{"took":212,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":27,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7159606","_score":17.425392,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I need to be able to place a credit freeze on my credit accounts to prevent unauthorized loans from being opened in my name, in no small part due to Equifax 's incompetence in allowing a breach of substantially all of their consumer data in XXXX. \n\nEquifax has been required by law to provide a free credit freeze service since XXXX. \n\nSince XXXX, I have attempted multiple times to open an account on the 'myEquifax ' website to be able to place a credit freeze. Every time I have logged into this account, I have received an HTTP 500 error from their web application, indicating an unexpected error in the software running on their web server. Competent software development operations consider a server returning an HTTP 500 to be an issue to be resolved quickly and task engineers with preventing them from recurring, as unexpected errors may lead to security problems and prevent them from fulfilling their legal obligations to customers, but Equifax appears not to run a competent software development organization or to care about customer experience. \n\nI have attempted at least three times to report this error so that I might gain access to an account to be able to freeze my credit, and have spent hours on the phone with Equifax customer service attempting to report this bug in their web application and seek a way to work around it. Equifax has never resolved this issue. I have never been able to freeze my credit with them. \n\nTheir customer service personnel at one time insulted me as lacking initiative and thus being unable to get anywhere in life because I was unwilling to locate a fax machine to work around their continued incompetence in building and maintaining a web application.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-23T19:04:59.000Z","issue":"Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11238","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7159606","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-06-23T18:48:20.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Competent software development operations consider a server returning an HTTP 500 to be an issue to be resolved quickly and task engineers with <em>preventing</em> <em>them</em> from recurring, as unexpected errors may lead to <em>security</em> <em>problems</em> and <em>prevent</em> <em>them</em> from <em>fulfilling</em> their legal obligations to customers, but Equifax appears not to run a competent software development organization or to care about customer experience."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with fraud alerts or <em>security</em> freezes"]},"sort":[17.425392,"7159606"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22217053","_score":15.654264,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I have a serious problem with this bank. I am the primary account holder at this institution, and I recently encountered an issue where a {$1000.00} XXXX transaction was executed, and my debit card was used for a charge of {$2200.00}. I contacted the bank, reported the incident, and followed all the procedures requested of me ; XXXX  that this is * my * money and the bank possesses a fragile and ineffective security systemthey are currently preventing me from accessing my own funds. I was informed that I would have to wait XXXX  days to regain access to my money, which is absolutely absurd. They refused to provide a provisional creditsomething that is extremely important in this situation. If it takes them XXXX  days to investigate this matter, that is an internal administrative issue of theirs ; I can not be held responsible for the company 's administrative sluggishness. I demand that a provisional credit be made available in my account immediately, as I need it to meet my monthly financial obligations. This situation is causing me serious hardship ; I run the risk of losing my home if I do not make my payments, and if that happens, I will certainly hold the bank accountable. I demand that what is rightfully mine be made available in my account ; I am not asking the bank for a loan or any form of creditI am simply asking for what is rightfully minemoney earned through my own sweat and hard work. I DEMAND THAT MY MONEY BE MADE AVAILABLE IN MY ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY. IF THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN, I WILL SEEK LEGAL RECOURSE to compel the aforementioned bank to fulfill its obligations. I am seriously considering switching to XXXX, a bank that does not have these kinds of problems.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-14T20:44:25.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"33837","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22217053","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-05-14T20:37:35.000Z","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":["IF THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN, I WILL SEEK LEGAL RECOURSE to compel the aforementioned bank to <em>fulfill</em> its obligations. I am seriously considering switching to XXXX, a bank that does not have these kinds of <em>problems</em>."],"sub_issue":["<em>Problem</em> using a debit or ATM card"]},"sort":[15.654264,"22217053"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7073025","_score":12.56835,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Urgent Matter : Fraudulent Transaction and Lack of Resolution Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to bring to your attention a serious issue that I recently encountered with Cash App, the digital payment service. I believe their handling of this matter directly contravenes federal laws concerning fraudulent transactions. \n\nOn XXXX of 2023, I discovered that an unauthorized individual had transferred {$500.00} into my Cash App account. This person then proceeded to send these funds to another account under the name XXXX XXXX, all without my knowledge or consent. I had never granted this individual access to my account, and this incident has put my financial security at considerable risk. \n\nImmediately upon noticing the incident, I reported the fraudulent transaction to my bank, XXXX XXXX, who began a dispute process. Simultaneously, I contacted Cash App requesting them to reverse the funds to prevent my account from going into a negative balance. Despite my prompt communication, I received no assistance from Cash App. \n\nToday, my Cash App account is in the negative, and Cash App 's customer service has declined to investigate or provide any form of remedy. This disregard for my legitimate concern is not only extremely disappointing but also, as I understand it, a direct violation of federal regulations. \n\nAs per Federal Trade Commission regulations ( FTC ), consumers are not held liable for unauthorized transactions that occur due to the loss or theft of their access devices, provided these are reported promptly ( Regulation E, Electronic Fund Transfer Act ). I promptly reported the unauthorized activity to both my bank and Cash App, fulfilling my obligations under the law. \n\nCash App 's failure to assist me or investigate my claim effectively denies me the protection provided under federal law. It is important that their non-compliant behavior is addressed promptly to ensure that other consumers do not experience similar problems in the future. \n\nI request your immediate assistance in this matter, and I would greatly appreciate any help or guidance you could provide in getting Cash App to comply with their legal obligations and resolve this troubling situation. \n\nThank you for your time and consideration. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Tennessee XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-05T23:05:01.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"381XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7073025","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2023-06-05T22:51:50.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Overdrafts and overdraft fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I had never granted this individual access to my account, and this incident has put my financial <em>security</em> at considerable risk. \n\nImmediately upon noticing the incident, I reported the fraudulent transaction to my bank, XXXX XXXX, who began a dispute process. Simultaneously, I contacted Cash App requesting <em>them</em> to reverse the funds to <em>prevent</em> my account from going into a negative balance. Despite my prompt communication, I received no assistance from Cash App."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> caused by your funds being low"]},"sort":[12.56835,"7073025"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10011646","_score":12.545115,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, I am writing to file a formal complaint against Marcus by Goldman Sachs regarding my CD account, which has been locked for over two months without a resolution. Despite multiple attempts to resolve this matter directly with Marcus, their responses have been inadequate, and my account remains inaccessible. Below is a detailed account of the situation : Account Lock Notification : On XX/XX/year>, I received an email from Marcus stating that my account was temporarily locked and that action was required on my part.\n\nInitial Contact : I called Marcus customer service on XX/XX/year>, to resolve the issue. They informed me that my account could be unlocked by verifying my identity over the phone. However, they claimed there was a problem with my phone number, which prevented verification. Marcus refused to provide details about the problem due to \" security concerns. '' Alternative Verification Attempts : Marcus suggested that a relative with the same last name could verify my identity on the phone. I added my brother to the call, but Marcus then changed their requirement, stating that the relative needed to be physically present with me. This was not possible as my brother and I live in different areas.\n\nPromises of Call Back : Marcus promised to call me back within seven days to provide an alternative verification method, but I never received a call. I had to initiate follow-ups, constantly calling them, only to be met with vague and unclear responses. Different people answered the phone, and they kept passing the responsibility around. \n\nPhysical Mail Verification : Eventually, Marcus suggested verifying my identity through a physical mail sent to my address. I waited more than seven days but received no mail. I asked them to send the mail to my previous summer address as a test, but I still did not receive it. Since XXXX, despite following up every 5 to 10 days ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX ), Marcus has continually promised to send the mail, but I have never received it. \n\nMost Recent Communication : On XX/XX/year>, I called Marcus again. They claimed they would attempt to send the mail back to my original address. To date, I still have not received the verification mail. It is important to note that I did receive a CD statement from Marcus at the same address, indicating NO ISSUE with my mailing address. \n\nI am highly concerned about the handling of this matter and doubt that Marcus is fulfilling its promises. My account has been locked for over two months, causing significant financial hardship to my family and severe XXXX XXXX to me. I believe Marcus 's failure to provide a clear and effective resolution is unacceptable and possibly negligent.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-09-04T04:48:17.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"CD (Certificate of Deposit)","zip_code":"47401","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10011646","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2024-09-04T03:30:12.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Deposits or withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["However, they claimed there was a <em>problem</em> with my phone number, which <em>prevented</em> verification. Marcus refused to provide details about the <em>problem</em> due to \" <em>security</em> concerns. '' Alternative Verification Attempts : Marcus suggested that a relative with the same last name could verify my identity on the phone. I added my brother to the call, but Marcus then changed their requirement, stating that the relative needed to be physically present with me."]},"sort":[12.545115,"10011646"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8340465","_score":9.677355,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This issue involves EXPERIAN credit reporting and their online portal. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I was notified via email of a fraudulent credit card application through XXXX XXXX ( separate issue ). \n\nI proceeded to obtain my annual credit reports which I have done in the past. I have online accounts in order to file disputes with all three major credit reporting companies. When I went to login to my Experian account, I was notified that my username and password do not match my personal identifying information or phone number. \n\nWhen I requested my username by email, I noticed it had been changed from my personal email to one that I did not recognize. This username being \" XXXX '' What this means is that someone was able to login to the Experian online portal without any two step verification or username reset email verification and obtain all of my personal information and credit report. They successfully changed the username and password associated with my online Experian account. Experian quite obviously failed to provide any security measures that would prevent this from happening. \n\nIt's quite simply unacceptable in XXXX and a violation of section 611 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. 1681l. Section 1681 ( e ) ( b ) requires the standard of maximum possible accuracy. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nA reinvestigation can not simply shift the onus back onto the consumer. Sections 1681n and 1681o of Title 15 respectively provide private rights of action for willful and negligent noncompliance with any duty imposed by the FCRA and allow recovery for actual damages and attorneys ' fees and costs, as well as punitive damages in the case of willful noncompliance. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ). [ A ] reinvestigation that merely shifts the burden back to the consumer and the credit grantor can not fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute. Id., 225. \n\nI called the Experian fraud department twice ( ( XXXX ) XXXX ) on XXXX around XXXX XXXX. Both times I was told that I could not speak to a representative by an automated robot. I called member services ( ( XXXX ) XXXX ) on XXXX at XXXX XXXX  and spoke with a \" XXXX. '' She was nice enough but proceeded to ask me my \" secret questions '' in order for her to reset my username and password. \n\nObviously Experian did not require the fraudulent \" XXXX '' to answer any questions or submit a pin number in order for them to change my information and access my account. Moreover, how am I supposed to know if \" XXXX '' had not changed my secret questions and pin number in the online portal. \n\nXXXX refused to reset my information despite my providing ample personal identifying information including XXXX, XXXX, address, name, etc. She identified my case as \" heightened '' or something and said someone would call me but they would need more information. \n\nA clear violation of federal law and ineptitude. Experian is obviously liable under federal statute and case law for any damages that result as of their failure to protect my personal information, credit report, and online account portal. This is an ongoing problem with Experian 's online portal and there was a lawsuit in XXXX  in XXXX. I expect swift action from the CFPB.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-13T10:54:29.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"02879","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8340465","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-02-13T10:14:25.000Z","state":"RI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is an ongoing <em>problem</em> with Experian 's online portal and there was a lawsuit in XXXX  in XXXX. I expect swift action from the CFPB."]},"sort":[9.677355,"8340465"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20011400","_score":9.630049,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Name : XXXX XXXX, social security XXXX, Date of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX Phone Number : XXXX Email XXXX XXXX XXXX  Member XXXX Subject : Dispute and Rejection of Illegal and Invalid Collection Debt Report Number : # XXXX Collection Account Name : ProCollect , Inc Reported Balance : {$7100.00} Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Apartments I, XXXX XXXX, with Social Security XXXX, hereby fully dispute and reject the illegal and invalid collection in the amount of {$7100.00} reported by the XXXX at XXXX XXXX apartment complex and I request that this invalid amount be removed from my credit report as soon as possible. I do not owe them any debt ; rather they are the ones who owe me money. This apartment complex and their attorney after a long period of harassment, are attempting to collect fabricated, invalid and unlawful amounts. The fact that they are able to access individuals ' personal information and create invalid collection accounts does not make their actions lawful or legitimate. \nI resided in this apartment complex for XXXX days, from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX and I fully paid all rent and costs for those XXXX days. The application fee, deposit and the full XXXX days of rent were paid, yet they have not refunded any of these amounts. Due to numerous serious problems, the apartment being uninhabitable and the absence of any fundamental or effective solution, I vacated the unit with prior notice, relying on the provisions of the lease agreement that allow a tenant to vacate when the apartment is uninhabitable. I repeatedly sent detailed explanations and documentation to both the apartment management and their attorney. Their attorney has deliberately disregarded the evidence and has acted unilaterally by creating illegal and invalid debts that have no legal basis. I did not use even a single day of their advertised XXXX weeks promotional discount. \nThe apartment was not habitable due to defective faucets and plumbing in the bathroom, faulty washing machine plumbing, malfunctioning household appliances including the washer, dryer and dishwasher, leaking dishwasher pipes onto the floor, and defective bathroom plumbing and shower. During the entire XXXX days period, I was not able to take a single shower.the floor was covered with water and constant leaks and they had no plan or solution to fix it. The bathroom was completely unusable I had to fill a bucket with water and wash myself. None of the household appliances were working. \nTheir only proposed solution was to transfer me to an even worse apartment with poorer conditions, without a washer and dryer, with strong odors of drugs and sewage and conditions similar to the original unit which I did not accept.Relying on the provisions of the lease agreement and Texas law regarding vacating an uninhabitable apartment, I vacated the unit. Because I suffer from XXXX serious and sensitive medical conditions and was in the process of XXXX, I could not remain in that apartment under those physical conditions any longer. Despite sending emails and formal letters and providing them with reasonable time, they have failed to refund my application fees and deposit, the rent paid for the XXXX days and the costs associated with multiple moves. For a long time, through their attorney, they have continued to harass me and attempt to fabricate illegal debts, while completely disregarding all reasons, documentation and contractual provisions. \nDue to this conduct, the disruption of my medical treatment, changes to my surgical plan and the creation of illegal debts, I am pursuing legal action against them through the court system. I therefore request that you remove this invalid and unlawful debt from my credit report immediately, as not every collection account can be considered valid and XXXX  can not damage individuals credit by accepting and reporting such collections. This is a XXXX sided and improper process carried out by this attorney, who is attempting to create an unlawful debt against me and the attorney is also demanding his attorneys fee for that company from me. \nProblems with the apartment : defective bathroom plumbing, damaged and leaking plumbing behind the washer and dryer, the washer and dryer not functioning, dishwasher pipes leaking onto the apartment floor, severe water gushing from behind the washer despite repeated notices to the office and their indifference, strong odors of drugs and sewage and the bathroom and the apartment being unusable and uninhabitable. Once again, I state that I owe them no debt and they are the ones who must reimburse my financial losses and personal damages. Please remove this invalid and unlawful collection as soon as possible, do not support or continue this illegal process and do not allow such property owners and their attorneys to manipulate and harm the credit of ordinary individuals. \nFor clarity I have written and provided the lease clauses that granted me the right to vacate please take them into consideration. During the XXXX days period, I was not able to take a shower even once, the apartment was filled with water gushing from multiple areas, it was uninhabitable and essential household appliances were not available. \nSection XXXX Written Requests Required, I submitted all repair requests in writing and through the resident portal. Management failed to perform the required repairs within a reasonable time. \nSection XXXX Conditions Affecting XXXX and XXXX The malfunctioning shower, leaking washer, non functional dryer, contaminated replacement washer and chemical or drug odors materially affected health and safety. \nSection XXXX Resident Remedies When a condition materially affects health or safety and is not repaired, the resident has the right to terminate the lease and seek reimbursement. This section applies directly to my situation. \nSection XXXX Surrender of the Premises Keys were returned to the office and which constitutes legal surrender. Therefore, no further rent or charges can be assessed after that point. \nSection XXXX Security Deposit Deductions are only allowed for resident caused damage or unpaid rent. Neither applies here. Any attempt to withhold my deposit would be improper. \nThese sections of the Lease Agreement clearly support my position, confirm that I fulfilled all obligations and establish that management failed to meet their contractual and statutory duties.\n\nRelevant Texas Property Code Sections : XXXX Landlords duty to repair conditions affecting health or safety XXXX Tenant remedies if repairs are not made XXXX Tenant may vacate if the premises become uninhabitable XXXX Permissible security deposit deductions XXXX XXXX deadline for refund or itemization XXXX Penalty for bad-faith retention of a security deposit XXXX Prohibition against forcing a tenant to accept unsafe conditions Once again, I state that this collection is illegal and invalid and they have never had and do not have any legal or court judgment authorizing the creation of this illegal and invalid amount.If this unlawful debt continues, I reserve the right to pursue legal action based on the existing evidence. I owe them nothing and my balance with them is XXXX and they are the ones who owe me money. Due to their failure to provide a habitable apartment, they are obligated to refund the amounts I paid. Please also review and address their debt to me, as they are acting unilaterally and abusing their power to misuse the credit system and create illegal debts against ordinary individuals. \nPlease pay attention to the fact that they gave me XXXX weeks for free, and I did not use even XXXX day of that time because the apartment was not livable. I already paid for the period that I actually stayed there. In their letters they even use the wrong apartment number and appear to be trying to create false documentation. I lived in apartment XXXX, but they reported apartment number XXXX. \nI have already sent documents and letters many times to XXXX  showing this issue. The collection was removed for a few days and then appeared again. When I asked for an explanation, I was told that it returned because the company continues to report the collection. Is it not XXXX  responsibility to prevent this type of unlawful reporting? If the company keeps reporting the same invalid collection, does XXXX  simply accept it? \nFor a long time this apartment complex, their attorney, and the collection company have been interfering with my life and normal daily routine through threats and pressure. Please review this case carefully and resolve it as soon as possible. \nThank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your written response.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-05T19:42:31.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Rental debt","zip_code":"75056","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20011400","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ProCollect, Inc.","date_received":"2026-03-05T18:58:50.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Section XXXX <em>Security</em> Deposit Deductions are only allowed for resident caused damage or unpaid rent. Neither applies here. Any attempt to withhold my deposit would be improper. \nThese sections of the Lease Agreement clearly support my position, confirm that I <em>fulfilled</em> all obligations and establish that management failed to meet their contractual and statutory duties."]},"sort":[9.630049,"20011400"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7562645","_score":9.530771,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"The issue is in regards to AFFIRM. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I encountered difficulties accessing my Affirm accountmy name was spelled wrong in their system -- which ultimately impeded me from making a payment in a timely manner. The primary issue was that there appeared to be an error in the name associated with my account, which prevented me from successfully logging in. As a responsible borrower, I was deeply concerned about making my payments on time and took several proactive steps to resolve this issue and fulfill my financial obligations. \n\nI have attached documentation ( please find enclosed ) that confirms my efforts to rectify this situation. These attachments include : 1. **Email Correspondence : ** Copies of emails I sent to Affirm requesting assistance and guidance on how to proceed with my payment, along with the responses I received ( or lack thereof ).\n\n2. **Text message attempts to make the payment** A record of my efforts to make an online payment through various means, despite the technical issues I faced.\n\nI want to emphasize that I made every reasonable effort to resolve this matter in good faith and in a timely manner. It is of great concern to me that a 30-day late payment was reported to the credit bureaus as a result of this situation, which could have a detrimental impact on my creditworthiness.\n\nWith the evidence provided, it is clear that the delay in payment was solely attributable to the technical issues I encountered with my account and my subsequent attempts to seek assistance. Given these circumstances, I kindly requested that Affirm, Inc. take immediate action to remove the 30-day late payment notation from my credit report. I believe this is a fair resolution to a situation that was beyond my control.\n\nI received a secure message from Affirm in my account, but I haven't been able to access it. I got an email notification that said, \" Affirm has sent you a secured message, please log in to view the message. '' I called Affirm on Sunday, XX/XX/XXXX, and I encountered the same issues I've been facing for months. I asked to speak to a supervisor, and when I did, they told me that the 30 day derogatory remark couldn't be removed because I had a legal obligation to make payments by mail or phone instead of using the internet. I tried to explain to the supervisor that these methods were insecure when I couldn't even be sure that I had access to my account. \n\nI made two attempts to make a payment via text, sent two emails to Affirm about the problems, and called them five times, all because I couldn't access my account. I emphasized that the late paymentdid n't reflect irresponsibility on my part. The root of the issue was that Affirm had my name spelled incorrectly in their records, which was preventing me from accessing my account.\n\nThe supervisor then revealed that not only was my name misspelled, but someone had also tried to create another account using my phone number, which had \" unlinked '' my phone number from my original account. I tried to explain that this wasn't my fault. However, the supervisor insisted that I had a legal obligation to make payments by phone or mail if my account wasn't working, and therefore, the 30-day derogatory remark on my account would remain.\n\nI reiterated that if my account was displaying incorrect information, how could I be sure that any payment I made would be credited to the correct account? Furthermore, I never use those payment methods due to security concerns. The supervisor informed that my complaints notwithstanding, the derogatory remarks would remain.\n\nThe late payment was a mere {$60.00} that most individuals could make seamlessly. But due to the account issues, which were notably on Affirms purview, the payments did not go through and therefore were late. You will find attachments below of my attempts to make phone payments and emails to affirm about may account status -- these efforts are not indicative of a irresponsible borrower and so I do not believe that 30-day derogatory remark correctly coalesces with my situation.\n\nI value my financial responsibility and my commitment to meeting my obligations. I trusted that Affirm , Inc. would understand the unique circumstances surrounding this matter and will take the necessary steps to correct this error promptly, but that did not eventuate.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-17T21:59:06.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"91762","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7562645","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2023-09-17T21:11:09.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I made two attempts to make a payment via text, sent two emails to Affirm about the <em>problems</em>, and called <em>them</em> five times, all because I couldn't access my account. I emphasized that the late paymentdid n't reflect irresponsibility on my part. The root of the issue was that Affirm had my name spelled incorrectly in their records, which was <em>preventing</em> me from accessing my account."