful possession of the instrument. \n\n( f ) As used in this section, \" signed, '' with respect to a record that is not a writing, includes the attachment to or logical association with the record of an electronic symbol, sound, or process to or with the record with the present intent to adopt or accept the record. \nXXXX. TENDER OF PAYMENT. \nPrimary tabs ( a ) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract. \n\n( b ) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates. \n\n( c ) If tender of payment of an amount due on an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the obligation of the obligor to pay interest after the due date on the amount tendered is discharged. If presentment is required with respect to an instrument and the obligor is able and ready to pay on the due date at every place of payment stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemed to have made tender of payment on the due date to the person entitled to enforce the instrument.\n\nAccording to 12 U.S. Code 83 Loans by bank on its own stock- No national bank shall make any loan or discount on the security of the shares of its own capital stock.\n\nAccording to 12 U. S. Code 412 Application for notes : collateral required- Any Federal Reserve bank may make application to the local Federal Reserve agent for such amount of the Federal Reserve notes hereinbefore provided for as it may require. Such application shall be accompanied with a tender to the local Federal Reserve agent of collateral in amount equal to the sum of the Federal Reserve notes thus applied for and issued pursuant to such application.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-05T18:40:57.000Z","issue":"Problem when making payments","sub_product":"Installment loan","zip_code":"61604","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8696245","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FISERV FINXACT CORE","date_received":"2024-04-03T22:02:26.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["accepted, from the person having a claim to the instrument, indemnity against loss <em>resulting</em> from refusal to pay the person entitled to enforce the instrument; or ( XXXX ) the person making payment knows that the instrument is a stolen instrument and pays a person it knows is in <em>wrongful</em> possession of the instrument"]},"sort":[9.17371,"8696245"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11337048","_score":9.170892,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"on XX/XX/XXXX early am an unknown company damage my driveway while repo a vehicle without notices also refuse to provide driver insurance or contact information, I was told to sue them by the receptionist as result I have done following steps. \n\nThird Party XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEBT COMPANY ORIGINAL NAVY FEDERAL, CHARGED OFF DEBT FAIL TO RESPOND TO BONAFIDE DISPUTE / XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX debt is sold to a collection agency. \nUnder UCC 3-301, the collection agency must be able to prove that they are entitled to collect the debt by providing proof that they are the holder of the debt or have the right to enforce it. \nIf they can not produce evidence of the assignment or demonstrate they are the rightful holder, you have a valid defense under UCC 3-301 that they do not have the legal right to enforce the debt. \nConclusion : UCC 3-301 ( 1 ) definitely applies when a third-party debt collector attempts to enforce a charged-off debt. The debt collector must be able to prove they are the holder of the debt or have the right to enforce the debt, typically through documentation of the debts transfer or assignment. If they can not provide such evidence, they may lack the legal standing to collect the debt, and you could successfully challenge their efforts. \nIf you are dealing with a third-party debt collector, you have the right to request proof of their entitlement to collect on the debt. If they fail to prove their right to collect, they may be violating the UCC and other consumer protection laws, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \nUCCC 3-301 ( 1 ) In the case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the Oklahoma Supreme Court dealt with the issue of self-help repossession and the legal rights of parties involved in a repossession, particularly regarding the proper notice and procedures required before and after repossession. Although the case primarily concerns the legal standing of the creditor ( the bank ) and the debtor in a repossession scenario, it is highly relevant to your question about the repo of a car without notice. \nLets break it down to see how it applies : The Case : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX In XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, the bank has repossessed a vehicle from the debtor, XXXX XXXX, without providing prior notice. The key issue in the case was whether the bank had acted unlawfully in repossessing the car without giving the required notice or affording the debtor an opportunity to redeem the vehicle. \nThe Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that self-help repossession is only lawful if it does not breach the peace and if the repossession complies with the terms of the contract ( in this case, the security agreement ). However, in this case, the court found that the bank 's actions in repossessing the car without notice violated the debtor 's rights under the law. \nKey Points of the Case : Right to Notice Before Repossession : The case reinforced that the debtor is entitled to notice before a repossession occurs. This includes notice that the creditor intends to repossess the vehicle and provide an opportunity to cure the default ( if applicable ), especially when required by the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) or the security agreement. \nSelf-Help Repossession Must Not Breach the Peace : The ruling emphasizes that self-help repossession ( when the lender or creditor takes back the vehicle without involving law enforcement ) must not breach the peace. This means the creditor must avoid actions like taking the car in the middle of the