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with a company's investigation into an existing <em>problem</em>"]},"sort":[9.530771,"7562645"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3425888","_score":9.090829,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"After the XXXX Equifax data breach, it was recommended by several websites and financial institutions to freeze all 3 credit bureau files to protect against identity theft and credit mis-use. I requested to all 3 bureaus that my files be frozen and created security PIN 's etc. to be used when requesting temporary or extended/permanent un-freezes for legitimate inquiries. This seemed to work well for some time ( 1 year approximately ) however, after 2 different situations recently when attempting to legitimately allow companies to access my reports/files I ran into issues with Equifax. \n\nWhen attempting to obtain a home loan ( XX/XX/XXXX ), I went online to XXXX 's freeze website and was able to easily use my PIN to unlock my report for a temporary inquiry, I did the same for XXXX with ease, however, when I attempted to temporarily lift the freeze with Equifax I ran into several issues. First, the website that I previously used to unlock/unfreeze the file was changed to a dedicated site, I attempted several times to both login with existing credentials used for the previous equifax site ( which still work on that site ), then I attempted to register a new account without success and after several help requests via email went unanswered, I called via phone to unlock the report. \n\nThis is where things got even worse. The customer service agents that answered the call were clearly from a foreign call center and of the 4-5 agents I interacted with, it was almost impossible to understand or communicate clearly with any of them. I am myself a bi-lingual person and understand the nuances and complexities of trying to speak in different non-native tongues and can appreciate these agents efforts, however, their particular capabilities were not even on par with basic English communicators. The questions being asked to verify my identity were completely confusing and vague at best. I was asked open ended questions such as \" did you have a merchant account, credit account, or bank loan '' full stop, when I answered I've had dozens and started naming some, the first 3 - 4 agents were not satisfied with the answers and denied me the ability to unlock my report. Only after almost 2 hours of repeated calls did I reach an agent that was finally satisfied with my answers and unlocked the report. As anyone can imagine, this was completely infuriating. I then learned that the only alternative to unlocking online was to speak to representatives at this call center and endure a similar process every time or mail a physical letter and wait several business days for the action to be performed. \n\nSince I had such a difficult situation with their phone option ( on two different occasions ), I started reaching out to their online customer service contacts for help correct whatever issue was happening with my online profile that would allow me to unlock/unfreeze the reports myself via their website. I submitted a help request on their website on approximately XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX ( don't have a date because it was an online form and only have an estimate due to the time I was having the difficulties and compared to the date when I received teh response. When I submitted that help request I detailed my issues and received the following response on XX/XX/XXXX : On Thu, XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX Customer.care@equifax.com <customer.care@equifax.com> wrote : Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXX,  We appreciate the opportunity to address this matter and apologize for any inconvenience you have had so far accessing your myEquifax account. \n\nUpon further review, the option to utilize the online website, MyEquifax is not available to you. This decision is based on the information that you have provided during the account creation process. \n\nThere are alternative methods to place a security freeze or fraud alert that is recommended for you that includes sending your request by mail or by phone : Mail this form to place a security freeze : https : //assets.equifax.com/assets/personal/Security_Freeze_Request_Form.pdf Mail this form to place a fraud alert : https : //assets.equifax.com/assets/personal/Fraud_Alert_Request_Form.pdf Call Consumer Care team by phone at XXXX between XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, 7 days per week. \n\n\nWe sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this issue may have caused. \n\nThank you for contacting Equifax, XXXX Equifax Consumer Care Team ref : XXXX : ref I was amazed that they seemingly ignored any attempts to resolve the issue with my online access and relegated me to the two other very slow and totally dysfunctional options. I replied with the following email : XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX to Customer.care@equifax.com That is absolutely an unacceptable answer. Your company was at fault for the 145 million person data breach that has forced consumers to take identity protection into their own hands. The government has mandated that the bureaus provide a mechanism that is easy to use that allows for people to freeze and unfreeze their credit and protect their information. Your phone system is not easy to use, it is time consuming and it is prone to errors and repeated failures both with the automated portion as well as with a live representative of which your company chooses to use outsourced companies for that are based overseas with nearly impossible accents to understand. \n\nI demand that someone reevaluate my account and correct the problems that prevent me from using the online portion. I have no problems accessing XXXX or XXXX 's online freeze/unfreeze services and incidentally, I have no problem accessing Equifax 's main website through my normal login. \n\nI expect that someone contact me directly to resolve this issue as it has caused an undue burden on myself and my family. \n\nXXXXXX ( contact info ) XXXXXX They then responded with the following : Customer.care@equifax.com via XXXX Tue, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX to me Dear XXXXXXXX, We received your research request from the Customer Care team and thank you for allowing us the opportunity to assist you. Your concern regarding online access has been reviewed. \n\nThe online registration process was designed with security and data integrity in mind. Multiple system requirements must be fulfilled to allow successful online data transfer. Though internet service is not currently an option, Equifax offers alternative options via telephone and US Mail to process your request. \n\nYour escalated matter is still being reviewed to aid in future Customer Service management and Technology endeavors. Your provided details will be collectively used in Equifaxs ongoing efforts to better serve and support the credit community. \n\nEquifax sincerely appreciates your patience during our investigation and review period. \n\nThank you, XXXX XXXX. \nConsumer Relations Specialist XXXX XXXX XXXX   Operations Clearly, this is not a response stating they will continue to work on my specific access issue, but rather a canned response that they'll use my details in \" ongoing efforts to better serve and support the credit community. '' This is plainly outrageous ; this companies lack of oversight, security and control management allowed hundreds of millions of consumers very personal and private financial data to be released into the wild, creating a lifetime of potential identity theft issues for those users and their burden should be higher to help these consumers protect themselves from something that happened through no fault of their own but rather through the direct negligence of a billion dollar organization entrusted to protect these consumers information. \n\nPlease respond and assist myself and all other consumers in similar situations to protect what is rightfully theirs, their privacy and personal information.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-11-01T18:01:01.000Z","issue":"Problem with fraud alerts or security freezes","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33040","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3425888","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2019-11-01T17:13:50.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I demand that someone reevaluate my account and correct the <em>problems</em> that <em>prevent</em> me from using the online portion. I have no <em>problems</em> accessing XXXX or XXXX 's online freeze/unfreeze services and incidentally, I have no <em>problem</em> accessing Equifax 's main website through my normal login. \n\nI expect that someone contact me directly to resolve this issue as it has caused an undue burden on myself and my family."],"issue":["<em>Problem</em> with fraud alerts or <em>security</em> freezes"]},"sort":[9.090829,"3425888"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3554689","_score":8.048354,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/2020 a {$75.00} transfer was deposited into my PayPal cash plus account ; paypal.me id : XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nOn XX/XX/2020 the app indicated that the full {$75.00} was available for use and/or transfer. My initial attempt to transfer funds to my debit card for a {$0.00} fee resulted in an error message advising me to reattempt the transfer after waiting a few minutes. \n\nAfter waiting a few minutes, I reattempted the same {$75.00} transfer for the {$0.00} fee which resulted in another error message which was different in that the message did not suggest a timeframe to reattempt the transfer. \n\nAfter adding a different debit card to the account and reattempting the same {$75.00} transfer for {$0.00} fee a third time to the newly added card, another error message was the result and that error message did not suggest a timeframe to reattempt the transfer as in the previous instance. \n\nThere was no change in the application user interface showing or suggesting there was any sort of problem or limitation involving the balance, linked accounts, or overall account in general throughout the attempted transactions, other than the 3 error messages immediately following the failed transfer attempts. \n\nNo emails, text messages, phone calls or media indications of any sort were generated outside the PayPal app to inform or advise of any failed transfer attempts, suspicious activity, security or other holds and/or account limitations. \n\nIt was after this I decided to contact PayPal directly at approximately XXXX XXXX at XXXX, multiple call records to this number exhibit attached. I am not sure if the agent I spoke with identified himself, but the agent did speak with a clearly foreign accent. After having the agent review my account and the failed transfers, the agent advised that further transfers had been frozen by the security system as a result of too many failed transfers. \n\nAfter questioning the nature of this so-called security hold, such as what caused the first transfer attempt to decline, the agent stated he was unable to provide additional details or override the system and he was also unable to request anyone to review and override the security hold. \n\nThe agent went so far as to certainly suggest and possibly state verbatim that there was literally no person employed by PayPal which would be able to override this systemic decision. The agent stated that the system showed a 24 hour hold time after which transfers would proceed as normal. \n\nI then asked the agent if other transfer methods were also blocked. The agent stated he was unable to determine if they were or not, but that I was free to attempt other transfer methods to see if there would be security holds on them as well. \n\nI also asked this agent about the failed deposit attempts into my account dated XX/XX/2020. The agent stated that he could not see any problems, reasons, holds and/or limitations which would've precluded the successful execution of the failed transactions. \n\nI advised it had to be something preventing the transfer via PayPal, because the funds which were attempted to be sent were subsequently sent to me via XXXX XXXX, at an additional cost of approximately {$19.00} per XXXX XXXX fee schedule, exhibits attached. \n\nIn summary this agent stated that there was absolutely nothing showing on his end which would preclude anyone from sending money to my account. He had no comment that the sender paid an additional {$20.00} to send the funds after suggesting the sender did not have sufficient funds to process my requests on XX/XX/2020. \n\nSubsequent to speaking with this agent, I did attempt to transfer funds via pick up at XXXX. Upon execution of those requests they were also returned with error messages. There were no system messages, emails, text messages, phone calls, nor any other media sent to me to memorialize the attempted transfers other than the messages received immediately upon decline of the transfer attempts. \n\nAlso I updated various account details such as adding phone numbers, email and additional debit cards. These transactions were memorialized with emails and exhibits are attached. \n\nOn XX/XX/2020 at approximately XXXX XXXX  a \" get cash at store '' request was requested and approved for {$30.00} with a fee of {$3.00}. A bar-code and alpha-numeric code were also generated both of which expired one hour after generation. \n\nI immediately located the nearest 24 hour XXXX which was located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, approximately 13 miles from my origin location. Upon arriving at XXXX I asked the security officer  for assistance. Initially directed to the online pickup area, I was then directed to aisle 9. \n\nThe clerk was finishing with an existing customer upon my arrival. When I showed the clerk my PayPal app displaying both the barcode and alpha-numeric code, she advised that she was not able to process my transaction and stated that I need to wait until after XXXX XXXX and have customer service process it and she also pointed to the physical area. I thanked the clerk and left her register. \n\nBetween being rejected for my approved transfer and the stated time of XXXX XXXX to proceed I attempted to transfer amounts onto my linked debit cards each failing. \nAt approximately XXXX XXXX  I attempted to set up another get cash at the store which was unsuccessful. \n\nI then decided to contact PayPal at the XXXX number contacted previously. After waiting on hold for an agent approximately 10 minutes, I spoke with a woman who identified herself as a specialist for the PayPal cash account Mastercards. I asked a couple of housekeeping questions about a recently requested plastic which were adequately answered. \n\nHowever when I asked about the failed transfers, she gave what is seemingly a boilerplate response to this issue about the \" system '' blocking the transfers for unspecified security purposes. \n\nWhen I queried her as to specific purposes she said there are many reasons and that nothing could be done. I then challenged her that if there are many reasons my transfer is being blocked then I would like to know one specific reason. She declined to provide any specific reason becoming more condescending and surly with each retort. \n\nI then requested to be transferred to the fraud department. The agent stated my issue does not constitute fraud so she was not transferring me to that department. At this point the agent was fully arguing with me, ignoring my question and refusing to fulfill my request to be transferred. \n\nAt one point this agent specifically stated that there is no fraud department at PayPal. Upon that statement is when I revealed that I'm a XXXX XXXX   employee and knew for a fact that there is in fact a fraud department. \n\nShe refused my request and became more surly. I specifically told the agent that she was not answering my questions, not offering any solutions, and was arguing with me which was making me upset and that I no longer wanted to speak with her. I requested to be transferred to anyone other than her when her tone changed from argumentative to downright sadistic. \n\nIn her ultimate gotcha moment she stated she was the only person at PayPal I needed to talk to therefore she had nowhere to transfer me. I then requested she disconnect the call and I would call to speak with someone else. She refused that and it seems as if she was laughing underneath her breath as she was determined to not assist me in any manner, not provide any information, not be candid in any statement she made and to be as surly and abrupt as possible, talking over me for at least the last 5 minutes of the call. I eventually disconnected the call, log of which is memorialized in the attached exhibit. \n\nAfter that dreadful call with the female agent I called back to the XXXX number contacted previously. I spoke with a Male agent who seemed to have a foreign accent. The agent stated he was in the dispute department. I informed the agent I wished to file a formal complaint against the previous agent. \n\nHe asked some questions about a dispute then stated that I couldn't dispute a transfer. I told him that I did not wish to dispute any transactions and rather I wished to file a formal complaint against the previous agent and I also wanted to speak with someone who would provide the detailed information to my questions the previous agent refused to take seriously. \n\nThis agent then stated he would escalate the complaint about the previous agent and request the call be reviewed. Almost immediately and taking a much more stern tone he stated that the transfers were being delayed and that nothing could be done. I asked for 1 reason and he stated because a previous transfer was declined. I pointed out that was in reference to this same matter and it was PayPal stating the funds were available on one hand while declining the transfer on the other. \n\nI asked if I am on the terrorist or OFAC lists or if there is a FISA warrant. He declined to respond. I asked if there are reasons my transfers were declined that he was not allowed to acknowledge, in a general sense. He stated that he would try to get someone else to assist me, placed me on hold and after several minutes the call was disconnected.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-03-04T21:07:52.000Z","issue":"Money was not available when promised","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"85014","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3554689","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2020-03-04T20:34:42.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The agent stated he was unable to determine if they were or not, but that I was free to attempt other transfer methods to see if there would be <em>security</em> holds on <em>them</em> as well. \n\nI also asked this agent about the failed deposit attempts into my account dated XX/XX/2020. The agent stated that he could not see any <em>problems</em>, reasons, holds and/or limitations which would've precluded the successful execution of the failed transactions."]},"sort":[8.048354,"3554689"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4604308","_score":7.367075,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Synopsys : After notifying my bank, US Bank, that I had been defrauded {$1200.00} via a wire transfer from a scammer who had stolen over XXXX Bitcoin ( {$1.00} mil. USD ) it took my bank 30 days to get me a letter to sign so the other bank could return my funds. Not only did I lose my entire income from XXXX, but the scammer is still stealing from people via Bitcoin. \n\n\nHere 's the story ... \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I made a wire transfer of {$1200.00} from my bank in Iowa to a bank in South Carolina ( see image # 1 ). I was trying to purchase product at wholesale price to sell on XXXX. The seller was verified twice on a website called XXXX. At first he tried getting me to wire the money from my Credit Card via two Bitcoin websites. Those transactions failed so I went with the wire transfer option instead. I thought he was legit, what else can I say? \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I realized I had been scammed and immediately contacted XXXX and US Bank. I followed all the instructions my banker, XXXX, told me to do, including filing a report with my local FBI office. I also contacted the bank in S. Carolina and talked to the manager, XXXX. I told her that her institution was being used by a criminal who was using her bank for fraudulent wire transfers. After talking to her a few times I was reassured that the fraudulent funds were on hold. She did not tell me they were only on hold for a limited time only. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I was called in by my bank to sign something called a \" hold harmless '' letter ( see # 2 ). As I will prove later, US Bank had already received this letter for me to sign on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX, the person handling my wire fraud claim, sat on this letter for two weeks. \n\nA few weeks later I called my banker for an update. I got a voice mail later saying she was going on vacation and my money was gone. Needless to say, I flipped XXXX XXXX out! Since my banker was on vacation, I called the scammers bank and yelled at XXXX. She said it was out of her legal control to be able to freeze the funds in the account, and that the scammer had withdrawn MY MONEY and had closed down the account. What a waste of energy! \n\nSo, this is when my nightmare began. I will spare you all the details. I have contacted XXXX with no response, the FBI with no response, the local police department in XXXX XXXX with no help, XXXX XXXX XXXX which charged me {$40.00} to tell me I would have to go to trial and pay them lots of money to get my {$1200.00} back ... Sigh. \n\nAs a matter of fact, when I first called my bank on XX/XX/XXXX, the receptionist, XXXX, told me I couldn't come in immediately because of Covid. I showed up in two minutes, tried calling three times with no answer, and I ended up having to wait at the front door for someone to leave before I could enter. The apathy regarding this event was palpable. I have a new found hatred for banks, bankers, and all the scum that works for them. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a reply from US Bank via a complaint I filed via the XXXX  ( see # 3 ). The response stated that on XX/XX/XXXX US Bank received a hold harmless letter that needed to be signed by me. If you remember from above, I signed this letter on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX  from US Bank sat on this for two weeks! The XXXX  response then goes on to say that on XX/XX/XXXX US Bank received the signed letter. That is a lie! I had talked to my own personal banker XXXX the next day ( XX/XX/XXXX ) to make sure she sent the letter to XXXX! They had my signed letter on XX/XX/XXXX, not XX/XX/XXXX! The XXXX  response then goes on to say that after they sent the letter to the S. Carolina bank, the funds were gone ( implying it was my fault because I was the one who delayed the letter getting back in time ). \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a second reply from US Bank via the XXXX  website reiterating that, \" On XX/XX/XXXX, the receiving bank replied requesting a hold harmless letter be returned. You fulfilled this request on XX/XX/XXXX, at which time we returned it to the receiving bank. '' Again, this is an outright lie! I had the paper signed on XX/XX/XXXX. And again, I contacted my banker XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX to make sure she forwarded it to XXXX  at the wire department! In full disclosure, after I signed the letter I did hand it off to XXXX. Perhaps XXXX sat on the letter and XXXX is lying to protect XXXX. I have no idea why XXXX disrespected me the way she did when I found out I had been robbed. I thought we had a good business relationship. \n\nTo sum it up, it has taken me a great deal of time and energy to decipher all the lies told to me via the people at US Bank. Them telling me I \" fulfilled this request on XX/XX/XXXX '' when I actually did so on XX/XX/XXXX was beyond infuriating! This was a simple problem and US Bank failed miserably! \n\n\nThis is what I want : I want to know why XXXX refused to help me when I was frantic the day I found out I had been scammed. I was in the process of losing my first years profits working on XXXX, and at the same time I had to listen to her cackle with her customers at the drive up window for 15 minutes once inside while waiting for my banker. This was beyond unprofessional. \n\nI want to know why it took XXXX  from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ( almost an entire month ) to get a signed piece of paper to me and back to the scammers bank! \n\nI want to know what XXXX and my own bank manager plan on doing to make sure this never happens again! \n\nI also want my {$1200.00} back! And if I can't get it back, I want to make sure this does not ever happen to anyone ever again! This was completely preventable, and only occurred because of the incompetence of a bunch of liars that work at US Bank! If this wire transfer was for {$10000.00}, and I lost it all, I could have done something really horrible, like blow my brains out in the middle of US Bank. This is no XXXX joke! Banks are supposed to protect peoples money. What happened to me was completely unacceptable. \n\nI have been with US Bank since they were called XXXX XXXX. After 30 plus years as a loyal customer I requested one simple favor, and they couldn't figure out how to get me to sign a piece of paper within 30 days. I have a XXXX near perfect credit score rating, I pay all my bills and credit card payments on time, and this is what I get in return? What a XXXX  joke! \n\nThe most infuriating part of this whole ordeal is that this outcome did not have to happen. It was completely preventable assuming XXXX  and or people working my claim would have gotten the paperwork taken care of in a timely manner. \n\nAnd to top it all off, the head of security from the S. Carolina bank, XXXX, told me his bank sent a third notification to my bank on XX/XX/XXXX requesting permission to send back my funds with no response. I will add his contact information below. \n\nThe scammers Bitcoin wallet ( XXXX ) to date has XXXX BTC in it. If you search XXXX for \" XXXX btc to usd '' it shows XXXX Bitcoin equals {$1.00} million. \n\nAccording to : https : XXXX ... the scammer has continued stealing from people since he defrauded me. \n\nHere is a list of contacts if you are interested : XXXX XXXX ( my US Bank banker ) : XXXX XXXX  ( wire department ) XXXX XXXX XXXX Wire fraud number / claim # 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, SC XXXX XXXX ( scammer ) : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX-XXXX  XXXX  ID XXXX Bitcoin wallet ( XXXX ) Email : XXXX If you need more evidence such as screenshots of the conversation between me and the scammer please let me know. \n\nI hope you can help me. Thanks for your time.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-08-05T07:51:46.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4604308","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2021-08-05T03:41:08.000Z","state":"IA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Them</em> telling me I \" <em>fulfilled</em> this request on XX/XX/XXXX '' when I actually did so on XX/XX/XXXX was beyond infuriating! This was a simple <em>problem</em> and US Bank failed miserably! \n\n\nThis is what I want : I want to know why XXXX refused to help me when I was frantic the day I found out I had been scammed."]},"sort":[7.367075,"4604308"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12680313","_score":7.2179947,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mi XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington, DC XXXX Subject : Request for Information on Consumer Rights and Requirements for Credit Reporting and Identity Verification Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am writing to formally request information regarding the rules, regulations, laws, and requirements that govern primary and secondary debt holders under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). Specifically, I seek clarification on the formal process required when submitting a request for credit reports, particularly when supporting documents such as a Social Security card, birth certificate, identification issued by health and human services, and other forms of personal verification are included. \n\nAdditionally, I request information on : Debt Holder Responsibilities : The obligations of both primary and secondary debt holders in verifying and processing consumer requests for credit information. \n\nCredit Reporting Agency ( CRA ) Obligations : The responsibilities of Experian, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, Advanced Resolution, and XXXX in responding to requests from individuals when proper identification has been provided, including photographic documentation of Social Security cards and identification. \n\n30-Day Response Requirement : Whether any legal obligations exist for CRAs to respond within 30 days to such formal credit report requests and any recourse available if they fail to do so.\n\nIdentity Theft and Account Recovery : The policies and procedures governing the update of consumer information when a registered phone number associated with an account has been stolen. This includes guidance for cases where customer service representatives are inaccessible and login recovery options require a verification code sent to the original phone number on file, preventing account updates. \n\nAlternative Methods of Identity Verification : Accepted forms of identity verification when phone-based verification is not an option, particularly in cases where a consumers personal data and phone number have been compromised.\n\nI kindly request a comprehensive response outlining the legal framework, consumer rights, and responsibilities of the aforementioned entities in these matters. Please provide any official regulations, procedural guidelines, or additional steps that I may take to ensure compliance with the law while securing my financial information.\n\nI have enclosed copies of the necessary identifying documents for verification purposes and have included a pre-addressed return envelope for your response. If further documentation or clarification is required, please inform me at your earliest convenience. \n\nThank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your response. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) enforces several laws that outline the responsibilities of debt collectors and credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) when handling consumer information and requests. Here 's an overview : 1. Debt Collector Obligations : Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), debt collectors must : Provide Validation Information : Within five days of initial contact, they must send a written notice detailing the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, and a statement informing the consumer of their right to dispute the debt within 30 days. \nFederal Trade Commission Cease Collection Upon Dispute : If a consumer disputes the debt in writing within the 30-day period, the collector must halt collection efforts until they provide verification of the debt.\n\n2. Credit Reporting Agencies ' Responsibilities : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) mandates that CRAs : Investigate Disputes Promptly : Upon receiving a dispute, CRAs are required to investigate and correct any inaccuracies found in the consumer 's file, typically within 30 days.\n\nConsumer Finance.gov Maintain Accurate Information : CRAs must adopt reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information they report.\n\nXXXX 3. Updating Personal Information : If your phone is stolen and you're unable to receive verification codes for updating your information : Experian : To update personal information, you may need to contact Experian directly by phone or mail, as online updates might not be feasible without access to your registered phone number. \n\nXXXX : You can place a fraud alert online or by phone, which can assist in updating your contact information. \nXXXX XXXX : To request a credit report or update information, visit their website for instructions. \nXXXX 4. Identity Theft Considerations : In cases of identity theft involving stolen Social Security cards and other identification : Immediate Actions : Report the theft to the authorities and place fraud alerts or credit freezes with all major CRAs to prevent new accounts from being opened in your name. \nExperian Credit Report Documentation : When communicating with CRAs, provide copies of identifying documents and a detailed explanation of your situation. \n\nAlternative Verification Methods : If standard verification methods are inaccessible due to stolen devices, inquire about alternative methods such as in-person verification or notarized documents.\n\n5. Additional Credit Reporting Agencies : XXXX XXXX XXXX : A consumer reporting agency that provides consumer reports and credit scores to various companies. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) : A subsidiary of XXXX  that collects information on credit card and bank card approvals and denials. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \n\nFor personalized assistance, consider consulting with a consumer rights attorney or reaching out directly to the CFPB. \n\nIn this report, I will break down the following key areas as requested : The role of the debt holders receipt from the United States Postal Service ( USPS ).\n\nThe duties and responsibilities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in this context. \n\nThe appropriate actions a debt holder should take when there is evidence supporting the claim. \n\nActions to protect the account holder. \n\nHow a debt can be removed from a credit report ( probable cause and regulatory provisions ). \n\nThe responsibilities of credit reporting agencies and the corrective actions that can be taken. \n\nThe provisions and actions from the CFPB, including corrections. \n\nPrimary and secondary credit reporting agency responsibilities. \n\n1. Receipt from the United States Postal Service ( USPS ) as Evidence The receipt from USPS or any other evidence from a government entity, such as the USPS, could be used as evidence in disputes related to debt payments, communications, or deliveries related to account holders. These receipts can serve as documentation proving that a debt holder fulfilled their responsibilities by sending payments or communications, which may serve as evidence to defend against a claim or provide documentation in the context of financial disputes.\n\n2. Duties and Responsibilities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has a critical role in enforcing consumer protection laws, including those related to debt collection and credit reporting. The CFPB ensures that : Debt collectors comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ).\n\nCredit reporting agencies follow guidelines for the accuracy of credit reports under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nThe Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 enables the CFPB to regulate entities that handle consumer credit and debt-related services to protect consumers from unfair practices.\n\nThe CFPB provides enforcement and oversight to ensure that debt holders, consumers, and reporting agencies comply with regulations that ensure transparency, fairness, and the proper removal or correction of inaccurate or outdated information on credit reports. \n\n3. Action for Debt Holders with Evidence A debt holder who has evidence of fulfilling their responsibilities ( such as payment receipts or evidence of communication from USPS ) can take the following actions : Dispute the debt : Submit a formal dispute to the creditor, debt collector, or credit reporting agency ( CRA ) under FCRA Section 611. The CRA must then investigate within 30 days.\n\nProvide documentation : Provide evidence ( USPS receipt, proof of payment, etc. ) supporting the debt holder 's claim to the creditor, or the CRA during the dispute process.\n\nSubmit complaints : If the dispute is unresolved, a complaint can be submitted to the CFPB. XXXX XXXXXXXX will intervene and help mediate between the consumer and the creditor or debt collector. \n\n4. Protection for Account Holders Consumers have specific protections under FCRA and FDCPA, which prevent unfair or inaccurate reporting and collection practices. The following are the protections available to account holders : Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : Prevents debt collectors from engaging in abusive, unfair, or deceptive practices, including harassment and misrepresentation.\n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : Provides the right to dispute inaccurate information on credit reports. The law mandates that creditors or debt collectors must correct or delete erroneous data from credit reports.\n\nActions to protect the account holder : Dispute inaccurate debt information through the credit reporting agencies, or directly with the creditor or debt collector. \n\nFile a formal complaint with the CFPB if the issue remains unresolved.\n\n5. Probable Cause for Removal of Debt from Credit Reports A debt can be removed from an account holder 's credit report under the following conditions : Inaccuracy : Under FCRA Section 611, a consumer can dispute inaccuracies, and the CRA is obligated to investigate and correct any errors. If the debt holder provides evidence that the debt is incorrect, it should be removed.\n\nObsolescence : Under FCRA Section 605, negative information like missed payments, defaults, or charged-off debts must be removed after seven years, and bankruptcies after ten years.\n\nDebt Validation : Under FDCPA Section 809, a consumer can request verification of the debt. If the debt collector can not validate the debt, the account should be removed from the credit report.