night or forcibly entering the debtor 's property. A breach of peace could render the repossession illegal and subject the creditor to damages. \nDue Process and Fair Treatment : The case aligns with the notion that repossessions must be carried out in a manner that respects the debtors due process rights. This includes reasonable notice and an opportunity to address the default before drastic actions like repossession are taken. \nApplication to Your Example : Repossessed Car without Notice If your situation mirrors the example you gave where a company repossessed your car in the middle of the night without any prior notice XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  can be relevant in several ways : Breach of Peace : If the repo company took the car without providing notice and did so in a manner that disrupted your peace ( such as repossessing it while you were unaware, in the middle of the night, or in a threatening manner ), this could be considered a breach of peace under UCC 9-609 ( which governs repossessions ). The Supreme Court in XXXX XXXXXXXX highlighted that the repossession must not disturb the peace, and if it did, the repossession could be considered illegal. \nLack of Notice : If you did not receive notice of the repossession or any opportunity to redeem the car, this could also be a violation of your rights under UCC 9-611, which requires the secured party ( the lender or creditor ) to notify the debtor of the repossession and sale. In your case, if you didnt receive a pre-repossession notice, or notice of the intent to sell the vehicle, this could be a violation of UCC requirements and a breach of your rights. \nOpportunity to Cure : If there was no attempt to provide you with a chance to cure the default ( such as catching up on missed payments before the car was taken ), then the creditor may have violated the terms of the security agreement or failed to follow the proper process outlined in UCC 9-609 and 9-611. \nRemedies Available : If the repossession was deemed to have violated UCC provisions or was conducted in an unlawful manner, you could potentially seek remedies such as damages for the illegal repossession, return of the car, or even monetary compensation for any harm caused by the wrongful repossession. In XXXX XXXXXXXX, the court upheld the idea that a creditor must follow legal procedures to protect the debtors rights, and a failure to do so could result in liability for the creditor. \nWhat You Can Do in a Similar Situation : If you find yourself in a situation where a car has been repossessed without notice, and especially if it was done in the middle of the night or under questionable circumstances, the principles of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX may apply to your case. Heres what you can do : Demand Proof of Notice : You can ask the creditor or the repossession company to provide proof that they properly notified you before the repossession took place. Under UCC 9-611, the creditor is required to give you notice of the intended sale of the vehicle before taking any action, and under UCC 9-609 , they can not repossess in a way that breaches the peace. \nCheck for Breach of Peace : If the repossession took place under circumstances that caused a disturbance or were carried out without your knowledge ( such as at night when you were not expecting it ), you might have grounds to claim a breach of peace. If the repossession was conducted in an aggressive, disruptive, or clandestine manner, this could be deemed unlawful. \nExamine the Security Agreement : Review the security agreement you signed when you took out the loan. Many agreements outline how and when a creditor can repossess the vehicle, what notices are required, and any potential penalties for non-payment. If the creditor violated any terms of that agreement ( e.g., failing to provide notice or not giving you an opportunity to cure the default ), you may have a case for wrongful repossession. \nSeek Legal Remedies : If the repossession was wrongful, you may be entitled to remedies such as : Return of the vehicle if it was wrongfully repossessed. \nDamages for any emotional distress, financial loss, or other harm caused by the wrongful repossession. \nA lawsuit for breach of contract or violation of your rights under the UCC. \nConsult an Attorney : If you believe your car was wrongfully repossessed in violation of your rights, it may be helpful to consult with an attorney who specializes in consumer protection, debt collection, or repossession laws. They can advise you on your legal rights, assist you in taking action against the repossession company, and help you seek compensation if applicable. \nConclusion : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  applies to your example by underscoring the requirements for repossession, particularly the need for notice and the prohibition against breach of peace. If the car was taken without notice, especially in the middle of the night, it could very well be considered a violation of both UCC requirements and your legal rights. You might have grounds to challenge the repossession and pursue legal action for damages or wrongful repossession, as the creditor is generally required to follow proper procedures. \nPER THE THIRD PARTY COLLECTING THE CAR WITHOUT NOTICE OF REPO OR ANY CONTRACT TO SHOW OWNERSHIP OR RIGHT OF REPO A LAWSUIT INEVITABLE Yes, if a third-party company repossesses your car without providing notice, without a valid contract, and without showing the right to repossess ( i.e., without demonstrating legal ownership or the right to act on behalf of the creditor ), there are strong grounds for a lawsuit. This is especially true if the repossession violates UCC provisions or consumer protection laws. \nLet 's break down why a lawsuit is inevitable under these circumstances and what the potential causes of action would be. \nKey Legal Issues in Your Scenario : Lack of Notice ( UCC and Consumer Protection ) : Under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), specifically UCC 9-609, a secured creditor ( or their authorized agent ) may repossess the vehicle, but notice is usually required before and after the repossession. \nNotice