\n\nFraudulent Charges : If the debt was incurred due to identity theft or fraud, the consumer can request the removal of the debt from their credit report. \n\n6. Responsibilities of Credit Reporting Agencies Credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) are required to : Maintain accurate and up-to-date information : As outlined in FCRA Section 607, CRAs must ensure that the information they report is accurate and fair.\n\nInvestigate disputes : Under FCRA Section 611, CRAs must investigate any disputes related to the accuracy of credit report information within 30 days. If an item is found to be incorrect, the CRA must delete or correct it.\n\nProvide the consumer with information : Upon the resolution of a dispute, CRAs must notify the consumer of the result and provide them with a free copy of the updated credit report. \n\n7. Provisions and Actions from the CFPB The CFPB enforces consumer rights in this context by ensuring compliance with FCRA, FDCPA, and other relevant laws. If a consumer experiences problems with debt collection or inaccurate credit reporting, they can : File a complaint with the CFPB, which will then investigate the issue and take corrective action as needed.\n\nWork with debt collectors and credit reporting agencies to mediate disputes and ensure compliance with consumer protection laws.\n\nThe CFPB can enforce penalties or corrective actions, including fines or penalties against non-compliant entities. \n\n8. Corrective Actions for the Debt Holder To rectify the situation and ensure that the debt is removed from their credit report, the debt holder should : Request validation of the debt and provide any necessary proof that the debt is either settled, inaccurate, or fraudulent.\n\nDispute the debt directly with the credit reporting agency or debt collector, providing evidence of payment or other documentation.\n\nFile a complaint with the CFPB if the issue is not resolved after disputes with the creditor or CRA.\n\nRelevant Sections of Law ( Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Website ) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : 15 U.S.C. 1692 Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 15 U.S.C. 1681 Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 : Public Law 111-203 You can access these regulations directly on the CFPB website or through the official U.S. government website for legal code.\n\nFor more in-depth information on each of these regulations, visit : CFPB Laws and Regulations : CFPB official site Please contact me at Phone number XXXX XXXX XXXX Email XXXX Mail XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX mi XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-02T13:29:51.000Z","issue":"Unable to get your credit report or credit score","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48322","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12680313","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2025-03-26T20:22:47.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem getting your free annual credit report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Identity Theft Considerations : In cases of identity theft involving stolen Social <em>Security</em> cards and other identification : Immediate Actions : Report the theft to the authorities and place fraud alerts or credit freezes with all major CRAs to <em>prevent</em> new accounts from being opened in your name. \nExperian Credit Report Documentation : When communicating with CRAs, provide copies of identifying documents and a detailed explanation of your situation."],"sub_issue":["<em>Problem</em> getting your free annual credit report"]},"sort":[7.2179947,"12680313"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12678562","_score":7.2179947,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mi XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DC XXXX Subject : Request for Information on Consumer Rights and Requirements for Credit Reporting and Identity Verification Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am writing to formally request information regarding the rules, regulations, laws, and requirements that govern primary and secondary debt holders under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). Specifically, I seek clarification on the formal process required when submitting a request for credit reports, particularly when supporting documents such as a Social Security card, birth certificate, identification issued by health and human services, and other forms of personal verification are included. \n\nAdditionally, I request information on : Debt Holder Responsibilities : The obligations of both primary and secondary debt holders in verifying and processing consumer requests for credit information.\n\nCredit Reporting Agency ( CRA ) Obligations : The responsibilities of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX and Innovis in responding to requests from individuals when proper identification has been provided, including photographic documentation of Social Security cards and identification. \n\n30-Day Response Requirement : Whether any legal obligations exist for CRAs to respond within 30 days to such formal credit report requests and any recourse available if they fail to do so.\n\nIdentity Theft and Account Recovery : The policies and procedures governing the update of consumer information when a registered phone number associated with an account has been stolen. This includes guidance for cases where customer service representatives are inaccessible and login recovery options require a verification code sent to the original phone number on file, preventing account updates. \n\nAlternative Methods of Identity Verification : Accepted forms of identity verification when phone-based verification is not an option, particularly in cases where a consumers personal data and phone number have been compromised.\n\nI kindly request a comprehensive response outlining the legal framework, consumer rights, and responsibilities of the aforementioned entities in these matters. Please provide any official regulations, procedural guidelines, or additional steps that I may take to ensure compliance with the law while securing my financial information. \n\nI have enclosed copies of the necessary identifying documents for verification purposes and have included a pre-addressed return envelope for your response. If further documentation or clarification is required, please inform me at your earliest convenience. \n\nThank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your response. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) enforces several laws that outline the responsibilities of debt collectors and credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) when handling consumer information and requests. Here 's an overview : 1. Debt Collector Obligations : Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), debt collectors must : Provide Validation Information : Within five days of initial contact, they must send a written notice detailing the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, and a statement informing the consumer of their right to dispute the debt within 30 days. \nFederal Trade Commission Cease Collection Upon Dispute : If a consumer disputes the debt in writing within the 30-day period, the collector must halt collection efforts until they provide verification of the debt.\n\n2. Credit Reporting Agencies ' Responsibilities : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) mandates that CRAs : Investigate Disputes Promptly : Upon receiving a dispute, CRAs are required to investigate and correct any inaccuracies found in the consumer 's file, typically within 30 days.\n\nConsumer Finance.gov Maintain Accurate Information : CRAs must adopt reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information they report.\n\nFFIEC 3. Updating Personal Information : If your phone is stolen and you're unable to receive verification codes for updating your information : XXXX : To update personal information, you may need to contact XXXX directly by phone or mail, as online updates might not be feasible without access to your registered phone number. \n\nXXXX : You can place a fraud alert online or by phone, which can assist in updating your contact information. \nXXXX Innovis : To request a credit report or update information, visit their website for instructions.\n\nInnovis 4. Identity Theft Considerations : In cases of identity theft involving stolen Social Security cards and other identification : Immediate Actions : Report the theft to the authorities and place fraud alerts or credit freezes with all major CRAs to prevent new accounts from being opened in your name. \nExperian Credit Report Documentation : When communicating with CRAs, provide copies of identifying documents and a detailed explanation of your situation. \n\nAlternative Verification Methods : If standard verification methods are inaccessible due to stolen devices, inquire about alternative methods such as in-person verification or notarized documents.\n\n5. Additional Credit Reporting Agencies : XXXX XXXX XXXX : A consumer reporting agency that provides consumer reports and credit scores to various companies. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Advanced Resolution Services ( ARS ) : A subsidiary of Visa that collects information on credit card and bank card approvals and denials. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \n\nFor personalized assistance, consider consulting with a consumer rights attorney or reaching out directly to the CFPB. \n\nIn this report, I will break down the following key areas as requested : The role of the debt holders receipt from the United States Postal Service ( USPS ).\n\nThe duties and responsibilities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in this context. \n\nThe appropriate actions a debt holder should take when there is evidence supporting the claim. \n\nActions to protect the account holder. \n\nHow a debt can be removed from a credit report ( probable cause and regulatory provisions ). \n\nThe responsibilities of credit reporting agencies and the corrective actions that can be taken. \n\nThe provisions and actions from the CFPB, including corrections. \n\nPrimary and secondary credit reporting agency responsibilities. \n\n1. Receipt from the United States Postal Service ( USPS ) as Evidence The receipt from USPS or any other evidence from a government entity, such as the USPS, could be used as evidence in disputes related to debt payments, communications, or deliveries related to account holders. These receipts can serve as documentation proving that a debt holder fulfilled their responsibilities by sending payments or communications, which may serve as evidence to defend against a claim or provide documentation in the context of financial disputes. \n\n2. Duties and Responsibilities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has a critical role in enforcing consumer protection laws, including those related to debt collection and credit reporting. The CFPB ensures that : Debt collectors comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ).\n\nCredit reporting agencies follow guidelines for the accuracy of credit reports under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nThe Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 enables the CFPB to regulate entities that handle consumer credit and debt-related services to protect consumers from unfair practices. \n\nThe CFPB provides enforcement and oversight to ensure that debt holders, consumers, and reporting agencies comply with regulations that ensure transparency, fairness, and the proper removal or correction of inaccurate or outdated information on credit reports. \n\n3. Action for Debt Holders with Evidence A debt holder who has evidence of fulfilling their responsibilities ( such as payment receipts or evidence of communication from USPS ) can take the following actions : Dispute the debt : Submit a formal dispute to the creditor, debt collector, or credit reporting agency ( CRA ) under FCRA Section 611. The CRA must then investigate within 30 days.\n\nProvide documentation : Provide evidence ( USPS receipt, proof of payment, etc. ) supporting the debt holder 's claim to the creditor, or the CRA during the dispute process.\n\nSubmit complaints : If the dispute is unresolved, a complaint can be submitted to the CFPB. The Bureau will intervene and help mediate between the consumer and the creditor or debt collector.\n\n4. Protection for Account Holders Consumers have specific protections under FCRA and FDCPA, which prevent unfair or inaccurate reporting and collection practices. The following are the protections available to account holders : Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : Prevents debt collectors from engaging in abusive, unfair, or deceptive practices, including harassment and misrepresentation.\n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : Provides the right to dispute inaccurate information on credit reports. The law mandates that creditors or debt collectors must correct or delete erroneous data from credit reports.\n\nActions to protect the account holder : Dispute inaccurate debt information through the credit reporting agencies, or directly with the creditor or debt collector.\n\nFile a formal complaint with the CFPB if the issue remains unresolved.\n\n5. Probable Cause for Removal of Debt from Credit Reports A debt can be removed from an account holder 's credit report under the following conditions : Inaccuracy : Under FCRA Section 611, a consumer can dispute inaccuracies, and the CRA is obligated to investigate and correct any errors. If the debt holder provides evidence that the debt is incorrect, it should be removed.\n\nObsolescence : Under FCRA Section 605, negative information like missed payments, defaults, or charged-off debts must be removed after seven years, and bankruptcies after ten years.\n\nDebt Validation : Under FDCPA Section 809, a consumer can request verification of the debt. If the debt collector can not validate the debt, the account should be removed from the credit report.\n\nFraudulent Charges : If the debt was incurred due to identity theft or fraud, the consumer can request the removal of the debt from their credit report.\n\n6. Responsibilities of Credit Reporting Agencies Credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) are required to : Maintain accurate and up-to-date information : As outlined in FCRA Section 607, CRAs must ensure that the information they report is accurate and fair.\n\nInvestigate disputes : Under FCRA Section 611, CRAs must investigate any disputes related to the accuracy of credit report information within 30 days. If an item is found to be incorrect, the CRA must delete or correct it.\n\nProvide the consumer with information : Upon the resolution of a dispute, CRAs must notify the consumer of the result and provide them with a free copy of the updated credit report.\n\n7. Provisions and Actions from the CFPB The CFPB enforces consumer rights in this context by ensuring compliance with FCRA, FDCPA, and other relevant laws. If a consumer experiences problems with debt collection or inaccurate credit reporting, they can : File a complaint with the CFPB, which will then investigate the issue and take corrective action as needed. \n\nWork with debt collectors and credit reporting agencies to mediate disputes and ensure compliance with consumer protection laws.\n\nThe CFPB can enforce penalties or corrective actions, including fines or penalties against non-compliant entities.\n\n8. Corrective Actions for the Debt Holder To rectify the situation and ensure that the debt is removed from their credit report, the debt holder should : Request validation of the debt and provide any necessary proof that the debt is either settled, inaccurate, or fraudulent.\n\nDispute the debt directly with the credit reporting agency or debt collector, providing evidence of payment or other documentation.\n\nFile a complaint with the CFPB if the issue is not resolved after disputes with the creditor or CRA. \n\n\nRelevant Sections of Law ( Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Website ) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : 15 U.S.C. 1692 Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 15 U.S.C. 1681 Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 : Public Law 111-203 You can access these regulations directly on the CFPB website or through the official U.S. government website for legal code.\n\nFor more in-depth information on each of these regulations, visit : CFPB Laws and Regulations : CFPB official site Please contact me at Phone number XXXX XXXX XXXX Email XXXX Mail XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX mi XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-26T21:45:41.000Z","issue":"Unable to get your credit report or credit score","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48322","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12678562","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CBC Companies, Inc.","date_received":"2025-03-26T21:45:12.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem getting your free annual credit report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Identity Theft Considerations : In cases of identity theft involving stolen Social <em>Security</em> cards and other identification : Immediate Actions : Report the theft to the authorities and place fraud alerts or credit freezes with all major CRAs to <em>prevent</em> new accounts from being opened in your name. \nExperian Credit Report Documentation : When communicating with CRAs, provide copies of identifying documents and a detailed explanation of your situation."],"sub_issue":["<em>Problem</em> getting your free annual credit report"]},"sort":[7.2179947,"12678562"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12676264","_score":7.179616,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"In this report, I will break down the following key areas as requested : The role of the debt holders receipt from the United States Postal Service ( USPS ). \n\nThe duties and responsibilities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in this context. \n\nThe appropriate actions a debt holder should take when there is evidence supporting the claim. \n\nActions to protect the account holder. \n\nHow a debt can be removed from a credit report ( probable cause and regulatory provisions ). \n\nThe responsibilities of credit reporting agencies and the corrective actions that can be taken. \n\nThe provisions and actions from the CFPB, including corrections. \n\nPrimary and secondary credit reporting agency responsibilities. \n\n1. Receipt from the United States Postal Service ( USPS ) as Evidence The receipt from USPS or any other evidence from a government entity, such as the USPS, could be used as evidence in disputes related to debt payments, communications, or deliveries related to account holders. These receipts can serve as documentation proving that a debt holder fulfilled their responsibilities by sending payments or communications, which may serve as evidence to defend against a claim or provide documentation in the context of financial disputes. \n\n2. Duties and Responsibilities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has a critical role in enforcing consumer protection laws, including those related to debt collection and credit reporting. The CFPB ensures that : Debt collectors comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n\nCredit reporting agencies follow guidelines for the accuracy of credit reports under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nThe Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 enables the CFPB to regulate entities that handle consumer credit and debt-related services to protect consumers from unfair practices. \n\nThe CFPB provides enforcement and oversight to ensure that debt holders, consumers, and reporting agencies comply with regulations that ensure transparency, fairness, and the proper removal or correction of inaccurate or outdated information on credit reports. \n\n3. Action for Debt Holders with Evidence A debt holder who has evidence of fulfilling their responsibilities ( such as payment receipts or evidence of communication from USPS ) can take the following actions : Dispute the debt : Submit a formal dispute to the creditor, debt collector, or credit reporting agency ( CRA ) under FCRA Section 611. The CRA must then investigate within 30 days. \n\nProvide documentation : Provide evidence ( USPS receipt, proof of payment, etc. ) supporting the debt holder 's claim to the creditor, or the CRA during the dispute process. \n\nSubmit complaints : If the dispute is unresolved, a complaint can be submitted to the CFPB. The Bureau will intervene and help mediate between the consumer and the creditor or debt collector. \n\n4. Protection for Account Holders Consumers have specific protections under FCRA and FDCPA, which prevent unfair or inaccurate reporting and collection practices. The following are the protections available to account holders : Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : Prevents debt collectors from engaging in abusive, unfair, or deceptive practices, including harassment and misrepresentation. \n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : Provides the right to dispute inaccurate information on credit reports. The law mandates that creditors or debt collectors must correct or delete erroneous data from credit reports. \n\nActions to protect the account holder : Dispute inaccurate debt information through the credit reporting agencies, or directly with the creditor or debt collector. \n\nFile a formal complaint with the CFPB if the issue remains unresolved. \n\n5. Probable Cause for Removal of Debt from Credit Reports A debt can be removed from an account holder 's credit report under the following conditions : Inaccuracy : Under FCRA Section 611, a consumer can dispute inaccuracies, and the CRA is obligated to investigate and correct any errors. If the debt holder provides evidence that the debt is incorrect, it should be removed. \n\nObsolescence : Under FCRA Section 605, negative information like missed payments, defaults, or charged-off debts must be removed after XXXX years, and bankruptcies after XXXX  years. \n\nDebt Validation : Under FDCPA Section 809, a consumer can request verification of the debt. If the debt collector can not validate the debt, the account should be removed from the credit report. \n\nFraudulent Charges : If the debt was incurred due to identity theft or fraud, the consumer can request the removal of the debt from their credit report. \n\n6. Responsibilities of Credit Reporting Agencies Credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) are required to : Maintain accurate and up-to-date information : As outlined in FCRA Section 607, CRAs must ensure that the information they report is accurate and fair. \n\nInvestigate disputes : Under FCRA Section 611, CRAs must investigate any disputes related to the accuracy of credit report information within 30 days. If an item is found to be incorrect, the CRA must delete or correct it. \n\nProvide the consumer with information : Upon the resolution of a dispute, CRAs must notify the consumer of the result and provide them with a free copy of the updated credit report. \n\n7. Provisions and Actions from the CFPB The CFPB enforces consumer rights in this context by ensuring compliance with FCRA, FDCPA, and other relevant laws. If a consumer experiences problems with debt collection or inaccurate credit reporting, they can : File a complaint with the CFPB, which will then investigate the issue and take corrective action as needed. \n\nWork with debt collectors and credit reporting agencies to mediate disputes and ensure compliance with consumer protection laws. \n\nThe CFPB can enforce penalties or corrective actions, including fines or penalties against non-compliant entities. \n\n8. Corrective Actions for the Debt Holder To rectify the situation and ensure that the debt is removed from their credit report, the debt holder should : Request validation of the debt and provide any necessary proof that the debt is either settled, inaccurate, or fraudulent. \n\nDispute the debt directly with the credit reporting agency or debt collector, providing evidence of payment or other documentation. \n\nFile a complaint with the CFPB if the issue is not resolved after disputes with the creditor or CRA. \n\nSeek legal counsel if necessary, especially if the debt has resulted in significant negative impacts on their credit report or financial situation. \n\nRelevant Sections of Law ( Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Website ) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : 15 U.S.C. 1692 Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 15 U.S.C. 1681 Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 : Public Law 111-203 You can access these regulations directly on the CFPB website or through the official U.S. government website for legal code. \n\nFor more in-depth information on each of these regulations, visit : CFPB Laws and Regulations : CFPB official site 1. Debt Collection and Verification Requirements : Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), debt collectors are mandated to provide specific information about a debt. Within five days of initial contact, they must send a written notice detailing : The amount of the debt. \n\nThe name of the creditor. \n\nA statement informing you of your right to dispute the debt within 30 days. \nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  +6 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau +6 Consumer Advice +6 If you dispute the debt in writing within this 30-day period, the collector must cease collection efforts until they provide verification of the debt. This verification might include a copy of the original bill or a judgment. It's advisable to send your dispute letter via certified mail and retain copies for your records. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau +3 Consumer Advice +3 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau +3 2. Responsibilities of Credit Reporting Agencies ( CRAs ) : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) outlines the duties of CRAs regarding consumer disputes : XXXX  +1 Consumer Finance.gov +1 Investigation of Disputes : Upon receiving a dispute from a consumer, CRAs are required to conduct a reasonable investigation unless the dispute is deemed frivolous or irrelevant. If they find the information to be inaccurate, they must promptly notify each CRA to which they provided the inaccurate information and provide necessary corrections. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau 3. Updating Personal Information with CRAs : If your phone has been stolen and you can not receive verification codes to update your information online, consider the following steps : XXXX : To update personal information, you may need to contact XXXX directly by phone or mail, as online updates might not be feasible without access to your registered phone number. \nXXXX +6 XXXX Credit Report +6 XXXX Credit Report +6 XXXX  : You can change your freeze settings over the phone by calling XXXX. They will verify your identity by asking for your name, date of birth, address, and Social Security number. \nXXXX 4. Addressing Identity Theft : If your Social Security card and other identification documents have been stolen : Place Fraud Alerts and Credit Freezes : Contact all major CRAsEquifax, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX place fraud alerts or credit freezes on your accounts. This action helps prevent new accounts from being opened in your name. \n\nMonitor Your Credit Reports : Regularly review your credit reports for any unauthorized activity. \n\nReport to Authorities : File a report with your local police department and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) via IdentityTheft.gov. \n\n5. Challenges with Verification Codes and Customer Service : If you're unable to access customer service representatives directly and automated systems require verification codes sent to a stolen phone : Written Communication : Consider sending a detailed letter explaining your situation, including copies of identification documents, to the CRAs via certified mail. \n\nIn-Person Verification : Some CRAs may offer in-person services or notarized verification processes. Check their official websites or contact them for specific procedures. \n\n6. Additional Considerations : Documentation : When sending sensitive documents like your Social Security card or birth certificate, ensure you're using secure methods and only provide copies unless originals are specifically required. \n\nTimeliness : Be aware of any deadlines for disputing debts or reporting identity theft to ensure your rights are protected. \n\nFor personalized assistance, consider consulting with a consumer rights attorney or reaching out to the CFPB directly through their official channels. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mi XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DC XXXX Subject : Request for Information on Consumer Rights and Requirements for Credit Reporting and Identity Verification Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am writing to formally request information regarding the rules, regulations, laws, and requirements that govern primary and secondary debt holders under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). Specifically, I seek clarification on the formal process required when submitting a request for credit reports, particularly when supporting documents such as a Social Security card, birth certificate, identification issued by health and human services, and other forms of personal verification are included. \n\nAdditionally, I request information on : Debt Holder Responsibilities : The obligations of both primary and secondary debt holders in verifying and processing consumer requests for credit information. \n\nCredit Reporting Agency ( CRA ) Obligations : The responsibilities of XXXX, Equifax, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX in responding to requests from individuals when proper identification has been provided, including photographic documentation of Social Security cards and identification. \n\n30-Day Response Requirement : Whether any legal obligations exist for CRAs to respond within 30 days to such formal credit report requests and any recourse available if they fail to do so. \n\nIdentity Theft and Account Recovery : The policies and procedures governing the update of consumer information when a registered phone number associated with an account has been stolen. This includes guidance for cases where customer service representatives are inaccessible and login recovery options require a verification code sent to the original phone number on file, preventing account updates. \n\nAlternative Methods of Identity Verification : Accepted forms of identity verification when phone-based verification is not an option, particularly in cases where a consumers personal data and phone number have been compromised. \n\nI kindly request a comprehensive response outlining the legal framework, consumer rights, and responsibilities of the aforementioned entities in these matters. Please provide any official regulations, procedural guidelines, or additional steps that I may take to ensure compliance with the law while securing my financial information. \n\nI have enclosed copies of the necessary identifying documents for verification purposes and have included a pre-addressed return envelope for your response. If further documentation or clarification is required, please inform me at your earliest convenience. \n\nThank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your response. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) enforces several laws that outline the responsibilities of debt collectors and credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) when handling consumer information and requests. Here 's an overview : 1. Debt Collector Obligations : Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), debt collectors must : Provide Validation Information : Within five days of initial contact, they must send a written notice detailing the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, and a statement informing the consumer of their right to dispute the debt within 30 days. \nFederal Trade Commission Cease Collection Upon Dispute : If a consumer disputes the debt in writing within the 30-day period, the collector must halt collection efforts until they provide verification of the debt. \n\n2. Credit Reporting Agencies ' Responsibilities : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) mandates that CRAs : Investigate Disputes Promptly : Upon receiving a dispute, CRAs are required to investigate and correct any inaccuracies found in the consumer 's file, typically within 30 days. \nConsumer Finance.gov Maintain Accurate Information : CRAs must adopt reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information they report. \nXXXX 3. Updating Personal Information : If your phone is stolen and you're unable to receive verification codes for updating your information : XXXX : To update personal information, you may need to contact XXXX directly by phone or mail, as online updates might not be feasible without access to your registered phone number. \n\nXXXX : You can place a fraud alert online or by phone, which can assist in updating your contact information. \nXXXX XXXX : To request a credit report or update information, visit their website for instructions. \nXXXX 4. Identity Theft Considerations : In cases of identity theft involving stolen Social Security cards and other identification : Immediate Actions : Report the theft to the authorities and place fraud alerts or credit freezes with all major CRAs to prevent new accounts from being opened in your name. \nExperian Credit Report Documentation : When communicating with CRAs, provide copies of identifying documents and a detailed explanation of your situation. \n\nAlternative Verification Methods : If standard verification methods are inaccessible due to stolen devices, inquire about alternative methods such as in-person verification or notarized documents. \n\n5. Additional Credit Reporting Agencies : XXXX XXXX XXXX : A consumer reporting agency that provides consumer reports and credit scores to various companies. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX +1 XXXX +1 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) : A subsidiary of Visa that collects information on credit card and bank card approvals and denials. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \n\nFor personalized assistance, consider consulting with a consumer rights attorney or reaching out directly to the CFPB.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-26T22:26:21.000Z","issue":"Unable to get your credit report or credit score","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48322","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12676264","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-03-26T21:59:26.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem getting your free annual credit report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["They will verify your identity by asking for your name, date of birth, address, and Social <em>Security</em> number. \nXXXX 4. Addressing Identity Theft : If your Social <em>Security</em> card and other identification documents have been stolen : Place Fraud Alerts and Credit Freezes : Contact all major CRAsEquifax, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX place fraud alerts or credit freezes on your accounts. This action helps <em>prevent</em> new accounts from being opened in your name."],"sub_issue":["<em>Problem</em> getting your free annual credit report"]},"sort":[7.179616,"12676264"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12676946","_score":7.163636,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"In this report, I will break down the following key areas as requested : The role of the debt holders receipt from the United States Postal Service ( USPS ).\n\nThe duties and responsibilities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in this context. \n\nThe appropriate actions a debt holder should take when there is evidence supporting the claim. \n\nActions to protect the account holder. \n\nHow a debt can be removed from a credit report ( probable cause and regulatory provisions ). \n\nThe responsibilities of credit reporting agencies and the corrective actions that can be taken. \n\nThe provisions and actions from the CFPB, including corrections. \n\nPrimary and secondary credit reporting agency responsibilities. \n\n1. Receipt from the United States Postal Service ( USPS ) as Evidence The receipt from USPS or any other evidence from a government entity, such as the USPS, could be used as evidence in disputes related to debt payments, communications, or deliveries related to account holders. These receipts can serve as documentation proving that a debt holder fulfilled their responsibilities by sending payments or communications, which may serve as evidence to defend against a claim or provide documentation in the context of financial disputes.\n\n2. Duties and Responsibilities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has a critical role in enforcing consumer protection laws, including those related to debt collection and credit reporting. The CFPB ensures that : Debt collectors comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ).\n\nCredit reporting agencies follow guidelines for the accuracy of credit reports under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nThe Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 enables the CFPB to regulate entities that handle consumer credit and debt-related services to protect consumers from unfair practices.\n\nThe CFPB provides enforcement and oversight to ensure that debt holders, consumers, and reporting agencies comply with regulations that ensure transparency, fairness, and the proper removal or correction of inaccurate or outdated information on credit reports. \n\n3. Action for Debt Holders with Evidence A debt holder who has evidence of fulfilling their responsibilities ( such as payment receipts or evidence of communication from USPS ) can take the following actions : Dispute the debt : Submit a formal dispute to the creditor, debt collector, or credit reporting agency ( CRA ) under FCRA Section 611. The CRA must then investigate within 30 days.\n\nProvide documentation : Provide evidence ( USPS receipt, proof of payment, etc. ) supporting the debt holder 's claim to the creditor, or the CRA during the dispute process.\n\nSubmit complaints : If the dispute is unresolved, a complaint can be submitted to the CFPB. XXXX  XXXX will intervene and help mediate between the consumer and the creditor or debt collector. \n\n4. Protection for Account Holders Consumers have specific protections under FCRA and FDCPA, which prevent unfair or inaccurate reporting and collection practices. The following are the protections available to account holders : Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : Prevents debt collectors from engaging in abusive, unfair, or deceptive practices, including harassment and misrepresentation.\n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : Provides the right to dispute inaccurate information on credit reports. The law mandates that creditors or debt collectors must correct or delete erroneous data from credit reports.\n\nActions to protect the account holder : Dispute inaccurate debt information through the credit reporting agencies, or directly with the creditor or debt collector. \n\nFile a formal complaint with the CFPB if the issue remains unresolved.\n\n5. Probable Cause for Removal of Debt from Credit Reports A debt can be removed from an account holder 's credit report under the following conditions : Inaccuracy : Under FCRA Section 611, a consumer can dispute inaccuracies, and the CRA is obligated to investigate and correct any errors. If the debt holder provides evidence that the debt is incorrect, it should be removed.\n\nObsolescence : Under FCRA Section 605, negative information like missed payments, defaults, or charged-off debts must be removed after seven years, and bankruptcies after ten years.\n\nDebt Validation : Under FDCPA Section 809, a consumer can request verification of the debt. If the debt collector can not validate the debt, the account should be removed from the credit report.\n\nFraudulent Charges : If the debt was incurred due to identity theft or fraud, the consumer can request the removal of the debt from their credit report. \n\n6. Responsibilities of Credit Reporting Agencies Credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) are required to : Maintain accurate and up-to-date information : As outlined in FCRA Section 607, CRAs must ensure that the information they report is accurate and fair.\n\nInvestigate disputes : Under FCRA Section 611, CRAs must investigate any disputes related to the accuracy of credit report information within 30 days. If an item is found to be incorrect, the CRA must delete or correct it.\n\nProvide the consumer with information : Upon the resolution of a dispute, CRAs must notify the consumer of the result and provide them with a free copy of the updated credit report. \n\n7. Provisions and Actions from the CFPB The CFPB enforces consumer rights in this context by ensuring compliance with FCRA, FDCPA, and other relevant laws. If a consumer experiences problems with debt collection or inaccurate credit reporting, they can : File a complaint with the CFPB, which will then investigate the issue and take corrective action as needed.\n\nWork with debt collectors and credit reporting agencies to mediate disputes and ensure compliance with consumer protection laws.\n\nThe CFPB can enforce penalties or corrective actions, including fines or penalties against non-compliant entities. \n\n8. Corrective Actions for the Debt Holder To rectify the situation and ensure that the debt is removed from their credit report, the debt holder should : Request validation of the debt and provide any necessary proof that the debt is either settled, inaccurate, or fraudulent.\n\nDispute the debt directly with the credit reporting agency or debt collector, providing evidence of payment or other documentation.\n\nFile a complaint with the CFPB if the issue is not resolved after disputes with the creditor or CRA.\n\nSeek legal counsel if necessary, especially if the debt has resulted in significant negative impacts on their credit report or financial situation. \n\nRelevant Sections of Law ( Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Website ) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : 15 U.S.C. 1692 Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 15 U.S.C. 1681 Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 : Public Law 111-203 You can access these regulations directly on the CFPB website or through the official U.S. government website for legal code.\n\nFor more in-depth information on each of these regulations, visit : CFPB Laws and Regulations : CFPB official site 1. Debt Collection and Verification Requirements : Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), debt collectors are mandated to provide specific information about a debt. Within five days of initial contact, they must send a written notice detailing : The amount of the debt.\n\nThe name of the creditor. \n\nA statement informing you of your right to dispute the debt within 30 days. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX Consumer Advice XXXX If you dispute the debt in writing within this 30-day period, the collector must cease collection efforts until they provide verification of the debt. This verification might include a copy of the original bill or a judgment. It's advisable to send your dispute letter via certified mail and retain copies for your records. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau +3 Consumer Advice +3 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau +3 2. Responsibilities of Credit Reporting Agencies ( CRAs ) : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) outlines the duties of CRAs regarding consumer disputes : XXXX  XXXX Consumer Finance.gov XXXX Investigation of Disputes : Upon receiving a dispute from a consumer, CRAs are required to conduct a reasonable investigation unless the dispute is deemed frivolous or irrelevant. If they find the information to be inaccurate, they must promptly notify each CRA to which they provided the inaccurate information and provide necessary corrections. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau 3. Updating Personal Information with CRAs : If your phone has been stolen and you can not receive verification codes to update your information online, consider the following steps : XXXX : To update personal information, you may need to contact XXXX directly by phone or mail, as online updates might not be feasible without access to your registered phone number. \nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : You can change your freeze settings over the phone by calling XXXX. They will verify your identity by asking for your name, date of birth, address, and Social Security number. \nXXXX XXXX. Addressing Identity Theft : If your Social Security card and other identification documents have been stolen : Place Fraud Alerts and Credit Freezes : Contact all major CRAsXXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXXto place fraud alerts or credit freezes on your accounts. This action helps prevent new accounts from being opened in your name. \n\nMonitor Your Credit Reports : Regularly review your credit reports for any unauthorized activity. \n\nReport to Authorities : File a report with your local police department and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) via IdentityTheft.gov. \n\n5. Challenges with Verification Codes and Customer Service : If you're unable to access customer service representatives directly and automated systems require verification codes sent to a stolen phone : Written Communication : Consider sending a detailed letter explaining your situation, including copies of identification documents, to the CRAs via certified mail.\n\nIn-Person Verification : Some CRAs may offer in-person services or notarized verification processes. Check their official websites or contact them for specific procedures.\n\n6. Additional Considerations : Documentation : When sending sensitive documents like your Social Security card or birth certificate, ensure you're using secure methods and only provide copies unless originals are specifically required.\n\nTimeliness : Be aware of any deadlines for disputing debts or reporting identity theft to ensure your rights are protected. \n\nFor personalized assistance, consider consulting with a consumer rights attorney or reaching out to the CFPB directly through their official channels. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mi XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington, DC XXXX Subject : Request for Information on Consumer Rights and Requirements for Credit Reporting and Identity Verification Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am writing to formally request information regarding the rules, regulations, laws, and requirements that govern primary and secondary debt holders under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). Specifically, I seek clarification on the formal process required when submitting a request for credit reports, particularly when supporting documents such as a Social Security card, birth certificate, identification issued by health and human services, and other forms of personal verification are included. \n\nAdditionally, I request information on : Debt Holder Responsibilities : The obligations of both primary and secondary debt holders in verifying and processing consumer requests for credit information. \n\nCredit Reporting Agency ( CRA ) Obligations : The responsibilities of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX in responding to requests from individuals when proper identification has been provided, including photographic documentation of Social Security cards and identification. \n\n30-Day Response Requirement : Whether any legal obligations exist for CRAs to respond within 30 days to such formal credit report requests and any recourse available if they fail to do so. \n\nIdentity Theft and Account Recovery : The policies and procedures governing the update of consumer information when a registered phone number associated with an account has been stolen. This includes guidance for cases where customer service representatives are inaccessible and login recovery options require a verification code sent to the original phone number on file, preventing account updates.\n\nAlternative Methods of Identity Verification : Accepted forms of identity verification when phone-based verification is not an option, particularly in cases where a consumers personal data and phone number have been compromised.\n\nI kindly request a comprehensive response outlining the legal framework, consumer rights, and responsibilities of the aforementioned entities in these matters. Please provide any official regulations, procedural guidelines, or additional steps that I may take to ensure compliance with the law while securing my financial information.\n\nI have enclosed copies of the necessary identifying documents for verification purposes and have included a pre-addressed return envelope for your response. If further documentation or clarification is required, please inform me at your earliest convenience. \n\nThank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your response. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) enforces several laws that outline the responsibilities of debt collectors and credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) when handling consumer information and requests. Here 's an overview : 1. Debt Collector Obligations : Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), debt collectors must : Provide Validation Information : Within five days of initial contact, they must send a written notice detailing the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, and a statement informing the consumer of their right to dispute the debt within 30 days. \nFederal Trade Commission Cease Collection Upon Dispute : If a consumer disputes the debt in writing within the 30-day period, the collector must halt collection efforts until they provide verification of the debt.\n\n2. Credit Reporting Agencies ' Responsibilities : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) mandates that CRAs : Investigate Disputes Promptly : Upon receiving a dispute, CRAs are required to investigate and correct any inaccuracies found in the consumer 's file, typically within 30 days.\n\nConsumer Finance.gov Maintain Accurate Information : CRAs must adopt reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information they report. \nXXXX XXXX. Updating Personal Information : If your phone is stolen and you're unable to receive verification codes for updating your information : XXXX : To update personal information, you may need to contact XXXX directly by phone or mail, as online updates might not be feasible without access to your registered phone number. \n\nXXXX : You can place a fraud alert online or by phone, which can assist in updating your contact information. \nXXXX XXXX : To request a credit report or update information, visit their website for instructions. \nXXXX XXXX. Identity Theft Considerations : In cases of identity theft involving stolen Social Security cards and other identification : Immediate Actions : Report the theft to the authorities and place fraud alerts or credit freezes with all major CRAs to prevent new accounts from being opened in your name. \nExperian Credit Report Documentation : When communicating with CRAs, provide copies of identifying documents and a detailed explanation of your situation. \n\nAlternative Verification Methods : If standard verification methods are inaccessible due to stolen devices, inquire about alternative methods such as in-person verification or notarized documents.\n\n5. Additional Credit Reporting Agencies : XXXX XXXX XXXX : A consumer reporting agency that provides consumer reports and credit scores to various companies. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) : A subsidiary of Visa that collects information on credit card and bank card approvals and denials. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \n\nFor personalized assistance, consider consulting with a consumer rights attorney or reaching out directly to the CFPB.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-02T14:08:17.000Z","issue":"Unable to get your credit report or credit score","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48322","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12676946","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"LEXISNEXIS","date_received":"2025-03-26T22:25:54.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem getting your free annual credit report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["They will verify your identity by asking for your name, date of birth, address, and Social <em>Security</em> number. \nXXXX XXXX. Addressing Identity Theft : If your Social <em>Security</em> card and other identification documents have been stolen : Place Fraud Alerts and Credit Freezes : Contact all major CRAsXXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXXto place fraud alerts or credit freezes on your accounts. This action helps <em>prevent</em> new accounts from being opened in your name."],"sub_issue":["<em>Problem</em> getting your free annual credit report"]},"sort":[7.163636,"12676946"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12676948","_score":7.159664,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"In this report, I will break down the following key areas as requested : The role of the debt holders receipt from the United States Postal Service ( USPS ).\n\nThe duties and responsibilities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in this context. \n\nThe appropriate actions a debt holder should take when there is evidence supporting the claim. \n\nActions to protect the account holder. \n\nHow a debt can be removed from a credit report ( probable cause and regulatory provisions ). \n\nThe responsibilities of credit reporting agencies and the corrective actions that can be taken. \n\nThe provisions and actions from the CFPB, including corrections. \n\nPrimary and secondary credit reporting agency responsibilities. \n\n1. Receipt from the United States Postal Service ( USPS ) as Evidence The receipt from USPS or any other evidence from a government entity, such as the USPS, could be used as evidence in disputes related to debt payments, communications, or deliveries related to account holders. These receipts can serve as documentation proving that a debt holder fulfilled their responsibilities by sending payments or communications, which may serve as evidence to defend against a claim or provide documentation in the context of financial disputes.\n\n2. Duties and Responsibilities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has a critical role in enforcing consumer protection laws, including those related to debt collection and credit reporting. The CFPB ensures that : Debt collectors comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ).\n\nCredit reporting agencies follow guidelines for the accuracy of credit reports under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nThe Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 enables the CFPB to regulate entities that handle consumer credit and debt-related services to protect consumers from unfair practices. \n\nThe CFPB provides enforcement and oversight to ensure that debt holders, consumers, and reporting agencies comply with regulations that ensure transparency, fairness, and the proper removal or correction of inaccurate or outdated information on credit reports. \n\n3. Action for Debt Holders with Evidence A debt holder who has evidence of fulfilling their responsibilities ( such as payment receipts or evidence of communication from USPS ) can take the following actions : Dispute the debt : Submit a formal dispute to the creditor, debt collector, or credit reporting agency ( CRA ) under FCRA Section 611. The CRA must then investigate within 30 days.\n\nProvide documentation : Provide evidence ( USPS receipt, proof of payment, etc. ) supporting the debt holder 's claim to the creditor, or the CRA during the dispute process.\n\nSubmit complaints : If the dispute is unresolved, a complaint can be submitted to the CFPB. The Bureau will intervene and help mediate between the consumer and the creditor or debt collector.\n\n4. Protection for Account Holders Consumers have specific protections under FCRA and FDCPA, which prevent unfair or inaccurate reporting and collection practices. The following are the protections available to account holders : Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : Prevents debt collectors from engaging in abusive, unfair, or deceptive practices, including harassment and misrepresentation. \n\nFair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : Provides the right to dispute inaccurate information on credit reports. The law mandates that creditors or debt collectors must correct or delete erroneous data from credit reports.\n\nActions to protect the account holder : Dispute inaccurate debt information through the credit reporting agencies, or directly with the creditor or debt collector.\n\nFile a formal complaint with the CFPB if the issue remains unresolved.\n\n5. Probable Cause for Removal of Debt from Credit Reports A debt can be removed from an account holder 's credit report under the following conditions : Inaccuracy : Under FCRA Section 611, a consumer can dispute inaccuracies, and the CRA is obligated to investigate and correct any errors. If the debt holder provides evidence that the debt is incorrect, it should be removed. \n\nObsolescence : Under FCRA Section 605, negative information like missed payments, defaults, or charged-off debts must be removed after seven years, and bankruptcies after ten years.\n\nDebt Validation : Under FDCPA Section 809, a consumer can request verification of the debt. If the debt collector can not validate the debt, the account should be removed from the credit report.\n\nFraudulent Charges : If the debt was incurred due to identity theft or fraud, the consumer can request the removal of the debt from their credit report.\n\n6. Responsibilities of Credit Reporting Agencies Credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) are required to : Maintain accurate and up-to-date information : As outlined in FCRA Section 607, CRAs must ensure that the information they report is accurate and fair.\n\nInvestigate disputes : Under FCRA Section 611, CRAs must investigate any disputes related to the accuracy of credit report information within 30 days. If an item is found to be incorrect, the CRA must delete or correct it. \n\nProvide the consumer with information : Upon the resolution of a dispute, CRAs must notify the consumer of the result and provide them with a free copy of the updated credit report. \n\n7. Provisions and Actions from the CFPB The CFPB enforces consumer rights in this context by ensuring compliance with FCRA, FDCPA, and other relevant laws. If a consumer experiences problems with debt collection or inaccurate credit reporting, they can : File a complaint with the CFPB, which will then investigate the issue and take corrective action as needed.\n\nWork with debt collectors and credit reporting agencies to mediate disputes and ensure compliance with consumer protection laws.\n\nThe CFPB can enforce penalties or corrective actions, including fines or penalties against non-compliant entities.\n\n8. Corrective Actions for the Debt Holder To rectify the situation and ensure that the debt is removed from their credit report, the debt holder should : Request validation of the debt and provide any necessary proof that the debt is either settled, inaccurate, or fraudulent.\n\nDispute the debt directly with the credit reporting agency or debt collector, providing evidence of payment or other documentation. \n\nFile a complaint with the CFPB if the issue is not resolved after disputes with the creditor or CRA.\n\nSeek legal counsel if necessary, especially if the debt has resulted in significant negative impacts on their credit report or financial situation.\n\nRelevant Sections of Law ( Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Website ) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) : 15 U.S.C. 1692 Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) : 15 U.S.C. 1681 Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 : Public Law 111-203 You can access these regulations directly on the CFPB website or through the official U.S. government website for legal code.\n\nFor more in-depth information on each of these regulations, visit : CFPB Laws and Regulations : CFPB official site 1. Debt Collection and Verification Requirements : Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), debt collectors are mandated to provide specific information about a debt. Within five days of initial contact, they must send a written notice detailing : The amount of the debt. \n\nThe name of the creditor. \n\nA statement informing you of your right to dispute the debt within 30 days. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX Consumer Advice XXXX If you dispute the debt in writing within this 30-day period, the collector must cease collection efforts until they provide verification of the debt. This verification might include a copy of the original bill or a judgment. It's advisable to send your dispute letter via certified mail and retain copies for your records. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX Consumer Advice XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX. Responsibilities of Credit Reporting Agencies ( CRAs ) : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) outlines the duties of CRAs regarding consumer disputes : EPIC XXXX Consumer Finance.gov XXXX Investigation of Disputes : Upon receiving a dispute from a consumer, CRAs are required to conduct a reasonable investigation unless the dispute is deemed frivolous or irrelevant. If they find the information to be inaccurate, they must promptly notify each CRA to which they provided the inaccurate information and provide necessary corrections. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX. Updating Personal Information with CRAs : If your phone has been stolen and you can not receive verification codes to update your information online, consider the following steps : XXXX : To update personal information, you may need to contact XXXX directly by phone or mail, as online updates might not be feasible without access to your registered phone number. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Report XXXX XXXX Credit Report XXXX XXXX : You can change your freeze settings over the phone by calling XXXX. They will verify your identity by asking for your name, date of birth, address, and Social Security number. \nXXXX XXXX. Addressing Identity Theft : If your Social Security card and other identification documents have been stolen : Place Fraud Alerts and Credit Freezes : Contact all XXXX  CRAsEquifax, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX place fraud alerts or credit freezes on your accounts. This action helps prevent new accounts from being opened in your name. \n\nMonitor Your Credit Reports : Regularly review your credit reports for any unauthorized activity. \n\nReport to Authorities : File a report with your local police department and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) via IdentityTheft.gov. \n\n5. Challenges with Verification Codes and Customer Service : If you're unable to access customer service representatives directly and automated systems require verification codes sent to a stolen phone : Written Communication : Consider sending a detailed letter explaining your situation, including copies of identification documents, to the CRAs via certified mail.\n\nIn-Person Verification : Some CRAs may offer in-person services or notarized verification processes. Check their official websites or contact them for specific procedures.\n\n6. Additional Considerations : Documentation : When sending sensitive documents like your Social Security card or birth certificate, ensure you're using secure methods and only provide copies unless originals are specifically required. \n\nTimeliness : Be aware of any deadlines for disputing debts or reporting identity theft to ensure your rights are protected. \n\nFor personalized assistance, consider consulting with a consumer rights attorney or reaching out to the CFPB directly through their official channels. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Mi XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DC XXXX Subject : Request for Information on Consumer Rights and Requirements for Credit Reporting and Identity Verification Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I am writing to formally request information regarding the rules, regulations, laws, and requirements that govern primary and secondary debt holders under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ). Specifically, I seek clarification on the formal process required when submitting a request for credit reports, particularly when supporting documents such as a Social Security card, birth certificate, identification issued by health and human services, and other forms of personal verification are included. \n\nAdditionally, I request information on : Debt Holder Responsibilities : The obligations of both primary and secondary debt holders in verifying and processing consumer requests for credit information.\n\nCredit Reporting Agency ( CRA ) Obligations : The responsibilities of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, Advanced Resolution, and XXXX in responding to requests from individuals when proper identification has been provided, including photographic documentation of Social Security cards and identification. \n\n30-Day Response Requirement : Whether any legal obligations exist for CRAs to respond within 30 days to such formal credit report requests and any recourse available if they fail to do so. \n\nIdentity Theft and Account Recovery : The policies and procedures governing the update of consumer information when a registered phone number associated with an account has been stolen. This includes guidance for cases where customer service representatives are inaccessible and login recovery options require a verification code sent to the original phone number on file, preventing account updates. \n\nAlternative Methods of Identity Verification : Accepted forms of identity verification when phone-based verification is not an option, particularly in cases where a consumers personal data and phone number have been compromised. \n\nI kindly request a comprehensive response outlining the legal framework, consumer rights, and responsibilities of the aforementioned entities in these matters. Please provide any official regulations, procedural guidelines, or additional steps that I may take to ensure compliance with the law while securing my financial information.\n\nI have enclosed copies of the necessary identifying documents for verification purposes and have included a pre-addressed return envelope for your response. If further documentation or clarification is required, please inform me at your earliest convenience. \n\nThank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your response. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) enforces several laws that outline the responsibilities of debt collectors and credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) when handling consumer information and requests. Here 's an overview : 1. Debt Collector Obligations : Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), debt collectors must : Provide Validation Information : Within five days of initial contact, they must send a written notice detailing the amount of the debt, the name of the creditor, and a statement informing the consumer of their right to dispute the debt within 30 days. \nFederal Trade Commission Cease Collection Upon Dispute : If a consumer disputes the debt in writing within the 30-day period, the collector must halt collection efforts until they provide verification of the debt.\n\n2. Credit Reporting Agencies ' Responsibilities : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) mandates that CRAs : Investigate Disputes Promptly : Upon receiving a dispute, CRAs are required to investigate and correct any inaccuracies found in the consumer 's file, typically within 30 days.\n\nConsumer Finance.gov Maintain Accurate Information : CRAs must adopt reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information they report.