before repossession : While the UCC doesn't always require pre-repossession notice in every case ( if the contract allows for immediate repossession after default ), notice after repossession is almost always required especially if the car is going to be sold. \nIf the car was taken without any prior notice to you, and you didnt have an opportunity to cure the default, this could be a violation of UCC requirements. \nLack of Ownership or Right to Repossess : Third-Party Debt Collectors and Repo Agents : A third-party collector must prove they have the right to repossess the vehicle. If the repossession agent or debt collector can not produce evidence of ownership or a contract that clearly shows they have legal standing to repossess the vehicle, they may be violating your rights. \nIf they can not demonstrate they have the right to enforce the contract ( via a valid assignment or proof of ownership of the debt ), the repossession can be contested as unlawful. Under UCC 3-301, they must prove they have the right to enforce the debt. Without proper evidence, they may lack legal standing. \nBreach of Peace : Even if the third-party collector has the right to repossess, UCC 9-609 requires that repossession must be carried out without a breach of peace. If the repo occurred at an unreasonable time ( e.g., in the middle of the night ) or in a manner that caused disruption or fear, that could be considered a breach of peace. \nIn this case, repossession without notice, in the middle of the night, could be argued to constitute a breach of peace, which would make the repossession itself unlawful. \nPotential Causes of Action for a Lawsuit : Given the facts you've outlined, here are the potential legal claims or causes of action that could lead to a lawsuit against the third-party repo agent, the creditor, or both : 1. Wrongful Repossession ( Breach of Contract & UCC Violations ) Lack of Notice : If the repossession was carried out without proper notice as required under UCC 9-611 ( post-repossession notice of intent to sell the car ), or if there was no opportunity for you to cure the default, you may have grounds for wrongful repossession. \nLack of Standing : If the third-party repo agent can not prove that they have the legal right to repossess ( i.e., a valid assignment or proof that they own the debt ), they may not have had the legal right to take your car. In this case, you can sue for wrongful repossession. \n2. Breach of Peace ( UCC Violation ) Breach of Peace occurs when the repossession is conducted in a manner that disturbs the peace. This can include repossession at night, without warning, or in a manner that causes confrontation or distress. \nIf the repo was conducted improperly ( e.g., forcibly entering your property, taking the car without your knowledge or consent ), the creditor or repo company could be liable for damages due to breach of peace. \n3. Conversion ( Theft or Unauthorized Taking ) Conversion is the wrongful taking or control over another person 's property. If the third party took the car without legal authorization, and they are unable to prove that they had the right to take it, you could have a claim for conversion. This is especially relevant if the car was taken without notice, without a contract, and without the proper authority to do so. \n4. Violation of Consumer Protection Laws ( Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, UCC, etc. ) FDCPA Violations : If the repossession was carried out by a debt collector ( i.e., a third-party collection agency ), and they did so improperly, you might have grounds to bring a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The FDCPA protects consumers from harassment and abusive practices by debt collectors, including improper or illegal repossession tactics. \nThe UCC also protects consumers from creditors who act outside the bounds of the contract and the law. \n5. Emotional Distress ( Potential Tort Claim ) If the manner of repossession caused you significant emotional distress ( e.g., the stress of having your car taken unexpectedly at night or being wrongfully deprived of your vehicle ), you might have grounds for a claim of emotional distress. This is a more difficult claim to win, but if the repossession was done in an extremely inappropriate manner, it could potentially form the basis for damages. \nWhat You Can Do : Demand Proof : Send a formal demand letter to the creditor or repo company requesting proof of ownership and the right to repossess the car. They should provide you with a contract, proof of assignment, and any relevant documents that show they had the legal right to take the car. \n\nFile a Complaint : You can file a formal complaint with consumer protection agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), or your states attorney general office, if you believe the repossession violated consumer protection laws. \nConsider a Lawsuit : If the third-party repo company or creditor failed to follow the proper legal procedures ( notice, standing, etc. ), you may have a valid claim for wrongful repossession, conversion, breach of peace, or even emotional distress. Your attorney can assist in filing a lawsuit for damages. \nConclusion : Yes, based on the facts you've outlined, a lawsuit is highly likely and advisable. The third-party collector repossessing your car without notice, without showing proper ownership, and potentially in violation of the UCC and consumer protection laws creates significant legal exposure for them. You may have several potential claims, including wrongful repossession, breach of peace, conversion, and violations of consumer protection laws. \nIts important to act quickly and consult with an experienced consumer rights attorney who can help guide you through the process of seeking damages, return of the car, or other legal remedies. : REPO DRIVER DAMAGE PROPERTY TO REPO THE CAR THE REPO COMPANY STATES THEY ARE NOT LIABLE TO GIVE DRIVERS NAME OR INFORMATION IS THIS TRUE IF NOT STEPS TO ENFORCE RELEASE OF INFORMATION POLICE REPORT HAS BEEN FILED In your situation, where the repo driver damaged your property during the repossession of your car and the repo company is refusing to provide the driver 's name or any information, you do have legal avenues to pursue in order to enforce the release of that information and hold the responsible parties accountable. \nKey Legal Issues to Address : Property Damage During Repossession : If the repo driver caused damage to your property while attempting to repossess your car, this may constitute tortious conduct, such as negligence or even intentional damage. Depending on the circumstances, you may have grounds for a claim for property damage. \nRight to Know Who Caused the Damage : You are entitled to know the identity of the person who damaged your property during the repossession. The repossession company ( or the principal party responsible ) should not be withholding this information if a police report has been filed and if the damage is part of the repossession process. \nLiability of the Repossession Company : Even though the repossession driver may be the one who caused the damage, the repossession company is generally liable for the actions of its agents ( in this case, the driver ) while they are acting within the scope of their employment or job duties ( such as repossessing a vehicle ). \nIf the repossession was carried out by an independent contractor, there may be additional steps to take to identify and hold the contractor accountable, but the repossession company could still bear responsibility for ensuring that their contractors act within the law and do not damage property. \nSteps to Enforce Release of Information and Hold the Repo Company Accountable : 1. Reaffirm Your Right to the Information ( Legal Basis ) The repossession company is likely bound by state laws that require it to provide information about the incident, especially if a police report has been filed. If they are refusing to provide the driver 's name or contact information, you can take the following steps : State Law on Property Damage : Many states have consumer protection laws and tort laws that hold repossession companies liable for damages caused by their agents. The repossession company is obligated to assist you in pursuing any claims you have for damage caused during repossession. \nRequest in Writing : Formally request, in writing, that the repo company provide the driver 's information as part of the property damage claim. This letter should state the nature of the damage, the fact that a police report has been filed, and your demand for the driver 's identity. \n\nDONE Police Report : Since you've filed a police report, obtain a copy of the report if you haven't already. The police report should contain : Details about the incident ( the property damage ). \nThe repo companys information. \nAny witness statements or documentation related to the repossession. \nIdentifying details about the driver, if provided by the repo company or the driver himself. \nThe police report will help validate your claim of property damage and is often necessary to pursue legal action or to file a claim with your insurance. \n3. SENT Formal Demand Letter If the repossession company is unresponsive to your initial requests, send a formal demand letter requesting the driver 's information and any relevant documentation. You can include : Details about the damage ( photographs, estimates, etc. ). \nA reference to the police report. \nYour demand that they provide the driver 's name so you can proceed with your claim. \nThis letter should also specify a deadline for a response ( e.g., 10-15 business days ) and clearly state that if they do not respond, you will pursue further legal action, including the involvement of consumer protection agencies or litigation. \n4. Contact Consumer Protection Agencies ( If Repo Company Refuses ) If the repo company still refuses to provide information, consider escalating the matter by contacting relevant consumer protection agencies : State Attorney Generals Office : They may have specific guidelines or complaints related to repossession companies that are not complying with the law or are withholding information unlawfully. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : Filing a complaint with the XXXX  can put public pressure on the company to resolve your issue. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : If the repossession was carried out by a debt collector, you can also file a complaint with the CFPB, which enforces the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n5. Small Claims Court or Lawsuit ( Legal Action ) If you are unable to resolve the matter through the repossession company or consumer protection agencies, filing a lawsuit or taking the matter to small claims court may be your next option : Sue for Property Damage : If the repossession company refuses to provide the driver 's name or cooperate, you can consider filing a lawsuit for property damage. The repossession company may be held liable for the actions of its agent ( the repo driver ). \nIn many states, you can file a small claims lawsuit for property damage ( often under a certain dollar amount, such as {$5000.00} or {$10000.00}, depending on the state ). \nSue for Breach of Contract : If the repo company violated terms of your agreement ( e.g., repossession was conducted improperly ), you may also have a breach of contract claim. \n\nDemand the Driver 's Information in writing, citing the police report and property damage. \nObtain the Police Report and use it as evidence to support your claim. \nFile a Complaint with the Attorney General or consumer protection agencies if the company continues to refuse to cooperate. \nConsider Small Claims Court or Legal Action if the company is uncooperative or refuses to provide the necessary information. \nYou have the legal right to know who caused the damage to your property and to seek compensation for the damages. If the repo company is refusing to provide that information, legal recourse is your next step. Consulting with an attorney who specializes in consumer protection or tort law could provide additional support to ensure your rights are protected. \n\nNAVY FEDERAL IS THE COMPANY THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH THERE WAS BONAFIDE DISPUTE SUBMITTED TO THEM VIA REGISTERED MAIL