\n\nFFIEC 3. Updating Personal Information : If your phone is stolen and you're unable to receive verification codes for updating your information : XXXX : To update personal information, you may need to contact XXXX directly by phone or mail, as online updates might not be feasible without access to your registered phone number. \n\nXXXX : You can place a fraud alert online or by phone, which can assist in updating your contact information. \nXXXX XXXX : To request a credit report or update information, visit their website for instructions. \nXXXX XXXX. Identity Theft Considerations : In cases of identity theft involving stolen Social Security cards and other identification : Immediate Actions : Report the theft to the authorities and place fraud alerts or credit freezes with all major CRAs to prevent new accounts from being opened in your name. \nExperian Credit Report Documentation : When communicating with CRAs, provide copies of identifying documents and a detailed explanation of your situation. \n\nAlternative Verification Methods : If standard verification methods are inaccessible due to stolen devices, inquire about alternative methods such as in-person verification or notarized documents. \n\nXXXX. Additional Credit Reporting Agencies : XXXX XXXX XXXX : A consumer reporting agency that provides consumer reports and credit scores to various companies. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Advanced Resolution Services ( ARS ) : A subsidiary of XXXX  that collects information on credit card and bank card approvals and denials. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \n\nFor personalized assistance, consider consulting with a consumer rights attorney or reaching out directly to the CFPB.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-26T22:26:22.000Z","issue":"Unable to get your credit report or credit score","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"48322","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12676948","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Advanced Resolution Services Inc.","date_received":"2025-03-26T22:25:54.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem getting your free annual credit report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["They will verify your identity by asking for your name, date of birth, address, and Social <em>Security</em> number. \nXXXX XXXX. Addressing Identity Theft : If your Social <em>Security</em> card and other identification documents have been stolen : Place Fraud Alerts and Credit Freezes : Contact all XXXX  CRAsEquifax, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX place fraud alerts or credit freezes on your accounts. This action helps <em>prevent</em> new accounts from being opened in your name."],"sub_issue":["<em>Problem</em> getting your free annual credit report"]},"sort":[7.159664,"12676948"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9750331","_score":6.615838,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/year>2024. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX  XXXX This is to complain against Coinbase URGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of Coinbase to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with Coinbase. \nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Coinbase respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam. \nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Coinbase to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. \nDuring the complaints process with Coinbase, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \nGeneral Obligation : Commencing on or around XXXX XXXX 2024, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation orchestrated by a clone of XXXX XXXX  ( the XXXX  or the XXXX ), with the design, development, manufacturing, promoting, marketing, distributing, labelling, and/or sale of illegal and outright fraudulent investment services, all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding clients through a predetermined cycle of client losses to gains in the equivalent of XXXX USD which was transferred from my Coinbase XXXX. \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Coinbase did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Coinbases custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Coinbase promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Coinbase was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Coinbase owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Coinbase did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Coinbases conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Coinbase has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\n\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Coinbase must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Coinbase did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. \nCoinbases Position : Please find all relevant evidence attached below. \nI have been a client of Coinbase for over a decade and it can be easily deduced that transactions to XXXX are outside of the usual pattern of my transactions. Coinbase should have warned me, educated me about the risky transactions and possible scams or blocked the suspicious transaction. I never received a call from Coinbase, nor did anyone ever ask me if I am sure to whom I am sending the funds or outlined the reasons for reconsidering sending the funds. \nCoinbase conspicuously touts their security as a reason to use their service. Specifically, Coinbase writes on their website : We work hard to protect you from fraud. That's why we : Apply best-in-class security technologies expertise to protect you XXXX, all year round. \nSecure every method of banking we offer including online, mobile, ATM and telephone banking. \nOffer free security software from our trusted tech partners to download on to your devices. \nFrequently train our employees on the latest practices in cyber and physical security. \nGive you the security tips and resources you need to protect yourself from potential threats. \nRefuting XXXX arguments from a purely logical perspective : XXXX position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint. \nIn XXXX view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible. \nImagine a view according to which the XXXX and only thing that can make Coinbase morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Coinbase encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Coinbase. \nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Coinbase carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. \nIt is perfectly obvious that Coinbase, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. \nIt is Coinbase here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Coinbase adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Coinbase that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with XXXX capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Coinbases indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. \nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Coinbase has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. \nCoinbase is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\n\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm. \nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : XXXX ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending ; XXXX transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \nB ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \nThis series of payments to XXXX, which I have never used before this, clearly shows that I am a victim of a known method of a fraud. \nCoinbase are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of XXXX knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well- justified. \nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability Coinbase adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. \nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Coinbase in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core. \nConclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only XXXX of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. \nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that XXXX business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. XXXX non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. \nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least XXXX of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. \nIt is extremely unfortunate that Coinbase pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these things despite evidence to the contrary. \nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. \nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-08T08:31:27.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"34655","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9750331","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Coinbase, Inc.","date_received":"2024-08-08T08:09:37.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["When determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Coinbase did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have <em>prevented</em> <em>them</em> from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Coinbases custodianship over my funds or by its control over <em>them</em>, they owed a fiduciary duty"]},"sort":[6.615838,"9750331"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10981005","_score":5.8441744,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DC XXXX\nThis is to complain against RIA XXXX: HIGH\nIMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nI wish to practice my right as a customer of RIA to use your organisation's service, seeking a formal,\nimpartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with RIA.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to RIA respecting my\ncomplaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a\ndeeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and\ncomprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these\nfraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct\nof RIA to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service\nto look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional\nrelationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with RIA, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides\ntheir conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to\nadapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a\nreal problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of\nCFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX (the Fraudsters or Company).\nMoney was transferred from my account in the total amount of XXXX XXXX.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following (i)\nwhether RIA did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material\nelements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my\nfinancial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of RIAs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them,\nthey owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether RIA\npromoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question\n(iv) whether RIA was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether RIA owed duties\nto myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether RIA did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether\nRIAs conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether RIA has within its power the ability to, and should,\ncompensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member\nadequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent\nand nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant\ncriteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and\nskill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not\nturn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In\nother words, RIA must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real\npossibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have\nknown that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a\nsense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective\nelement.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not\naverage care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is\nreasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of\nthe evidence suggests that RIA did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers\nin this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the\nstandard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the\npast.\nRIAs Position:\nPlease find attached all relevant evidence below.\nRIA conspicuously touts their security as a reason to use their service. Specifically, RIA writes on\ntheir website:\nWe work hard to protect you from fraud. That's why we:\n Apply best-in-class security technologies expertise to protect you 24/7, all year round.\n Secure every method of banking we offer including online, mobile, ATM and telephone\nbanking.\n Offer free security software from our trusted tech partners to download on to your devices.\n Frequently train our employees on the latest practices in cyber and physical security.\n Give you the security tips and resources you need to protect yourself from potential threats.\nRefuting RIAs arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nRIAs position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect\ninnocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are\ndoomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful\nchoice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves\neven though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn RIAs view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten laws,\npracticality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when\ntaking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense\nand are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make RIA morally obligated to do\nsomething is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if RIA encounter the suffering of\ntotally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree\nrequired by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as RIA.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by RIA carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to\nmy fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its\ndisposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to\ndetermine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to\nintervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that RIA, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key\nquestions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than\nits own interests.\nIt is RIA here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say,\nthat RIA adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive\nexperience compared to mine. It is RIA that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection\nto this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has\nnot been, commensurate with RIAs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To\nreemphasize, RIAs indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a\nblind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and\ncapitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all RIA has done in this regard is set up a\ndichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go\none-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions\ncan, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nRIA is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being\nperpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the\ncustomer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that\nmight occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers\nwho might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary\nactions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a\nservice that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it\nsets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general\npoint, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and\nmethodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised\nand unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to\nthe detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious\ntransactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following\nexamples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are\ntransactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the\neconomic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no\napparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the\ncustomer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the\nsuspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nRIA are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging\nexperience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to\navert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which\nrequiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and welljustified.\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the\nexistence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of\nconsumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled,\npositively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability  RIA adopts a rather\ninsouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to\nensue if no responsibility is adopted by RIA in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why\nthey cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful\nreflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to\ndisregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts,\nthereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is\nabundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall\nfraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their\nundisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital\narena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively\nnavigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in\nthis connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent\npractices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that RIAs business conduct was\ninsufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and\nresponsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too\ncrucial to be taken lightly. RIAs non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to\ncompletely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is\ninexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of\nthe patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a)\nfinancial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in\nquestion was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming.\nIt is extremely unfortunate that RIA pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite\nevidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and\ncompanywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\nThank you. XXXX XXXX XXXX\nXXXX  THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nTo: RIA\nXXXX XXXX, California , United States\nVia Email\n[Without Prejudice]\nAttn: Complaints/Fraud Dept.\nDear Sir or Madam,\nRe: Demand Letter  Fraud\nI hope this letter has correctly found itself within your complaints/fraud department as it is essential to me that\nyou become aware of the ordeal I have had to go through.\nCommencing on XXXX XXXX I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX (the Fraudsters or Company) with the design, development, manufacturing, promoting,\nmarketing, distributing, labeling, and/or sale of illegal and outright fraudulent investment services, all of\nwhich aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding clients through a predetermined cycle of the\nclient losses to gains.\nMoney was transferred from my account in the total amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\nOVERVIEW\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role those financial\ninstitutions play in the fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for enhanced\nsupervision and vigilance within your organization.\n Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the abovereferenced\ntransaction(s), this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Obviously, there is no consensus with respect to the degree and scope to which regulated and licensed\nfinancial institutions must intervene and block suspicious transactions, and indeed, in so doing,\nfinancial institutions may often cause payments to be slowed down unnecessarily or even some\nlegitimate payments may be rejected, however, please be noted that additional frictions such as slower\npayments (such as delaying payments or freezing funds to investigate) is beneficial to and welcomed\nby vulnerable customers and is widely considered to be a positive practice that is necessary in order to\nmaintain their financial safety, particularly for large-value and/or out of pattern.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an\nirresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for\nfinancial and emotional harm as well as medical problems relating to this victimization and insist that\nyou reimburse my account in full within 14 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and\nsensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as\npossible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards\nand rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good\nindustry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either\nupon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations\nconducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations\nset forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the\nallegations contained herein are known only to the Company and/or are exclusively within their control.\nThe Company cleverly orchestrated a prevalent scheme of deception to lead people to invest significant sums\nwhile knowing that those would-be investors would ultimately lose the money, they had entrusted to it. The\noverall purpose of the scheme, in other words, was to target and defraud people who are often inexperienced\nand naive, in pursuance of illicit wealth through various fraudulent representations.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the fraud\nthat was being perpetrated upon me by the Company. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as withholding\nfrom the weaker party in a financial transaction (e.g., an investor) information which is necessary to make an\ninformed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A\ncomplication here is that the weaker party, amateur/unseasoned investors in particular, might have trouble\nanalyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. Unfortunately, because financial\nproducts are often abstract and complex, there is no easy solution to this problem. Therefore, full autonomy of\ninvestors might not only require access to sufficient information, but also access to relevant technologies,\nknow-how, processing capabilities, and resources to analyze the information. A reasonable solution is that\nfinancial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the\nunderstanding of its customers.\nAccording to the Federal Trade Commissions interpretations of certain terms (like the words deceptive and\nunfair), the FTC has found that a deceptive act or practice encompasses a representation, omission or\npractice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumers\ndetriment.\nThe federal courts have defined a deceptive trade practice [i] as any act or practice that has the tendency or\ncapacity to deceive consumers and have defined an unfair trade practice as any act or practice that offends\npublic policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Company have a tendency or capacity to deceive\nconsumers, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Companys fraudulent scheme\nand are therefore, by their very nature, jointly immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and\nsubstantially injurious to consumers.\nAs a result of the Companys deceptive trade practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds for\ninvestment returns that were never delivered. I will certainly never receive any monetary value for the\ninvestments considering the way the Company had their scheme rigged, thus causing significant economic\ndamage to me. The false statements of material facts and omissions as described above; and the fraudulent\ntransaction(s) the Company perpetrated upon me; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices which\nwould have likely deceived any reasonable person under the circumstances.\nMERCHANTS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\nThe Company hired, managed, and trained personnel, and collaborated with others as accomplices to\ntheir crimes to induce fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. These include,\nbut are not limited to, the following allegations, all of which involve criminal, non-regulated, and\nmalicious activities:\n1. The Company directed and instructed others to work from shell companies that were operating\nfrom various unassociated locations across the globe.\n2. The Company opened bank accounts in multiple countries and used them through their\naccomplices and strawmen from around the world to conceal and disguise the identity of\nillegally obtained proceeds so that they appear to have originated from legitimate sources.\n3. The Company intentionally committed fraudulent misrepresentation, and falsified its agent names,\ncredentials, competencies, qualifications and location. The Companys name is merely a brand name,\nofficially owned by shell corporations located offshore. In reality, the entire operation is being\nconducted from elsewhere (supposed location is evidently fictitious), and on top of that the call center,\nmarketing, and decision making, are all being performed by completely anonymous and hidden\nentities. Concealing true identities and utilizing front companies as a vehicle for a wide spectrum\nof financial maneuvers is a notorious practice of criminal organizations.\n4. The Company has blatantly violated international laws, as it has been practicing without a\nlicense and funneling enormous sums of money, through countries and jurisdictions that require\nregistration to operate.\n5. The Company provided direct investment advice - not utilizing 3rd party recommendations (e.g.,\naccording to Bloomberg TV/Investing.com)\n6. The Company offered investment services/advice not related to real market/exchange data\n(manufacturing false charts etc.). The trading platform was purposely manipulated, in a way that\neach client would ineluctably and unknowingly lose money, as the trades were simply\nconcocted. Instead, the Companys staff and its accomplices simply pocketed the money, using\nit to purchase various luxurious, non-essential items.\n7. The Company prohibited my ability to withdraw my funds.\n8. The Company was guaranteeing returns/yields (unrealistic ones).\n9. The Company furnished me with bonuses - which are not allowed to be given.\n10. My money was not held in a segregated account.\n11. The Company did not advertise/disclose/was not transparent regarding the statistical data representing\nthe percentage of total client losses at the company.\n12. The Company did not mention the commission and overnight swaps.\n13. The Company did not read the risk disclosure prior to my deposit(s).\n14. The Company used high pressure tactics and outbursts, which took a severe toll on my health.\n15. Armed with my personal details, the Companys staff seduced me into transferring all of my\nsavings to them. They utilized their knowledge of my cultural context, which stressed square\nand honorable business dealings along with honesty, in order to maliciously take advantage of\nmy trusting nature.\nPlease take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses.\nAttached, please find supportive statements, screenshots, and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization has completely failed to adequately investigate the circumstances\nsurrounding the transaction(s) in question and willfully blinded itself to obvious red flags.\nMany suspicions should have arisen at your organization as an issue of great concern, with respect to the\nunusual activity taking place in my account. Despite the regulatory and statutory requirements your\norganization should abide by as a licensed and regulated financial institution  and instead of detecting\npatterns, drawing certain conclusions, and taking actions accordingly you at best, merely and insufficiently\nperformed some hasty and haphazard reviews of the transaction(s) or possibly asked only minimal generic\nquestions regarding the suspicious activities, and at worst, shut your eyes completely rather than being careful,\nmethodical, and vigilant. Had you bothered, you would probably have realized that the funds were associated\nwith fraud and financial crime, rather than some other legitimate revenue/activity.\nIn light of the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions,\nit has become glaringly obvious to me that no adequate information and/or documentation were sought\nby your organization, at best, and at worst no appropriate safeguards were implemented.\nIf a financial institution executes a customer order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given,\nshutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty, or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as\nan honest and reasonable individual would undergo, it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the\npayment was made in accordance with the terms of the mandate, and the financial institution should still be\nliable for negligence resulting in damages.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff members understand the legal requirements and where there\nare suspicions, these suspicions be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst being investigated.\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds should not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of\nvarious signs, you should have assumed that something suspicious was going on therefore should have\nsuspended transaction(s) until reasonable enquiries could be made to verify that the transaction(s)\nwas/were properly executed. In other words, I am a victim of your negligence for facilitating the\nmisappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard public financial interests. Any reasonable staff\nmember would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I was being defrauded.\n(XXXX XXXX XXXX (in liquidation) v XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [XXXX] XXXX XXXX) [ii]\nYou knew or should have known that the funds being transferred through your services did not rightfully\nbelong to the recipient fraudsters. Similarly, you knew or should have known that the funds being transferred\nthrough your services serve no legitimate or lawful purpose. You turned a blind eye to the crimes that you\nhave facilitated and thus provided an array of essential money transfer services, acting as a vehicle, with the\nawareness that it was enabling the fraudsters to commit crimes and enrich themselves with the funds of their\nvictims.\nYour services undoubtedly served as a crucial element in the fraudulent scheme detailed herein, and you were\neither unaware of your complicity in the fraud, or, more worryingly, completely aware and silent. Had you\nconducted an adequate account analysis, you would have discovered the nature of the recipient, and\nsubsequently, disclosed and reported the fraudsters activities to law enforcement authorities/agencies and\nregulators. Instead, to satisfy your financial interests, you conveniently closed your eyes, even though you\nundeniably had, at all material times, the necessary controls and resources to influence, whether directly or\nindirectly, those particular transactions.\nYou also had the duty to stop those crimes, yet you refused to do so because you were more interested in\nenriching yourself, even if it meant furthering those crimes and allowing them to cause massive financial\nlosses to plenty of victims  many of whom are probably your customers. Therefore, it is clear that you did\nnot have in place adequate security measures to properly safeguard my assets  hence, you have\nirreparably harmed me and, if not enjoined, will continue to irreparably harm other victims as well as\ntheir loved\nones and associates. You have irreparably harmed me and, if not enjoined, will continue to irreparably\nharm the general public, and our society deserves better.\nA financial institution which wrongly pays money away when it has no authority to do so will usually be\ntreated as if it had paid using its own funds, not those of its customer.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a financial institution might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact\nthat a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of, a client might generate/give rise to further\nstatutory cause of action and/or additional liabilities beholden by a financial institution to the relevant\nregulatory authority. Obligations/duties beholden by a financial institution to a regulator are distinct from\nthose beholden to the customer. Moreover, you may be held liable to more than one regulator.\nAs a regulated and licensed financial institution, you have strict statutory and regulatory obligations to\nmonitor transactions and report any suspicious activities to law enforcement authorities. The importance of\nimplementing robust internal systems to detect and report money laundering and other suspicious activities\nhas been continuously emphasized in the industry in addition to having the appropriate policies, procedures\nand internal controls in place to ensure ongoing compliance in respect to the aforementioned systems. You\nshould have analysed and distinguished thereafter between that which may be normal activity and that which\ncould suggest an illegal activity. This is a well-known standard industry practice which plays a substantial role\nin preventing criminals from liquidating and laundering funds.\nFRAUD\nActual fraud can be described, inter alia, as suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or\nbelief of the fact. Therefore, due to your actual knowledge that such scams are so prevalent, you are liable for\ndamages. Similarly, due to the fact that you knew or were grossly negligent in not kn","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-30T09:15:06.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"International money transfer","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10981005","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ria Envia, LLC","date_received":"2024-11-30T08:54:09.000Z","state":null,"company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Frequently train our employees on the latest practices in cyber and physical <em>security</em>.\n Give you the <em>security</em> tips and resources you need to protect yourself from potential threats."]