THEY NEVER REPLIED ENFORCEMENT ACCORDING TO SATISFACTION UCC 3-311 WAS NAVY FEDERAL ABLE TO SELL THE DEBT AFTER CHARGING IT OFF AND NOT REPLYING TO BONAFIDE DISPUTE? \n\nUnder the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), particularly UCC 3-311, the situation you've described involves some important legal principles regarding disputes and charge-offs, as well as the sale of a debt after a Bonafide dispute has been raised. Lets break this down step-by-step : 1. Bonafide Dispute Under UCC 3-311 : UCC 3-311 specifically addresses disputes and the right of the debtor to dispute the validity of a debt. When a debtor raises a Bonafide dispute ( a legitimate, good faith dispute about the debt or its amount ), the creditor is required to acknowledge and respond to the dispute in a reasonable manner. If a dispute is raised and the creditor fails to respond or resolve it, they may be in violation of certain provisions of the UCC and other applicable consumer protection laws. \nUCC 3-311 states that if a debtor sends a dispute ( such as a registered mail notice, which you did ), the creditor is required to respond or provide a resolution. A failure to respond to a bona fide dispute could affect the creditor 's ability to enforce the debt or take certain actions, including selling the debt or charging it off. \n2. Charging Off the Debt : Charge-off is an accounting action that the lender ( in this case, XXXX XXXX XXXX takes to declare the debt as unlikely to be collected. A charge-off does not extinguish the debt ; it is simply an accounting procedure that moves the debt off the creditors balance sheet. It is still a valid debt that the creditor ( or a third party ) can attempt to collect, unless there is some legal reason why the debt can not be enforced ( such as a Bonafide dispute or a failure to respond to the dispute ). \nIn your case, if Navy Federal charged off the debt after receiving your dispute and without responding to it, they may have violated UCC 3-311. Charging off the debt without addressing the dispute could mean that the creditor has waived their right to enforce the debt or sell the debt, depending on the nature of the dispute. \n3. Selling the Debt After Charge-Off : After a charge-off, the creditor ( in this case, Navy Federal ) has the right to sell the debt to a third-party collection agency or debt buyer. However, there are specific conditions under the UCC and related laws that govern this process : Failure to Respond to a Bona Fide Dispute : If Navy Federal did not respond to your Bonafide dispute, they could have violated UCC 3-311, which requires them to address the dispute and offer a resolution before continuing with collection efforts. If they ignored the dispute, they might not have been legally able to sell the debt or attempt to enforce it while the dispute remains unresolved. \nConsumer Protection Laws : In addition to the UCC, there are consumer protection laws, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), that require creditors and debt collectors to act fairly and respond to disputes. If the debt was sold to a third party after the dispute, the third-party collector must still adhere to these same laws, including validating the debt before attempting to collect it. \n4. Legal Impact of Not Responding to a Bonafide Dispute : Under UCC 3-311, creditors are not allowed to enforce or transfer a debt for collection if there is an unresolved Bonafide dispute. This means that if Navy Federal failed to address your bona fide dispute, they may not have been legally allowed to sell the debt or continue to attempt collection. Their failure to respond to your dispute could have prevented them from enforcing the debt, and any subsequent actions, such as selling the debt to a third-party collection agency, could be legally questionable. \n5. What Can You Do? \nHere are your options to enforce your rights under UCC 3-311 and other applicable laws : a. I HAVE DocumentED Everything : Keep copies of the dispute letter you sent to Navy Federal ( via registered mail ). \nEnsure you have proof of the failure to respond from Navy Federal. If they didn't reply to your dispute, this could be an important piece of evidence that they violated UCC provisions. \nRequest copies of any communication or documentation related to the sale of the debt. If they sold the debt, they should have informed you of the sale and the new holder of the debt.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-31T19:11:17.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"374XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11337048","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2024-12-31T19:11:15.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Seized or attempted to seize your property"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Seek Legal Remedies : If the repossession was <em>wrongful</em>, you may be entitled to remedies such as : Return of the vehicle if it was <em>wrongfully</em> repossessed. \nDamages for any emotional distress, financial loss, or <em>other</em> harm caused by the <em>wrongful</em> repossession. \nA lawsuit for breach of contract or violation of your rights under the UCC."]},"sort":[9.170892,"11337048"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":104,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":104}]}},"product":{"doc_count":104,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":33,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":33}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":20,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":8},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":6},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":17,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":13},{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":13,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":10},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":2},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":6}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":2},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":2},{"key":"Personal line of credit","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt or credit management","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Student loan debt relief","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":104,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":21,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":17},{"key":"Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":14,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":6},{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":6},{"key":"Debt was paid","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":9,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":4},{"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":"Managing an account","doc_count":8,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":4},{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fee problem","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":6},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":5},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":2},{"key":"Lien release","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem during payment process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Seized or attempted to seize your property","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Delays in the application process","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1},{"key":"Funds not received from closed account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Damage caused or loss of personal items in vehicle during the actual repossession","doc_count":1},{"key":"Loan balance remaining after the vehicle is repossessed and sold","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your loan","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan balance remaining after the vehicle is repossessed and sold","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":2,"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},{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"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":"Getting a loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit denial","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting the loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Opening an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Confusing or missing disclosures","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other service problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem caused by your funds being low","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem getting a card or closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Don't want a card provided by your employer or the government","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":104,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":104}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":104,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":80},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":23},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":104,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":104}]}},"company":{"doc_count":104,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":12},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":11},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":10},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":6},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":5},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":5},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":5},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":4},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":3},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"Aldridge Pite, LLP","doc_count":2},{"key":"United PanAm Financial Corp.","doc_count":2},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"Auto Credit of Virginia Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"BBVA FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CCS Financial Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Caliber Home Loans, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Conduent Incorporated","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ditech Financial LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST TECHNOLOGY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"FISERV FINXACT CORE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fay Servicing, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ghidotti | Berger LLP","doc_count":1},{"key":"Global Lending Services LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"I.C. System, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Kikoff Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":1},{"key":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Old Republic National Title Holding Co.","doc_count":1},{"key":"OneMain Finance Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trident Asset Management, L.L.C.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":104,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":17},{"key":"MI","doc_count":12},{"key":"GA","doc_count":11},{"key":"TX","doc_count":11},{"key":"NE","doc_count":9},{"key":"FL","doc_count":8},{"key":"OH","doc_count":5},{"key":"IL","doc_count":4},{"key":"MN","doc_count":4},{"key":"TN","doc_count":4},{"key":"NY","doc_count":3},{"key":"WA","doc_count":3},{"key":"NC","doc_count":2},{"key":"SC","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA","doc_count":2},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"DC","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"KS","doc_count":1},{"key":"LA","doc_count":1},{"key":"NM","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":104,"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":41},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":15}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":104,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":15},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":4},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":4}]}}},"_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":[9.171441,"11337048"],"3":[6.7433324,"6766781"],"4":[5.3553944,"7958877"],"5":[4.0189314,"8275637"]}}}