},"sort":[5.8441744,"10981005"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3049947","_score":5.705902,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"US Bank home mortgage is holding my payments not applying them to my mortgage account to put me in foreclosure statute but have a USDA guaranteed gome mortgage and they cant foreclose on my at all. read this since XX/XX/XXXX they sent me 9 foreclosure letters starting got one XX/XX/XXXX saying I missed XX/XX/XXXX payment that is not due till XX/XX/XXXX, Then they sent me a letter saying sence my bank blocked them for stealing 2 payments without having auot withdraw on my home mortgage account they sent out a default letter instead. READ THIS US BANK!!!! \nDefault and Foreclosure Although the lender and USDA follow a complicated foreclosure process in their own dealings, from the borrower 's point of view a USDA loan foreclosure proceeds in much the same way as a foreclosure for other mortgage loans. Delinquency begins with your first missed payment. The situation is serious by the third missed payment, when the lender typically threatens foreclosure unless you bring your account current by a specified date. At this point, you're in default, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development notes that this warning may be your last chance to prevent foreclosure. If you're unable to work out an agreement with your lender, your home is repossessed, and the USDA sells it to cover the unpaid debt. If the sale price falls short of covering the USDA 's loss, the USDA turns the debt over to the Treasury Department for collection of the shortfall. The shortfall is called a deficiency. \n\nThe Personal Guarantee Most lenders and investors can't force a borrower to pay a deficiency unless a court grants a deficiency judgment. Not so with the USDA. The USDA protects its investment by requiring a personal guarantee from the borrower that the borrower will cover the USDA 's loss in the event the borrower defaults on the loan. The practical effect, notes California attorney XXXX XXXX, writing for \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, '' is that the borrower guarantees his own loan. You sign off on the personal guarantee when you close your loan. The form you sign promising repayment is just one of many the escrow officer explains to you as you're signing a stack of papers, so it's possible that you could get through the process without fully understanding the commitment you've made. \n\nSo stop holding my payments to force foreclosure you cant USDA sees what your doing after I sent copies of all letters you sent me to the USDA guarantee office and your in breach of contract. \nRead this from my legal adviser not attorney yet. \nLender liability, which first gained prominence in XX/XX/XXXX, has gained acceptance as a substantive body of law. Briefly, lender liability law says lenders must treat their borrowers fairly, and when they don't, they can be subject to borrower litigation under a variety of legal claims. The decade-long evolution of lender liability has resulted in most cases now involving breach of contract and/or fraud claims. \n\nBreach of Contract/Fraud For years, lenders were the ones who typically sued borrowers for breach of loan agreements. With the arrival of lender liability, borrowers became just as likely to sue lenders for those breaches. \n\nA loan agreement is like any other contract. If the agreement was fraudulently induced or there was an absence of mutual consent, the agreement can not be enforced. If the loan contract was breached, the lender can be sued if it was the breaching party. \n\nThe most common remedy pursued by borrowers when a breach of a loan agreement has occurred is the recovery of damages. This can include both the difference between the loan amount and the costs for obtaining a replacement loan, and any lost opportunity or lost profit damages. \n\nLenders often assert the \" parol evidence rule '' to prevent borrowers from recovering against them based on oral promises the lender may have made to the borrower. The rule prevents admission of evidence in court of certain oral agreements that would contradict a later signed agreement. The theory behind this rule is that written evidence is more accurate than human memory, and the rule would prevent fraudulent later-asserted claims. Unfortunately, this can open the door to lender misconduct ( i.e., a lender making an oral promise that the lender then refuses to fulfill ). Luckily for borrowers, there are several exceptions to this \" apparent '' open and shut rule. \n\nIn XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX convinced the plaintiffs, two couples who operated a cattle ranch, to do business with it by making a series of promises about funding. The XXXX loan officer assured the plaintiffs that XXXX understood the cattle industry and knew it was cyclical and that plaintiffs could take 10 to 20 years to pay off a capital loan. XXXX also induced the plaintiffs to purchase a second cattle ranch. \n\nWhen the time came to sign the loan papers, the plaintiffs noticed that the documents contained new provisions to which they had not agreed and that the document structured the real estate loan for only one year. The XXXX loan officer assured them that these provisions were mere formalities and they had nothing to worry about. Based on the officer 's assurances, the plaintiffs signed the documents. \n\nWhen XXXX failed to honor its oral promises and made unreasonable demands regarding the real estate loan, the plaintiffs sued. XXXX defended itself based on the parol evidence rule. The plaintiffs prevailed at trial and XXXX appealed. The appellate court applied the parol evidence rule and found that the oral agreements were not inconsistent with the written agreement and were the type of agreements that might have been made separately. The court found that it would have been highly unlikely for the plaintiffs to have agreed to repay the loan in a year as reflected in the loan documents ; if so, the plaintiffs would have purchased the ranch knowing with virtual certainty that they would lose it, as well as other assets, at the end of one year. A one-year loan would also mean that XXXX had made the loan knowing it would be required to foreclose on it in one year. As a result, there was nothing inconsistent with loan documents prepared on a yearly basis, with a separate oral agreement to renew over a long period. \n\nFiduciary Relationships A fiduciary relationship is one in which one person -- the fiduciary -- owes special duties to another person, and must look out for that other person 's interests with special care. Early lender liability cases attempted to establish that lenders had such fiduciary duties to their borrowers. However, in later cases, lenders were successful in limiting the ability of borrowers to contend that the lender-borrower relationship is fiduciary in nature. \n\nIn XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, the court attempted to define the elements of a fiduciary relationship between lender and borrower as follows : 1 ) the borrower must have faith, trust and confidence in the bank ; 2 ) the borrower must be in a position of inequality, dependence, weakness or lack of knowledge ; and 3 ) the bank must exercise dominion, control or influence over the borrower 's affairs. \n\nIf a lender-borrower relationship is kept at arm 's length ( the typical debtor-creditor scenario ), the relationship is not fiduciary. Lenders typically argue that all lender-borrower relationships fall under this category. Fortunately for borrowers, however, the courts have delineated exceptions where the situation is not arm 's length or where the bank is more than merely a lender.\n\nFor example, when a lender holds itself out as a financial advisor, the lender will be held to the same fiduciary standard as any financial advisor. \n\nIn XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, the fiduciary relationship was established because the bank failed to keep its banking and investment advice separate. XXXX approached his bank seeking a {$5000.00} loan for himself and his XXXX-year-old mother, XXXX XXXX. The bank employee he spoke with encouraged him to get a larger loan and to invest the money with Invest, an investment firm operating out of the bank branch. \n\nOn the advice of the bank employee, instead of the {$5000.00} he initially sought, XXXX borrowed {$100000.00}, secured by his mother 's home. He then opened a trading account with XXXX and invested approximately {$52000.00} of the loan proceeds. The account was eventually wiped out in the XX/XX/XXXX stock market crash, and XXXX XXXX later defaulted on her mortgage. The XXXX sued the bank and Invest for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. The Scotts settled their claims against the bank before trial, but the suit against the bank went ahead. \n\nAfter a six-day trial, the jury found in favor of the XXXX on a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court, on a subsequent motion, acknowledged the rule that a debtor-creditor relationship does not alone create a fiduciary relationship. However, the court found the jury verdict of a fiduciary relationship was supported by the manner in which the bank : 1 ) extended credit to the XXXX, 2 )  used promotional devices to persuade them to invest loan proceeds with an affiliated company with whom the bank shared profits, and 3 ) continued to advise the XXXX about their investments through employees that worked for both the bank and the investment company. \n\nBesides monetary awards of {$36000.00}, the bank established a life tenancy for XXXX XXXX so she could stay in her home in spite of foreclosure. \n\nInappropriate Collateral Sales Lenders can also run into trouble by inappropriately selling collateral after a loan defaults. The Uniform Commercial Code requires that the method, manner,  time, place and terms of the sale be \" commercially reasonable. '' Courts have found sales to be commercially unreasonable where the lender relied on an appraisal that it knew or should have known was too low, or provided insufficient publicity for the sale to generate a sufficient number of bids. \n\nIn one case, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX v. XXXX, the lender refused to hold a public auction of the plaintiff 's repossessed equipment, and instead offered the equipment to a limited wholesale market made up of its own dealers at prices much lower than the equipment 's value. Not surprisingly, the court found the sale failed to meet the test of commercial reasonableness. \n\nWhen collateral has been wrongfully repossessed or disposed of, the lender may lose the right to collect a deficiency, forfeit its security interest or be liable for damages. The provisions on commercial reasonableness protect guarantors as well in many jurisdictions. \n\nAs the area of lender liability matures, expect additional changes and refinements of this body of law as lenders and borrowers ' rights activists lobby in state legislatures and Congress for their representative sides. \nI had an individual call me I cant menchen names yet, he was contacted by you talking about my account without my permission asking on information if they would by the house if I am foreclosed on thats proof you are trying to perusly trying to foreclose and you cant. I got you for violation of privacy and ID theft when you gave out my information I have the mans signed statement read this for the payments you have stolen .Mortgage fraud occurs when a potential homebuyer, seller, or lender lies or omits key information that leads to a mortgage loan approval or terms that the applicant wouldn't normally qualify to receive. \n\nMore formally, the FBI defines mortgage fraud as any \" misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission in relation to a mortgage loan which is then relied upon by a lender. '' Mortgage fraud is a serious offense and can lead to prosecution and jail time for convicted offenders. Under XXXX federal and state laws, mortgage fraud can result in up to 30 years in federal prison, and up to XXXX XXXX in fines. \n\nThe Growth of Mortgage Fraud Mortgage fraud is a growing problem. According to XXXX, mortgage fraud increased 16.9 % in the second quarter of XX/XX/XXXX vs. the prior year. The fastest-growing subset of mortgage fraud is occupancy fraud, which happens when mortgage applicants deliberately provide false mortgage application information to purchase a home. \n\nMortgage fraud is on the rise for multiple reasons : Rising Demand for Homeownership : U.S. homeownership rates hit 64.2 %, according the the U.S. Census data released in XX/XX/XXXX. Homeownership has been on the rise since XXXX, when it hit a 50-year low of 62.9 %. As home inventories shrink, demand for homes is on the rise. That can lead to more fraudulent mortgage applications being filed, as homebuyers try to get an edge in a competitive home-buying field. \nInterest Rates Are Rising : Part of the growing demand for new homes is time-related. With interest rates once again on the rise, homebuyers want to act now, and buy a home before rates rise even further. Conversely, home sellers want to cut a deal before high interest rates thin the pool of qualified buyers. \nHigher Home Values : Mortgage fraud is also fueled by stronger U.S. home values, which draws more buyers into the market to capitalize on them. In some cases, those buyers will turn to mortgage fraud to get the inside track on buying a potentially profitable property. \nOld-Fashioned Greed : In the event of seller-oriented mortgage fraud, like home appraisal fraud, shady home sellers will try to artificially inflate the price of their home, to get a bigger pay day when the property is sold. \n\nFraud for Profit This type of mortgage fraud, prioritized by the FBI, is usually committed by industry insiders who use their specialized knowledge or authority to commit or facilitate the fraud. Many times mortgage fraud for profit involves collusion by industry insiders, such as bank officers, appraisers, mortgage brokers, attorneys, loan originators, and other professionals. Fraud for profit focuses on misusing the mortgage lending process to get cash and equity from lenders or homeowners. \n\nFraud for Housing This type of fraud is typically when a borrower or potential homebuyer is motivated to acquire or maintain ownership of a house. The borrower may, for example, misrepresent income and asset information on a loan application or entice an appraiser to manipulate a property 's appraised value. \n\nThese fraud-for-housing crimes are further broken down into different types of mortgage fraud. \nThe gown load ( us bank Current Loan Information.html ( 78.5 KB ) Shows you changed my contract breaching contract by changing contract payment amount with no amendment to the contract Now you need to read the transfer order it said on closing or transfer of the note and contract no changes can be made at all. BREACH OF CONTRACT and in your own words from my sighn in on line showing the changes FRAUD. so try and change the online back to normale the breach already happened so if you change it back still in breach of contract and OCC said based on that information I can own the house out right and nothing you can do and USDA will drop the guarantee on the loan. \nAnd with holding and stealing my payments and sending my a fauls pay off notes is in writing you are trying to defraud me for trying to sell the house more then the loan is. LOL have fun with this one everything is in US Bank home mortgage own writing so eat that.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-10-19T15:41:40.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Other type of mortgage","zip_code":"765XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3049947","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2018-10-18T13:01:03.000Z","state":"TX","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":["Lenders often assert the \" parol evidence rule '' to <em>prevent</em> borrowers from recovering against <em>them</em> based on oral promises the lender may have made to the borrower. The rule <em>prevents</em> admission of evidence in court of certain oral agreements that would contradict a later signed agreement. The theory behind this rule is that written evidence is more accurate than human memory, and the rule would <em>prevent</em> fraudulent later-asserted claims."]},"sort":[5.705902,"3049947"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2566924","_score":5.548065,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"I am currently struggling to make full payments on my private loans. I have been for a while. I 've been in and out of school in the past few years, and I 've been laid off from a job. I 've spent a year couch surfing, because I did n't have a place to live. I am trying to work a payment system with my loan companies which allows me to make a reasonable payment to them each month in an effort to show in good faith that I am attempting to avoid reneging on my agreement.\nThe loan has very rigid assistance programs, but they are also very limited. I have exhausted all of the payment options. The circumstances in my life have been more than I expected. I borrowed before the economic collapse, and I never anticipated the burden that my loan would later become. I returned to school full time for a while, and as I had already exhausted the grace period after I left school the first time, there was not another grace period available to me. I asked for an income based reduced payment plan. They offered me a plan that would be interest payments only for six months with the option to renew at the end of six months. They did tell me that this would only be offered twice, and then I would have to make regular payments for six months before I would be eligible for other plans.\n<P/>\nI 've been working to remedy things and get my finances in order so that I can make regular payments. I got laid off from my job during that time. I relocated to Florida in an attempt to find a new job somewhere where the job market was better. I had to reapply for the assistance program. They warned me that it would be the last time.\n<P/>\nAs this plan was coming to an end, I was slightly behind on my XX/XX/XXXX 2017 payment. I chose to remedy this, as I was caught up in trying to figure out where I was going to live that month in XX/XX/XXXX. Basically, whose couch was I going to be sleeping on for the next few weeks until I am asked to move on again. I do realize by all rights that I had no more plans available to me at this point. However, I called expecting them to be reasonable and pulling out another trick they could have up their sleeve.\n<P/>\nI called them on XX/XX/XXXX to appeal for an additional reduced payment period. I talked to them for about two hours to resolve the problem. It ended in my being given a forbearance to make my account current, as well as what was described to me as an extension of the payment plan that would run from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. I agreed to automatic debits of my checking account in order to make the payments on time each month. That, and with my day to day living situation in disarray, I would n't have to actively remember to do it each month. I could just make sure that there was enough money set aside each month so that the payment would be there. I verbally agreed to payments of {$98.00} each month to be automatically debited on the XX/XX/XXXX of each month. They placed a forbearance, which I verbally agreed to as well, and payments were set to begin on XX/XX/XXXX. <P/> On XX/XX/XXXX, they sent a letter to me explaining how I was not eligible for the repayment plan. However, I had just moved again, and my mother thought that she would be helpful and wrote a forwarding address on the envelope. This was not forwarded to me by the post office, as they had requested return service on the envelope. <P/> On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email explaining that they had recently attempted to mail me some important information, but that they were notified by the postal service that the address is not current. The email told me to log in to my online account portal and update my address and review any important secured messages that I have. I did just that. I logged in, I updated my address, and I did n't have any unread messages or notifications. As this was the only action that was advised to me in the email, I never thought of it again. <P/> Payments of {$98.00} continued to come out of my account on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. Nothing happened to indicate that things were n't right, nor was there any real attempt to contact me. No voicemails were left on my phone. Emails would go to spam, or if they did come in, they were addressed from something innocuous, such as \" Service '' and the Subject Line would be something inconsequential to the effect of, \" Updated Information. '' None of these emails looked like anything that was important enough to open. Many of them I deleted without opening, because they looked like junk emails. The company 's name nor the subject of the email indicated who it was from or why I needed to take it as anything other than spam.\n<P/>\nIn early XX/XX/XXXX, I got a notice from XXXX XXXX that my credit score had dropped from the low XXXXs to the low XXXXs. I could n't figure it out why, as I thought I had been making my payments on time. I was happy that despite my hardships, I was working on getting my life put back together, and still making some kind of payment to them each month to show a gesture of good faith that I do intend to fulfill my responsibilities. These payments were not easy to come by, but they were what I was able to do.\n<P/>\nI called Discover on XX/XX/XXXX to find out why my account was showing a past due balance when I have had automatic payments going out. All I was met with were questions to the effect of : Why did n't you call us back after the email that said that we had important information for you? Why did n't you open and read your statements every month and see that your payments were n't covering the cost of your amount due? Why are you only working 40 hours per week when it is not enough to cover your balance? Why ca n't you get a better job? Why should it be our responsibility to contact you when you have n't bothered to check on the status of your payments at all?\n<P/>\nThe point of my setting up automatic payments is so that I can just have the security of knowing that the payments will be made when they are due to be made. I do n't want to think about money all the time. When I get paid each other week, I simply automatically deduct the amount of the bill coming up on whatever day it is scheduled to come out. That way, I can just know that I wo n't forget the payment. It will be taken care of automatically. I put my monthy statements in a box, and I review them if a problem arises. I do n't waste my time opening something every month when I have every reasonable expectation that I can presume that I wo n't read anything that I do n't already know. The conversation on XX/XX/XXXX ended with the agent telling me that she would look into what happened as to why I was offered something, and verbally agreed to by stating my name for the recording, that I was told later that I did n't qualify for. I asked that Discover could take accountability for making me believe I was set up for something I instead was not set up for. She said she would call me back within one week. She never did call me back. <P/> In the meantime, I was moving again. I found my own apartment, and I have taken on monthly rent payments. The rent is less than 1/3 of my income, so it is reasonably affordable for me. I never followed up on the call, because a ) she was going to call me back when they found out something, and b ) I got distracted by moving. I do n't feel as bad about part b, because she assured me that she would call me back personally, and I figured that the ball was in her court, and it might take a while, but I am willing to wait. <P/> My payment of {$98.00} again came out of my account on XX/XX/XXXX. <P/> I called again on XX/XX/XXXX, as I noticed that the payment was settled again. I asked what was the situation on my investigation. The agent who first took my call immediately started into the lines of how are we going to settle your past due amount today, etc. I cut them off and told them I was just waiting for a call back. At that point, I started being passed up the chain again and having to explain my case anew to everyone I talked to and all they would tell me is that the previous agent left notes, but they would n't necessarily tell me what were in the notes. After I was handed up a couple of times, with each new agent acting like this was the first they were hearing of my situation, I ended up getting disconnected by my phone dying, and I did n't have the patience to try again.\n<P/>\nMy payment of {$98.00} came out of my account on XX/XX/XXXX. <P/> On XX/XX/XXXX, I got a voicemail message from Discover stating that they only had 72 hours to work with me and that I needed to call them ASAP. Then they gave me the business hours. I was unavailable during business hours until my day off of work which would have been two days later.\n<P/>\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called back. I had explained everything all over again to the new agent who did a good job listening to me. However, after all was said and done, and I got to the part where I want to hold them to accountability for offering me something that they withdrew from, he said he would be happy to check on that, and he promised to call me back within the next 48 hours. He did convince me to make two payments in the amounts of {$24.00} and {$170.00} ( which I then had to recover from my mother so that I would be able to pay my rent in two days ) in order to prevent my account from being signed off to the insurance company so that they would be able to continue to work with me. They told me that if the insurance company signs the loan over, then the entire amount will be due, and they can seek legal means of collection from both my mother and me, but exactly how would be determined by the means that the insurance company decides is in their best interests to recover the debt, plus my mother and I would both receive an XXXX  report on our credit history. I never heard back from the guy who said he would follow up with me.\n<P/>\nXX/XX/XXXX, I was called by Discover. They told me that my loan was 149 days past due, and that there was a payment scheduled to come out tomorrow, on XX/XX/XXXX, but that it would not be enough to bring my account to current status. They basically said that if I do n't pay {$350.00} by XX/XX/XXXX, that the loan would be sent to the insurance company as a claim, and they will write it off on their end, etc. It was essentially the same conversation I had with them the week before. I asked if the guy I talked to the week before had any status on what he was looking into, and she seemed to have no idea what I was talking about. When I asked why they wo n't hold themselves accountable for their error that got me into this situation, she once again, like all of the other agents before her told me that she would follow up on it personally and get back to me about it. I did manage to get her personal extension, and I called her back before she left work to check on the status. The status was that she had n't heard from her supervisor yet, but that she would call me back tomorrow ( XX/XX/XXXX ). I am currently waiting on this to happen.\n<P/>\nNow that I am making very strong efforts to get back on my feet after being essentially unemployed and homeless for over a year, I need some assistance in making my payments. I need them to cut me an agreement. I simply do not make enough money to give them {$350.00} per month as they are asking. The situation I am in now is that I want to continue on a reduced payment plan. I can not afford those loan payments and try to purchase any of the things I need. It leaves me with very little money for groceries or for doing any kind of recreational activities, regardless of how inexpensive they may be.\n<P/>\nI am also a person with a XXXX. I suffer from XXXX XXXX and XXXX. While this does not drastically affect my daily life, as I am well managed, maintaining a good work and life balance while maintaining proper sleep hygiene is critical for my ability to function and manage day to day responsibilities, and my ability to handle exceptional circumstances. I must have some fun. I must eat a balanced diet. These things are key to managing XXXX XXXX such as mine.\n<P/>\nMy frustration is that if I had known any of this would have happened, I would have sought other options to maintain my payment schedule, and I would also have considered refinancing my loans so that I would be able to accept a more manageable monthly payment. However, I can not refinance my loan with them until the balance is brought completely current ( about {$2500.00} to do this ). This wo n't fix my credit score that tanked nearly 200 points during all of this. But, when they offered me this solution, I honestly went into my check back in 6 months mode, because I set it up to be fully automated.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-07-07T04:19:18.000Z","issue":"Struggling to repay your loan","sub_product":"Private student loan","zip_code":"337XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2566924","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2017-07-07T00:06:38.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Can't get other flexible options for repaying your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["However, I called expecting <em>them</em> to be reasonable and pulling out another trick they could have up their sleeve.\n<P/>\nI called <em>them</em> on XX/XX/XXXX to appeal for an additional reduced payment period. I talked to <em>them</em> for about two hours to resolve the <em>problem</em>. It ended in my being given a forbearance to make my account current, as well as what was described to me as an extension of the payment plan that would run from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX."]},"sort":[5.548065,"2566924"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8234693","_score":5.4108243,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"This is to complain against the Wells Fargo Bank ( WFB ).\n\nURGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of WFB to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute ( Ref : XXXX ) with WFB. \nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to WFB respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion.\n\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam. \nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of WFB to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\n\nDuring the complaints process with WFB, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \nGeneral Obligation : Between XXXX  and XX/XX/, I fell victim to XXXX  multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my WFB account to fraudulent investment firm ( s ). \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether WFB did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of WFBs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether WFB promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether WFB was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether WFB owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether WFB did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether WFBs conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether WFB has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\n\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, WFB must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\n\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\n\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that WFB did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\n\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\n\nWFBs Position : On XX/XX/2023, WFB wrote in a letter Recently, your fraud inquiry was forwarded to us for our review. We found that between XXXXand XX/XX/2023, you authorized multiple wire transfers totaling {>= $1,000,000} for the benefit of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX As the money will not be returned from the receiving bank, we are not able to reimburse you. At this time, we consider your inquiry closed.\n\nPlease note that a wire transfer is an immediate form of payment and can not be reversed after the funds have been deposited in the beneficiary 's account, even if you believe you are a victim of fraud. To learn more about protecting yourself from fraud, visit our Fraud Protection Center at wellsfargo.com/privacy-security/fraud/.\n\nRefuting WFBs arguments from a purely logical perspective : WFBs position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\n\nIn WFBs view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible.\n\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make WFB morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if WFB encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as WFB.\n\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by WFB carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\n\nIt is perfectly obvious that WFB, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests.\n\nIt is WFB here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that WFB adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is WFB that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with WFBs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, WFBs indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\n\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all WFB has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\n\nWFB is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\n\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harmand it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financialabuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems aredeveloped using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention offraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, therebyminimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud andfinancial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detectsuspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It thenlists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a.multiple cheque books ; b.sudden increased spending ; c.transfers to other accounts ; d.multiple password attempts ; e.logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f.sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions aretransactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\n\ng.a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h.a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i.financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\n\nB ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact withthe customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the natureof the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\n\nWFB are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified.\n\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability WFB adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\n\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by WFB in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core. \nConclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only XXXX of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. \nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that WFBs business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. WFBs non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself.\n\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that WFB pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\n\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\n\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\n\nThank you. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-27T15:35:22.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"91011","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8234693","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-01-27T15:11:05.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["To learn more about protecting yourself from fraud, visit our Fraud Protection Center at wellsfargo.com/privacy-<em>security</em>/fraud/."]},"sort":[5.4108243,"8234693"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4982875","_score":5.0253925,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Date : XX/XX/2021 To : 5/3rd Bank Office of the President XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Ohio XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Permissions granted I give ( CFPB ) full autonomy to forward a redacted copy ( minus all proper names ) of this redacted letter and redacted case on file to any all claimants that would be assessing damages, or prosecuting criminals against or at 5/3rd bank respectively. \n\nOn this note, if at any time within the next statutory 7-year period, a claimant or regulating body could find this testimony, relevant or useful to establish a pattern of intentionally unaddressed security issues, of any kind, at 5/3rd Bank, then I will be happy to testify on their behalf and without compensation. \n\nMy objective with this complaint It is objective to bring to the proper authorities within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a complete narrative of my experience with 5/3rd bank. I will try to capture the entire experience here in this comprehensive narrative so that any additional violations that I may fail to address can be revealed to investigators who could take corrective action. It is my feeling that there is a host of backend server and security related non-compliancy issues stemming from 5/3rd banks corporate oversight and management. \n\nWhere there is smoke.. \nI can only relay the events as they occurred and happened to me so as to help those people within the federal government who might recognize a dangerous pattern of non-compliance that could jeopardize account security and access of funds of all of 5/3rds trusting customers and not just myself. \nThis final narrative of events regarding compromised internal security measures that ultimately allowed actions to be conducted on my ATM debit card and my associated checking account that are inconsistent with financial account security protocols set f orth by federal regulations. There is evidence of cross-departmental involvement that stems from the sheer absence of automatic alerts and notifications that should have arrived to me in some way, from those various departments upon my cards deactivation, but did not.\n\nSection 47-4-402 of the Uniform Commercial Per section 47-4-402 of the Tennessee adoption of the federal Uniform Commercial Code, language has originally been intended for valid written physical paper checks that have been mistakenly or willfully dishonored by financial institutions that should have paid funds on those cashed checks but instead denied paying funds that were readily available. \n\nRelevant parts of this section that could easily bed subject to reinterpretation go as follows : 47-4-402 ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a payor bank wrongfully dishonors an item if it dishonors an item that is properly payable, but a bank may dishonor an item that would create an overdraft unless it has agreed to pay the overdraft. \n\n( b ) A payor bank is liable to its customer for damages proximately caused by the wrongful dishonor of an item. Liability is limited to actual damages proved and may include damages for an arrest or prosecution of the customer or other consequential damages. Whether any consequential damages are proximately caused by the wrongful dishonor is a question of fact to be determined in each case. \n\nRelevant case law XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX My experience with 5/3rd bank ( chronologically ) : Supporting arguments for grounds for federally required independent Information Technology Compliance Audit at 5/3rd bank . \n\ni. Experienced chronic password username retrieval issues with the mobile application Apparently 5/3 had been having a chronic, ongoing, malfunctioning, backend server problem with its User Id retrieval and password reset process. I experienced this issue from the start of my account. \n\nWhen trying to retrieve my user Id, this malfunctioning backend system software would inform me that it had successfully found my user ID, after filling out a lengthy form, and that I just needed to log in with that user Id, that I dont have yet, to retrieve it. This ridiculous backend system error never was corrected. \n\nAfter 3 attempts to retrieve the User Id Wednesday night on my phone, it then either silently frozen the checking account, or locked the card and froze the account from any and all subsequent usability. Nevertheless, no notice was ever sent to me when it did this. In fact, I would find out the hard way, at midnight on the following Wednesday night ( XX/XX/2021 ) when I was stranded at a XXXX XXXX  rental lot while trying to load my locked 5/3rd bank ATM card into the XXXX and XXXX apps to get a ride home, but could not. \n\n\n\nii. Experienced serious backend meta data Zip Code issues 5/3rd bank also maybe has backend meta data inconsistencies associated with its account holders profile data and associated ATM cards. As I kept trying to get an XXXX and XXXX ride home from the XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX dealership, Wednesday night at XXXX, about 5 weeks ago, both XXXX and XXXX XXXX were unable to load my 5/3rd card due to inability to accept my zip code of XXXX that has been on file with my account since opening around XXXX. \n\n\n\niii. Experience lack of customer support in a situation that 5/3rd bank deliberately caused There was no reliable night or weekend phone support at all to call and resolve this. Could not reach any support the night that my card became locked. \n\n\n\n\nThe following 1, 2 and 3 events by themselves do not constitute malfeasance or even cause for inquiry, they simply run off customers. Coupled with next mentioned events though they are beginnings of an in-series blockchain of evidence that validates a burden of proof of corporate-wide, non-compliance with federal safety regulations pertaining financial security measures that all financial institutions must have in place, and continuously comply with.. \n\n[ Event 1 ] : Was never contacted before or after the initial card lock My card is locked sometime late Wednesday night or early Thursday morning with no notice given ( XX/XX/2021 ). 5/3rd also fails to communicate to the affected ( me in this case ) of this automated locking action and leaves me stranded and unable to access direly needed funds to get home. In my case, I was at a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX dealership at midnight with no way to pay for a XXXX or XXXX driver. I could not load either a frozen card or a card whose zip code has been miscoded on 5/3rd bank 's poorly maintained backend user account systems. \n\nSo by no fault of my own, at this point, I have a no-notice lock placed on my card due to either : A ) The atm card being rendered unusable because of internal backend server issues that 5/3rd bank has created with my zip code, or..\n\nB ) rendered unusable because 5/3rd bank has locked me out due to all the attempts to access my account and retrieve my User Id with 5/3rd bank 's broken user-id and pw retrieval system or..\n\nC ) a combination of Both A ) and B ) at the same time because of 5/3rds general big- bloated-bank culture of visibly observable lax-ness everywhere throughout the entire customer experience.\n\n[ Event 2 ] : Branch manager disconnects our phone call deliberately leaving my locked debit card in locke\nd status after previously unlocking my online account, retrieving the username, and discussing the issue of not being contacted prior to, during, or after the lock ( XX/XX/XXXX ) The following day ( Friday ), I called into the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Tennessee branch to have a discussion with branch manager XXXX XXXX about being locked out of my account online and about the ATM card that would not work at the XXXX dealership XXXX which I could only concur at that time were one and the same. We finally unlock the account and retrieved my username that the broken username retrieval process in the 5/3rd application could not do. Then after finally logging back in to see my funds, we then began to discuss the inconvenience that the locked ATM card had caused me. Branch manager XXXX, tells me that 3 illegal attempts that had caused the lock. He then tells me he doesn't know why I was not contacted when my card was locked and doesn't have a means for me to talk to any individuals anywhere at the bank to ascertain what specifically prompted the hold on the card, and most importantly why I was never notified when the hold was placed. \n\nRecapping branch manager XXXX XXXX then hangs up the phone abruptly. His disconnection happens after we have : A ) just unlocked my online account and finally retrieved the user Id that the password retrieval process was unable to do. \nAnd. \n\nB ) Then had a 10-minute discussion about the locked ATM card, wherein I have pleaded with him tell me why I can not be at least transferred to someone to give me more insight as to what specifically prompted the lock on my card. \n\nAt this point, Im under the impression, that because we have finally that he has at least gone ahead and unlocked the ATM card as well, but he has deliberately not. \n\nI HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT MY CARD IS STILL IN A LOCKED STATUS. \n\nI DO HAVE EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THE CARD IS UNLOCKED BECAUSE a. WE RETRIEVED A USERNAME, b. UNLOCKED MY ONLINE ACCOUNT, c. JUST TALKED ABOUT DISCUSSING GETTING TO SOMEONE INTERNALLY at 5/3rd TO FIND OUT WHY I WAS NOT NOTIFIED ABOUT IT FOR 10 MINUTES.\n\nAnd it is at this point, after discussing this on the phone for 10 minutes, that he chooses to just disconnect the call. Branch manager XXXX XXXX never calls me back to inform me that I still need to unlock my card, nor does he fulfill his duties as Manager to unlock the card by : A ) either filling out ticket to initialize the process that would reach out to notify relevant parties to do so, if he can not unlock the card himself, Or..\n\nB ) just unlock the card himself from his workstation while the screen on his computer is still indicating my cards locked status. \n\nHe rather disconnects the call, goes about his marry way as a counterproductive, problem causer, who is supposed to be resolving issues like these, but deliberately does not. \n\n[ Event 3 ] : My card then is mysteriously deactivated on the Friday night of ( XX/XX/2021 ) after having discussed its locked status with XXXX branch manager XXXX XXXX earlier that day. \n\nThat night, I go out to celebrate my new job. \n\nI had just recovered from a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nAnd just returned a rented moving truck and moved into an apartment in XXXX with almost no energy while still recovering. \n\nHad then become stranded at a XXXX dealership when I returned the truck, and was unable to unlock the defective 5/3rd ATM card because by bank had no night time customer service to unlock the card. \n\nB ) Had even called into the branch the next day though and seemingly resolved the issue, and thought that I did.\n\nWas even disconnected during the phone call by that branch manager, but at least I was able to get back into my account and was now under the assumption that all the issues were resolved after discussing them with that branch manager for 10 minutes.\n\nThen went to a restaurant with some family. Carrying now my seemingly unlocked ATM 5/3rd card, as an only means of payment for the dining experience. Ran up a sizable tab. Then as we are getting finished with dinner, the waiter comes back to tell me that he tried to run my card, but that it has been unfortunately \" declined 3 times in a row ''. I have turn to my invited guests to pay for the entire dinner. \n\nNext morning, I am at the XXXX XXXX XXXX branch, and I'm there 30 minutes early! I'm the first one in the building when door opens! My focus is to find out why my card is still in locked status, just after I have had a lengthy discussion with the branch manager, Mr. branch manager XXXX XXXX a day before. I decide not to talk to branch manager XXXX XXXX first, instead I want to gather intel on this continuing situation, so I go to another associate with some hopes of maybe also straightening all this out but only after I got a full explanation. And I am expecting to have a conversation about compensation for my inconvenience. \n\nShe now tells me that my card is not just locked, but that somehow it has now been deactivated. \n\nIt takes 20 minutes and multiple demands for me to speak to the general manager, who I was beginning to suspect was most likely responsible for this latest surprise. When I am finally invited into his office to get my answers he admits to me ( and others standing there ), that he actually did disconnect the phone the day before when we spoke about the locked card and did so knowing full well that my ATM debit card was still in a locked status. \n\nHe even admits and acknowledges that our discussion had been at that time about my dissatisfaction with : A ) my ATM card becoming locked and its associated inconvenience, B ) not being notified beforehand, or at least shortly thereafter when my ATM card was locked, C ) and also, with not being able to discuss with anyone other than him at 5/3rd about A ) and B ) from above as to why my ATM card was locked. \n\nThese are all admitted acknowledgements that I have brought to his attention the day before about my ATM card being locked and that I am bringing to his attention that I need fixed right then as we were speaking on the phone. I was trying to tell this Branch manager on the phone that I want to talk to a badged 5/3rd employee about this matter and not some outsourced 3rd party in a foreign country who just reads off a general, unspecific copy/pasted script, but I did not get the chance before being disconnected. \n\nKeep in mind an ATM card deactivation is very different than the card being placed on locked status. \n* An ATM card lock happens all the time with backend security automation, and they are usually but not always accompanied with automatic texts and calls notifying the affected ATM card holder ( which did not happen ), but they are ... NOT ... ATM card deactivation. \n\n* An ATM card deactivation is entirely a different thing. Deactivations involve much separate set of protocols and s.o.p.s. and is never allowed to be automated by software in any banking institution per adopted federal and state guidelines. These guidelines pertain to required communication with the card holder prior too or just after a deactivation. \n\nNow we have the 2 isolated events 1 and 3 that should not normally happen in succession and certainly not as a sequentially chained automation process [ Event 1 ] [ Event 2 ] [ Event 3 ].\n\nThese three events do not yet suggest strongly that something is amiss with backend security processes but are the precursor for general cause for concern for upcoming successive evidence exhibits. \n\n[ Exhibit A ] : No alerts are ever dispatched to me my phone about my ATM debit cards deactivation. \nI was never notified either for the lock that was placed on my ATM the 2 days prior too and most importantly after the cards deactivation. In fact, it was not until ( XX/XX/2021 ) inside the XXXX XXXX XXXX, when I found out was not only locked, but now deactivated. \n\n[ Event 1 ] [ Event 2 ] [ Event 3 ] [ Exhibit A ] [ Exhibit A ] has its own autonomous processes. It generally is initialized with a call from a call center, or many times can often precede a manual deactivation [ Event 2 ] by the person who manually deactivates the card but make no mistake [ Exhibit A ] can never be deliberately skipped all together and an institution that skipped this process would be in violation of Federal guidelines if it was.\n\nI was never notified, by any means, when the card went to deactivated status, [ Event 2 ], on Friday night ( XX/XX/2021 ). Those federally required automatic notifications, require all banking institutions to immediately contact the effected account holder by 2 of 3 means. The automated notification process that is normally triggered immediately by a card deactivation did not occur. \n\nThe mere absence of these mandatory alerts and notifications suggests some kind manual override has taken place by someone who would have had those executive privileges to do so. These three events together suggest possibly someone internal to 5/3rd backend security, most likely someone manually disabled those automatic alerts that would have informed me of my cards deactivated status. The system that automatically dispatches those notifications, if left alone, would have been sent immediately and automatically to my phone upon my cards deactivation, but were not. \n\n[ Exhibit B ] : Evidence that the ATM card automatic re-issuance system was disabled. \nThis system should have dispatched a new card immediately and automatically as well upon my card deactivation but did not.\n\nNow we have isolated events : [ Event 1 ] [ Event 2 ] [ Exhibit A ] [ Exhibit B ] Neither did this notification process contact me to confirm a correct mailing address, nor was I was never mailed a new card automatically by the backend automatic ATM debit card reissuance process.\n\nSo, whoever deactivated my ATM card [ Event 2 ] also went a step farther with disabling notifications and [ Exhibit A ] then went a step farther with [ Exhibit B ] manually disabling 5/3rd banks internal processes to reissue a new card. What these actor ( s ) dont realize is that this potentially jeopardized my life, and not just my inability to pay for something like a restaurant meal.\n\nBanking institutions reserve the right to manually deactivate any clients ATM cards that they deem necessary, and as much, and as often as they deem necessaryas long as they meet one federally mandated requirement.\n\nWhat banking institutions do not reserve a right to do, is deactivate a persons ATM card, and then also disable the means of notifying that affected cardholder about it as well. When this happens, then there is evidence of critical security violations ( not just one ) have occurred either at once or in tandem and are just cause for further inquiries be made by regulating authorities to assess the danger that these infractions may have to users. In many cases an automatically dialed person to person phone call is made prior too or in real time to the affected card holder before deactivation ever occurs if not a direct phone call from the G.M. \n\nHow did my 5/3rd ATM card get deactivated with no disclosure? \n\n[ Exhibit C ] : XXXX XXXX branch manager XXXX XXXX manually issues a new card, the next day, on behalf of the disabled ATM card automatic re-issuance system mentioned above. \n[ Exhibit C ] even occurs, the next day when I go into the XXXX XXXX branch and branch manager XXXX XXXX says, let me go ahead and send a card out to you now. \n\nNow we have isolated events : [ Event 1 ] [ Event 2 ] [ Exhibit A ] [ Exhibit B ] [ Exhibit C ] This is significant because branch manager XXXX XXXX is now manually doing what should have already been done automatically by an autonomous process but did not. \n\nAll these events and exhibits suggests at a very minimum that 5/3rd bank has such lax internal security measures that it could allow in some manner a clients card to become locked, then deactivated and without notice. Is this repeatable on a massive scale?\n\nSleepy unconcerned District Manager on the phone.\n\nWhen I brought all of this to a district managers attention a couple days later, who is over branch manager XXXX XXXX, he literally fell asleep on the phone, while I was talking to him. When he called me back generically apologizing for my overall bad experience ... he could not recall what I said in particular when I questioned him about the things I had been discussing when his phone went silent for 30 plus seconds.\n\n Multiple disconnects by XXXX. supervisors who would not transfer to the presidents office. \nAttempted to get the president office phone number to convey this whole experience for over 20 plus different calls amounting to 5 hours total of phone time and was disconnected by a supervisor each time. I had to wait to get to each one of those supervisors for over 25 minutes each time. Was finally able to hack my way in through a mortgage sales line phone number and talk to a XXXX salesperson, who was actually very helpful and even demonstrated concerned with my experience at 5/3rd.\n\nExperienced the worst of all customer service when I spoke to XXXX with my second call back into the 5/3rds Presidents office. \nThen after originally speaking to XXXX, who was also helpful, I spoke to another rep, XXXX, in what was supposed to be just a quick call back to the presidents office to just confirm a few questions about fees. XXXX appeared to be uninterested, callous, and deliberately unhelpful. I asked politely to be transferred back to XXXX, where I could pick up where I left off with XXXX and was told by XXXX that she will be taking over my case. Then XXXX with the same insincere, mono-tone told me that I would be also incurring additional fees to my 5/3rd account as well to the ones that I had already picked up from other severed auto-billing relationships due to the cards deactivation. \n\n\nAccrued fees as a result of the unnecessary deactivation Fees accrued at my apartment complex where I tried to pay a bill and assessed a {$6.00} fee and then, and a fee with the city of XXXX XXXX XXXXt where my account assessed {$35.00}. Comes to a current total of XXXX. There may be more fees. \n\n\n5/3rd Corporate Security Officer who calls me on the phone and tells me he is closing the account My account was closed by Corporate Security Officer who called me out of the blue and was not remotely concerned with hearing about any of the security concerns. He became interruptive on the call and then hung up the phone and closed the account. \n\n\n\nGood questions that the CPFB could pose to 5/3rd bank might be..\n\n1. How do locked cards pose less of a threat to the customer such that an additional security measure such as a deactivation need to be taken if it remains unaffected in locked status?\n\n2. Were the usual alert notifications that would have notified the affected card holder manually, ( or willfully ) disabled somehow in some subtle, or not so subtle, way by 5/3rd employees with executive privileges to do so.\n\n3. If a locked card was never supposed to go to deactivated status then how was it this one- time event?\n\nPut another way..\n\nIf 5/3rds legal team just copies and paste an explanation as a response to the CFPB ( or.. some future civil or criminal prosecution team that will be using this narrative as supplemental evidence of a pattern of negligence due to non-compliance ), then how is there not a potential pattern hazardous reoccurring repeatable issues at least addressed here?\n\n4. Have the concerns for account and card holder safety and notifications within the ATM card deactivation process brought forth in this complaint mostly fallen on deaf corporate ears? Or can they show proof of demonstrate measures taken to prevent no-notification deactivations from ever occurring to its customers again. \n\n\n\n\nSincerely,","date_sent_to_company":"2022-01-06T12:34:13.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"37086","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4982875","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2021-12-07T13:35:24.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Or can they show proof of demonstrate measures taken to <em>prevent</em> no-notification deactivations from ever occurring to its customers again. \n\n\n\n\nSincerely,"]},"sort":[5.0253925,"4982875"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2931328","_score":4.9610033,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"This is the only specialty of Ocwen. This is the only duplicate their lair rep mentions about. The send criminals to XXXX on your property stole your private property using forge documents, lying to clients, deceiving clients and if they see that this I not working they used death threats tactics in order to intimidate people. This criminal organization must close soon permanently. I get death treats from XXXX 18 to 28 per days. Since I am not scare of this criminal behavior as I discover some IP addresses of those criminals I will go to XXXX to file criminal charges and close the doors of those hate-Americans criminals forever. This is the only expertise this pirate mortgage company has. \nServiced loans using error-riddled information : Ocwen uses a proprietary system called XXXX to process and apply borrower payments, communicate payment information to borrowers, and maintain loan balance information. Ocwen allegedly loaded inaccurate and incomplete information into its XXXX  system. And even when data was accurate, XXXX  generated errors because of system failures and deficient programming. To manage this risk, Ocwen tried manual workarounds, but they often failed to correct inaccuracies and produced still more errors. Ocwen then used this faulty information to service borrowers loans. In XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwens head of servicing described its system as ridiculous and a train wreck. \nIllegally foreclosed on homeowners : Ocwen has long touted its ability to service and modify loans for troubled borrowers. But allegedly, Ocwen has failed to deliver required foreclosure protections. As a result, the Bureau alleges that Ocwen has wrongfully initiated foreclosure proceedings on at least 1,000 people, and has wrongfully held foreclosure sales. Among other illegal practices, Ocwen has initiated the foreclosure process before completing a review of borrowers loss mitigation applications. In other instances, Ocwen has asked borrowers to submit additional information within 30 days, but foreclosed on the borrowers before the deadline. Ocwen has also foreclosed on borrowers who were fulfilling their obligations under a loss mitigation agreement. \nFailed to credit borrowers payments : Ocwen has allegedly failed to appropriately credit payments made by numerous borrowers. Ocwen has also failed to send borrowers accurate periodic statements detailing the amount due, how payments were applied, total payments received, and other information. Ocwen has also failed to correct billing and payment errors. \nBotched escrow accounts : Ocwen manages escrow accounts for over 75 percent of the loans it services. Ocwen has allegedly botched basic tasks in managing these borrower accounts. Because of system breakdowns and an over-reliance on manually entering information, Ocwen has allegedly failed to conduct escrow analyses and sent some borrowers escrow statements late or not at all. Ocwen also allegedly failed to properly account for and apply payments by borrowers to address escrow shortages, such as changes in the account when property taxes go up. One result of this failure has been that some borrowers have paid inaccurate amounts. \nMishandled hazard insurance : If a servicer administers an escrow account for a borrower, a servicer must make timely insurance and/or tax payments on behalf of the borrower. Ocwen, however, has allegedly failed to make timely insurance payments to pay for borrowers home insurance premiums. Ocwens failures led to the lapse of homeowners insurance coverage for more than 10,000 borrowers. Some borrowers were pushed into force-placed insurance. \nBungled borrowers private mortgage insurance : Ocwen allegedly failed to cancel borrowers private mortgage insurance, or PMI, in a timely way, causing consumers to overpay. Generally, borrowers must purchase PMI when they obtain a mortgage with a down payment of less than 20 percent, or when they refinance their mortgage with less than 20 percent equity in their property. Servicers must end a borrowers requirement to pay PMI when the principal balance of the mortgage reaches 78 percent of the propertys original value. Since XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwen has failed to end borrowers PMI on time after learning information in its XXXX system was unreliable or missing altogether. Ocwen ultimately overcharged borrowers about {$1.00} XXXX for PMI premiums, and refunded this money only after the fact. \nDeceptively signed up and charged borrowers for add-on products : When servicing borrowers mortgage loans, Ocwen allegedly enrolled some consumers in add-on products through deceptive solicitations and without their consent. Ocwen then billed and collected payments from these consumers. \nFailed to assist heirs seeking foreclosure alternatives : Ocwen allegedly mishandled accounts for successors-in-interest, or heirs, to a deceased borrower. These consumers included widows, children, and other relatives. As a result, Ocwen failed to properly recognize individuals as heirs, and thereby denied assistance to help avoid foreclosure. In some instances, Ocwen foreclosed on individuals who may have been eligible to save these homes through a loan modification or other loss mitigation option. \nFailed to adequately investigate and respond to borrower complaints : If an error is made in the servicing of a mortgage loan, a servicer must generally either correct the error identified by the borrower, called a notice of error, or investigate the alleged error. Since XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwen has allegedly routinely failed to properly acknowledge and investigate complaints, or make necessary corrections. Ocwen changed its policy in XX/XX/XXXX to address the difficulty its call center had in recognizing and escalating complaints, but these changes fell short. Under its new policy, borrowers still have to complain at least five times in nine days before Ocwen automatically escalates their complaint to be resolved. Since XX/XX/XXXX, Ocwen has received more than 580,000 notices of error and complaints from more than 300,000 different borrowers. \nFailed to provide complete and accurate loan information to new servicers : Ocwen has allegedly failed to include complete and accurate borrower information when it sold its rights to service thousands of loans to new mortgage servicers. This has hampered the new servicers efforts to comply with laws and investor guidelines. \nOperations Targeted Financially Distressed Consumers in Danger of Losing Their Homes XXXX XXXX The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau today announced actions to halt two alleged mortgage loan modification scams it believes ripped-off thousands of struggling homeowners across the country. In total, these operations took in more than {$10.00} XXXX by charging consumers for services that falsely promised to prevent foreclosures or renegotiate troubled mortgages. \nWe are taking on schemes that prey on consumers who are struggling to pay their mortgages or facing foreclosure, said CFPB Director XXXX XXXX. We are especially concerned with those who misrepresent government programs or websites to divert distressed homeowners from needed assistance. \nAt the request of the CFPB, U.S. District Court Judges in the State of XXXX have ordered a halt to both operations, the XXXX Law Firm and the National Legal Help Center, and frozen their assets while the CFPB moves forward with the cases. The case involving the National Legal Help Center was initially referred to the CFPB by the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program ( SIGTARP ) and Treasurys Office of Financial Stability, which have coordinated closely with the Bureau throughout the investigation. \nIt is absolutely unacceptable for unscrupulous con artists to take advantage of our nations housing crisis by targeting homeowners looking for help from TARPs Home Affordable Modification Program, said XXXX XXXX, Special Inspector General for TARP ( SIGTARP ). We thank the CFPB for protecting homeowners. SIGTARP will continue to stop these scams and educate homeowners that mortgage modifications through HAMP are free. \nThe CFPB is targeting loan modification operations that attempt to disguise their false promises of relief for struggling homeowners with claims that they are performing legal work or are a law firm. The Bureau is also particularly concerned with schemes that attract victims with false claims that they are endorsed by or represent the government. These tactics are used by mortgage relief scams to attract victims, add credibility to their schemes, or exploit certain legal exemptions for the practice of law. \nThe CFPB complaints allege that the defendants in both cases violated the Dodd-Frank Act and Regulation O, formerly known as the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule. These laws prohibit unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices and protect distressed homeowners from mortgage relief scams. \nViolations of the law alleged in the CFPBs complaints in both cases include : Illegally charged large upfront fees : It is against the law for mortgage relief providers to charge fees before services are provided. However, the defendants in both cases collected fees early on, typically ranging between {$1000.00} and {$4500.00} from each distressed homeowner, for services that rarely if ever materialized. \nDeceptively claimed to be affiliated with government agencies and/or programs : Defendants in both cases used deceptive language and mailings with government logos, letterhead, and/or marks to mislead consumers into believing that their mortgage relief services were sponsored by or associated with government agencies or programs. \nMisrepresented that they would secure loan modifications for consumers : Defendants misled consumers that the defendants were experienced negotiators who would substantially reduce mortgage payments, and that defendants would identify legal violations by consumers banks or mortgage companies to use as leverage in loan modification negotiations. However, it appears that defendants failed to provide meaningful relief for consumers. \nInstructed consumers to stop paying their mortgages and stop contacting their lenders : Financially distressed consumers were told to avoid interactions with their lenders and to stop mortgage payments because the defendants would provide relief, potentially putting the consumers unknowingly at risk of losing their homes and/or ruining their credit scores. \nThe CFPB also alleges that, after pocketing thousands of dollars in illegal fees from one distressed homeowner after another, the defendants in both cases typically stopped returning consumers phone calls and emails. In the end, many consumers learned that the defendants had not contacted their lenders or obtained any meaningful relief for them. Ultimately, homeowners across the country lost thousands of dollars each and suffered significant economic injury, including losing their homes. \nNational Legal Help Center The more recent of the two actions involves XXXX   residents XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX and their operation, National Legal Help Center, which appears to target consumers in all 50 states with false promises of mortgage relief. According to the CFPB, National Legal Help Center falsely claimed that they would provide legal representation for consumers even though the individual defendants are not attorneys and consumers received no actual legal representation. \nDefendants falsely claimed that, for a fee, they could assist consumers in getting benefits from government-affiliated programs, including the recent nationwide mortgage servicing settlement between state attorneys general and the federal government, and the five largest mortgage servicers. Defendants also falsely claimed that they were associated with the Independent Foreclosure Review program overseen by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) and the Federal Reserve. In reality, the defendants were not affiliated with either of the programs or in a position to provide the promised benefits to consumers. In fact, on XX/XX/XXXX, the OCC issued an alert on its website about this scam. \nThis is the trophy activity of Ocwen In one case, a former in-home caregiver and her husband who were indicted in XXXX  for allegedly defrauding an elderly veteran with XXXX out of about {$180000.00}. More charges are expected, and police say the couple took about {$500000.00} from the XXXX-year-old man. \nIn another case, a handyman convinced an elderly woman to give him power of attorney. He took out a reverse mortgage on the home which the woman had owned since the XX/XX/XXXX, and she never saw any of the money. She almost lost her home due to the scam. \nWe also heard a troubling story about how the CEO and CFO of a XXXX investment firm were charged with 66 felony counts of elder abuse, securities fraud, and conspiracy for bilking older investors of more than {$2.00} XXXX over an eight-year period. \nThe Government Accountability Office report on combatting elder financial abuse identified cases that are particularly thorny for social service, criminal justice, and consumer protection agencies. These cases involve exploitation by in-home caregivers, agents with power of attorney, and financial service providersexactly the kinds of cases mentioned above. These cases also demonstrate why family members or others who have close contact with older adults can play an important role in spotting and preventing elder financial abuse and exploitation. \nAt the inaugural meeting of the Elder Justice Coordinating Council last fall, we heard concerns that echo what the XXXX reported. We shared those concerns with Congress shortly after the report came out. We also detailed the work our Office for Older Americans is doing to combat some of these problems. We are : Developing guides for family members and others with legal authority to handle money for older relatives or friends, but who may not have formal training. The guides will help people understand proper record keeping, good frameworks for investing, and other basics of managing a vulnerable adults money. They also will help people recognize and respond to financial exploitation. \nProducing a guide for people who operate group living centers dedicated to serving older adults, such as XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX. We are also establishing partnerships with organizations to help distribute this information. \nPartnering with the FDIC to create XXXX XXXX for Older Adults, a community education and training program for older adults and for caregivers. \nCoordinating with stakeholders in several states to create and sustain multi-disciplinary older American protection networks. We are also developing strategies to communicate that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act generally does not prohibit companies from reporting suspected elder financial exploitation. For many of them, this is often a point of confusion.\n\nThe Bureau also alleges that Ocwen has failed to remediate borrowers for the harm it has caused, including the problems it has created for struggling borrowers who were in default on their loans or who had filed for bankruptcy. For these groups of borrowers, Ocwens servicing errors have been particularly costly. \nThrough its complaint, filed in federal district court for the XXXX District of XXXX, the CFPB seeks a court order requiring Ocwen to follow mortgage servicing law, provide relief for consumers, and pay penalties. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. \nThe lawsuit is available at : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX The Bureau also alleges that Ocwen has failed to remediate borrowers for the harm it has caused, including the problems it has created for struggling borrowers who were in default on their loans or who had filed for bankruptcy. For these groups of borrowers, Ocwens servicing errors have been particularly costly. \nThrough its complaint, filed in federal district court for the XXXX District of XXXX, the CFPB seeks a court order requiring Ocwen to follow mortgage servicing law, provide relief for consumers, and pay penalties. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. \n\nOperations Targeted Financially Distressed Consumers in Danger of Losing Their Homes XXXX XXXX. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau today announced actions to halt two alleged mortgage loan modification scams it believes ripped-off thousands of struggling homeowners across the country. In total, these operations took in more than {$10.00} XXXX by charging consumers for services that falsely promised to prevent foreclosures or renegotiate troubled mortgages. \nWe are going to have 150,000 demonstrating in XXXX against those criminal activity of Ocwen After it the doors of this filthy pirate mortgage company will be close permanently This is the prce for this {$100000.00} property stolen temporary from me. In XX/XX/XXXXand XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX in order to intimidate me they put XXXX criminals to call me 15-20 a day, making even death threats or claiming they are from US Gov. Grants Dept. or from IRS or from Justice Dept. or even FBI or Police Dept. I suspect that a low-level clerk XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX  is directly responsible for organizing this XX/XX/XXXX looting perform by XXXX since Ocwen and XXXX was the only Institution informed about my trip to XXXX and this action was in ravage to my opposition to their fraudulent and criminal activity. Low level Ocwen clerk XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX  and the low lever worker XXXX from XXXX knew I will be in XXXX ( documenting Ocwens and XXXX forge documents ) informed XXXX  that used XXXX, that used looter XXXX XXXX to loot, vandalize destroy my property in XX/XX/XXXX. Again in a top secret close door knowing that I will not be home to protect from such a criminal attack","date_sent_to_company":"2018-06-09T15:54:08.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"11375","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2931328","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","date_received":"2018-06-09T15:44:09.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["For many of <em>them</em>, this is often a point of confusion.\n\nThe Bureau also alleges that Ocwen has failed to remediate borrowers for the harm it has caused, including the <em>problems</em> it has created for struggling borrowers who were in default on their loans or who had filed for bankruptcy. For these groups of borrowers, Ocwens servicing errors have been particularly costly."]},"sort":[4.9610033,"2931328"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9153153","_score":4.365888,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Compensation is sought in this complaint. Consumer reporting agencies are required to follow reasonable procedures to ensure credit reports are as accurate as possible under 15 USC 1681e ( b ). Consumer reporting agencies must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation if a consumer disputes the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in a credit report, 15 USC 1681i ( 1 ) ( A ). According to the attached credit report, there are several inaccuracies, including information from XXXX  that contradicts information from XXXX and XXXX. Under section XXXX, inaccurate information means that it is factually inaccurate, as determined by the court in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. As a result of my job requiring a security clearance, I have been injured, because the inaccurate, information thats been disputed on numerous occasions has not been properly investigated by XXXX and has destroyed my character, and likely would cause continuous damage to my career. For my credit report to be accurate, it must contain accurate information. XXXX is not granted the discretion to overlook legitimate disputes at its desire under any part of the law. Here, XXXX lied to the CFPB about investigating as shown by the attached credit report. Consumer reporting agencies, such as XXXX, are legally obligated by current law to follow reasonable procedures to ensure credit report accuracy. This includes conducting a reasonable investigation if a consumer disputes the accuracy or completeness of any information. Failing to fulfill these obligations can result in legal consequences, as inaccurate information can have significant consequences for individuals, such as the loss of job opportunities or unjust denial of credit. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( holding that liability for Willfully failing to comply with the FCRA extends not only to acts known to violate the FCRA, but also to the reckless disregard of a statutory duty. See Exhibit No. XXXX ( XXXX credit Report ) also see Exhibit XXXX ( XXXX XXXX to report even my name correctly ) XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX XXXX. Violation - Date XXXX is incorrect should be XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX. Violation High Credit shows XXXX. \nXXXX. Violation No last XXXX or XXXX last payment are being recorded. \nXXXX. Violation account shows late payment in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX shows no recording of a last payment, XXXX and XXXX show a late payment in XXXX, conflicting information between the XXXX major credit reporting agencies are indisputable evidence the information is report inaccurate, in direct violation of the FCRA. \nXXXX. Violation this account has been disputed XXXX time once being with the CFPB which is now with the FDIC for violation of the Military Lending Act XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX shows {$XXXX} over the credit limit being the High Credit, which make my complaint with the CFPB about XXXX XXXX true. XXXX XXXX told the CFPB they did not violate the XXXX but {$XXXX} over the credit limit in interest charges is XXXX % interest according to the MAPR ( Military Annual Percentage ) and violate the XXXX XXXX % MAPR cap. \nXXXX. Violation account type blank. This is because XXXX understands there is no late payments on this type open-end credit plan ( credit card ). XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) late payments are prohibited by law on this type of account. \nXXXX. Violation XXXX  never investigated ; therefore, it is impossible for them to know if XXXX XXXX mailed a notice 21 days before payments was due which is mandated by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ) I have never received any correspondence from XXXX XXXX, not only were they over charging in violation of the XXXX but they were also in violation of not distributing XXXX disclosures, as required by XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX. Violation XXXX shows this account 30 days late in XXXX. XXXX and XXXX show the account late in XXXX, XXXX has no data for last payment and couldnt possibly know whether the account was late or not. As XXXX XXXX and XXXX changes the due date XXXX follows and neither agency investigates. \nXXXX holds XXXX liable for willful noncompliance of not less than {$XXXX0} and not more than {$XXXX}. See XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( Holding that the FCRA made the dissemination of materially false information in consumer reports an injury in fact ) XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX These accounts were all procured by Identity Theft, and Fraud in the inducement. XXXX XXXX took my personal information and assigned for these accounts in my name. XXXX claimed they obtained a XXXX Attorney to sign on my behalf. This is false, I have never given them any such authority. XXXX has ignored the FTC Identity Theft XXXX XXXX does not have the legal authority to omit any allegations of Identity Theft. Nor do XXXX  have the authority to play lawyer for XXXX XXXX. The law direct XXXX  to block the accounts alleged to be procured by Identity Theft. See Exhibit No. XXXX ( contract illegally signed by an unknown attorney. I did not give XXXX a XXXX of Attorney to have no Attorney sign anything for me. Also see Exhibit No. XXXX FTC Identity Theft XXXX. The XXXX requires XXXX  to block this account within XXXX business days of receiving the FTC XXXX. Violation XXXX. XXXX continues claims of relying on the creditor word in a reinvestigation after the creditor is accused of being involved is not the correct approach to attacking the legal validity of consumer debt. XXXX XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX1,68 ( 1st Cir.2008 ) 15 USC. Section 1681c-2 directs the credit bureaus to block the information alleged to be identity theft, period. A predatory lender has no problem taking someone to court and suing for a legitimate debt owed to them, even if the consumer cant afford to pay. This matter is no difference, American law allows a company to sue if someone uses the law in bad faith, the law does not permit a credit reporting agency to play Judge and jury and disregard the law, because the factual evidence does not favor the creditor, and credit reporting agency. The accounts are identity theft, and XXXX  has violated their mandate by assisting the violators causing additional harm to me. I have no problem going to XXXX XXXX showing my evidence, that it's in fact Identity Theft! There is no reason to try and evade the judicial process and undermined the constitution. \nXXXX XXXX Bank XXXX Account # XXXX XXXX. Violation account type blank. This is because XXXX understands there is no late payments on an open-end credit plan for a credit card. 15 USC 1666 ( b ) late payments are prohibited by law on this type of account.\n\n10. Account showing Open XXXX closed the account in retaliation because I filed an action against them for violation of the Military Lending Act 10USC 987. Any violation of the MLA voids a promissory note or contract in its inception, the balance must be paid back but at a 0 % interest rate the FDCPA prohibits retaliation and holds the perpetrator liable for {$XXXX} per violation. Therefore, I will file another action against XXXX. The XXXX permits compensation of not less than {$XXXX} per Illegal transaction. \nXXXX Violation XXXX  show me 30 days late in XX/XX/XXXX but reports a payment of {$XXXX} was paid on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX information conflicts. \nXXXX. Violation XXXX never investigated ; therefore, it is impossible for them to know if XXXX mailed a notice 21 days before payments was due which is mandated by 15 USC 1666 ( b ) I have never received any correspondence from XXXX, not only were they over charging in violation of the XXXX but they were also in violation of not distributing XXXX disclosures, as required by 10 USC 987.\n\n13. Violation 15 USC section 1605 - Determination of the XXXX XXXX. Under 10 USC 987 ( Military Lending Act ), XXXX was required and paid to me a refund of {$XXXX}. Finance charge is the sum equal to the sum of all payments. There have been no adjustments to my credit report of the payment made by XXXX. XXXX violated federal law for years, so the account can not have been reporting correctly if XXXX was required by law to pay me {$XXXX} (. See exhibit No. XXXX ( XXXX refund check ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( holding credit reporting practices must utilize accurate, relevant, and current information in a confidential manner. Also see XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Holding any inaccurate information in a consumer report supports a FCRA claim ) XXXX, XXXX and XXXX all show conflicting information on this account, this is indisputable evidence the information is being reported duplicitous. Its impossible for me to have been late in XXXX XXXX is reporting a {$XXXX} on XX/XX/XXXX. I paid {$XXXX} in XXXX after the billing cycle therefore XXXX payment was satisfied, I wouldnt have been late for XXXX until XXXX XXXX XXXX payment was paid on the due date of XX/XX/XXXX, See exhibit No XXXX XXXX payment history also See Exhibit XXXX Bank XXXX showing XXXX Payment was made long before the due date. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX Violation Type of account is Blank. \nXXXX. Violation Open date show XXXX/XXXX/XXXX the correct open date is XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX changed this date to coincide with the next violation XXXX Violation, by using my personal information to extend the terms illegally, XXXX  assisted XXXX XXXX XXXX in committing Identity Fraud by erasing Terms and showing XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX illegally tacked on {$XXXX} to a paid account using my credit report as a tool. This forced me to pay XXXX additional payments and {$XXXX}. In accordance with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I am a covered member. It was a XXXX contract with a XXXX % interest rate with XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX erred in the contract because there were XXXX payments of {$XXXX, XXXX for prepaid finance charges and another for processing fees. According to the XXXX, the total sum must be calculated within the MAPR ; the addition of {$XXXX raised the XXXX to XXXX  %. See Exhibit No. XXXX The MAPR is capped at XXXX  % by the XXXX. Due to XXXX 's involvement in erasing the terms and not investigating the determination of the finance charge, per 15 USC 1605, I surrendered eight additional payments, seven  at XXXX and XXXX at XXXX, after XXXX XXXX XXXX posted this to my account to force me into default. When I paid the XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX placed a {$XXXX} charge on my account, and when I paid it, they placed another {$XXXX} to force a late payment. As a result of these illegal actions by XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, I was charged an additional {$XXXX}. XXXX XXXX XXXX reported these charges to the CFPB as additional charges and finance charges. According to XXXX XXXX XXXX, they are not subject to the XXXX federal law since they are not payday lenders. In addition to Discover, I have filed actions against XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX XXXX Bank, and XXXX XXXX. None of whom are payday loan companies. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the XXXX applies to all creditors. Due to this highly illegal action taken by XXXX and XXXX XXXX Financial, the XXXX has been increased from an already unlawful XXXX  % to XXXX  %, See exhibit No. XXXX ( XXXX ). I am entitled to a refund of all payments made, and not less than {$XXXX} per illegal transaction, for a total of approximately {$XXXX} under XXXX XXXX XXXX. See Exhibit No XXXX ( XXXX ) The increased MAPR of XXXX % not only amplifies the financial burden on the covered member, but it also exacerbates the predatory nature of the loan agreement. See Exhibit No. XXXX ( XXXX XXXX Financial Contract XXXX and XXXX XXXX Financials unlawful actions violated federal laws but have also caused significant harm to a federally covered member 's economic well-being. XXXX XXXX financial has a tirade of Actions against them for stealing and deceitful, including cold callous and indescribably cruel predatory lending scandals. A pending XXXX mandate by the CFPB, class action XXXX for violating the military lending act, see XXXX XXXX XXXX Main XXXX. XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX knows the law well enough to violate it, and egregiously challenge a consumers ability to file an action against them. Therefore, their continuous violations validate the continuous actions being filed against them. \nXXXX. Violation XXXX have evidence in their system this loan originated on XX/XX/XXXX they have in their system that the loan contract was for 60 months. XXXX  deleted the terms to assist XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX to extract the funds. \nXXXX, Last report, last active, and last payment all show XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. Violation Payment history shows an XXXX for XXXX. This Is indisputable evidence XXXX  was fully aware of what they were doing failing to investigate. \nXXXX. Violation this account was not only reported to the CFPB but also report to the FTC as Identity Theft XXXX ignored the FTC XXXX  which the FCRA requires XXXX to block the accounts within XXXX working days. Id Theft is defined as use of someone personal information for illegal financial gain. \nXXXX. Violation Upstart Reported as ID Theft, XXXX ignored the FTC XXXX XXXX No. XXXX This account was reported as Identity Theft. I received an email on XX/XX/XXXX from Upstart stating they would not handle my Identity Theft issue and a bank named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX made the loan to me. The number ( XXXX ) XXXX was used to contact this bank on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX. Using my SSN, I asked the XXXX to check twice, and she replied that they had no record of me having received a loan. After waiting an hour, I called back, and this time I got a bank representative, who told me that XXXX was XXXX of their brokers, but no loan had been issued to me by their bank. XXXX ignored the Identity Theft XXXX and did not investigate. The Identity Theft XXXXt is a crucial document in the investigation process as it serves as a formal declaration from the victim stating that their identity has been stolen. It helps to establish a clear record of the incident and provides important information for law enforcement and other entities involved in resolving the case. By disregarding the Identity Theft XXXX and failing to conduct a thorough investigation, XXXX  not only violated legal requirements but also undermined the victim 's efforts to rectify the situation and seek justice. \nXXXX Account # XXXX XXXX. Violation account shows 30 days late for XX/XX/XXXX all three credit bureaus have conflicting information on a late payment, indisputable evidence the information is inaccurate. XXXX directed me to contact the credit bureaus who were reporting the incorrect information ; therefore, I closed the account. \nXXXX. Violation Credit bureaus play a crucial role in safeguarding consumer credit information by collecting and maintaining credit data from various sources. Their responsibility is to accurately report this information to lenders and other authorized parties. However, when credit bureaus neglect to thoroughly investigate and verify the accuracy of a consumer 's credit report within the allotted time, it can result in serious damage to the individual 's reputation and financial well-being. \nXXXX. Violation Account Type is blank, this was a XXXX credit card issued by XXXX XXXX Bank, This is because XXXX understands there is no late payments on this type open-end credit plan. 15 USC 1666 ( b ) late payments are prohibited by law on this type of account. Therefore they deleted the account type. \n25. Violation Date last Activity Blank 26. Violation Date last Payment Blank 27. Violation XXXX  never investigated the XXXX credit card ; therefore, it is impossible for them to know if XXXX mailed a notice 21 days before payments was due which is mandated by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ), I have never received any correspondence from XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX. Violation Section 623 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( FCRA ) XXXX  and the creditors were informed by me of the alleged ID theft, XXXX ignored the FTC XXXXt XXXX. Violation Section XXXX ( b ) XXXX is required by law to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information. When XXXX fails to even conduct a preliminary investigation the law and my rights have been violated. \nXXXX. Violation Section 611 ( c ) of FCRA provides, whenever a statement of dispute is filed the consumer reporting agency shall, in any subsequent consumer report containing the information in question, clearly note that it is disputed by the consumer and provide that it is disputed by the consumer and provide either the consumer statement or a clear and accurate codification or summery thereof. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX has been disputing several time, numerous inaccuracies remain and no information in question assigned to the account. \nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has been disputing several time, numerous inaccuracies remain and no information in question assigned to the account XXXX. Violation account XXXX XXXX XXXX has no statement of dispute or Identity Theft XXXX. Violation FCRA section 605B ( 15 USC 1681c-2 violation A consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft not later than XXXX business days. XXXX has failed to follow this law because they know the truth but feel dedicated to protecting the unlawful acts by using their position to hold someone credit report as collateral to ensure the unlawful payments are made. \nXXXX XXXX violation XXXX X accounts reported by FTC XXXX as ID Theft XXXX  XXXX the report. The allege creditor also ignored the report. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Solutions, XXXX ( Holding concrete harm XXXX be shown by FCRA violation that causes the consumer to suffer Harm which XXXX sought to prevent when it enacted the FCRA ) BLUF : If XXXX believes the creditor, they're protecting is right in signing fraudulent loans in my name through an unknown attorney, and the law does not see this as Identity Theft, Or XXXX contribution to the theft of money by XXXX Main Financial. It would be appropriate for XXXX to serve as a witness for these creditors in XXXX XXXX. The FCRA requires XXXX to comply, and if they refuse, a jury can decide what should be done. A remedy to a factual dispute has already been made available to both parties by XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-06-02T06:39:01.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77389","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9153153","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-06-02T06:18:44.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A predatory lender has no <em>problem</em> taking someone to court and suing for a legitimate debt owed to <em>them</em>, even if the consumer cant afford to pay. This matter is no difference, American law allows a company to sue if someone uses the law in bad faith, the law does not permit a credit reporting agency to play Judge and jury and disregard the law, because the factual evidence does not favor the creditor, and credit reporting agency."]},"sort":[4.365888,"9153153"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9141216","_score":4.164304,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Compensation is sought in this complaint. Consumer reporting agencies are required to follow reasonable procedures to ensure credit reports are as accurate as possible under 15 USC 1681e ( b ). Consumer reporting agencies must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation if a consumer disputes the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in a credit report, 15 USC 1681i ( 1 ) ( A ). According to the attached credit report, there are several inaccuracies, including information from Trans Union LLC that contradicts information from XXXX and XXXX. Under section 1681, inaccurate information means that it is factually inaccurate, as determined by the court in XXXX XXXX Trans Union LLC. As a result of my job requiring a security clearance, I have been injured. For my credit report to be accurate, it must contain accurate information. Trans Union LLC is not granted the discretion to overlook legitimate disputes at its discretion under any part of the law. Here, Trans Union lied to the CFPB about investigating as shown by the attached credit report. Consumer reporting agencies, such as Trans Union LLC, are legally obligated to follow reasonable procedures to ensure credit report accuracy. This includes conducting a reasonable investigation if a consumer disputes the accuracy or completeness of any information. Failing to fulfill these obligations can result in legal consequences, as inaccurate information can have significant consequences for individuals, such as the loss of job opportunities or unjust denial of credit. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( holding that liability for Willfully failing to comply with the FCRA extends not only to act known to violate the FCRA, but also to the reckless disregard of a statutory duty. See Exhibit No. 1 ( Trans Union credit Report ) also see Exhibit No.2 ( Transunion Failure to investigate and within 30 days ) XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX XXXX. Violation - Date Open is incorrect.\n\n2. Violation - Date of last payment is incorrect.\n\n3. Violation Account shows 30 days late for the Month of XX/XX/XXXX, See Exhibit No 3. ( XXXX XXXX XXXX payment made ). \nXXXX show 30 days late in XXXX. See Bank Statement, this account was not paid 30 days late. All 3 credit bureaus information for this account is conflicting because none of them are doing a proper investigation. This is the 4th time this account has been disputed without the information being corrected. 15USC1681 hold Transunion liable for willful noncompliance of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00}. See XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( Holding that the FCRA made the dissemination of materially false information in consumer reports an injury in fact ) XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX These accounts were all procured by Identity Theft, and Fraud in the inducement. XXXX XXXX took my personal information and assigned for these accounts in my name. XXXX claimed they obtained a Power Attorney to sign on my behalf. This is false, I have never given them any such authority. Transunion has ignored the FTC Identity Theft affidavit. Transunion does not have the legal authority to omit any allegation of Identity Theft. Nor do Transunion have the authority to play lawyer for XXXX XXXX. The law direct Transunion to block the accounts alleged to be procured by Identity Theft. See Exhibit No. 4 ( contract illegally signed by an unknown attorney. I did not give XXXX a Power of Attorney to have no Attorney sign anything for me. Also see Exhibit No. 5 FTC Identity Theft Affidavit. The Law requires Transunion to block this account within 4 business days of receiving the FTC Affidavit. Violation 5 and 6. Transunion continues claims of relying on the creditor word in a reinvestigation after the creditor is accused of being involved is not the correct approach to attacking the legal validity of consumer debt. See XXXX v. Trans Union LLC, 523F.3d 61,68 ( 1st Cir.2008 ) 15 USC 1681c-2 directs the credit bureaus to block the information alleged to be identity theft, period. A predatory lender has no problem taking someone to court and suing for a legitimate debt owed to them. This matter is no difference, American law allows a company to sue if someone use the law in bad faith, the law does not permit a credit reporting agency to play Judge and jury and disregard the law. The account is identity theft, and Transunion has violated their mandate by assisting the violators causing additional harm to me. I have no problem going to Federal Court showing my evidence, that it's in fact Identity Theft! \n\nXXXX Account # XXXX XXXX. Violation Date Open Incorrect correct date is XX/XX/XXXX XXXX. Violation payment of XX/XX/XXXX not reflecting in payment history 9. Violation account showing 30 days late in XXXX discrepancies is conflicting with other credit reporting agencies payment was made approximately 2 weeks before it was due. See exhibit No. 6 ( XXXXr payment history, also see exhibit No. 7 ( Bank statement of payment to XXXX \nUnder XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), XXXX was required and paid to me a refund of {$9200.00}. There have been no adjustments to my credit report of the payment made by XXXX. XXXX violated federal law for years, so the account can not have been reporting correctly if XXXX was required by law to pay me {$9200.00} (. See exhibit No. 8 ( XXXX refund check ) issued to me the same month Transunion alleges I was in default. The indisputable evidence shows I was not late, and the account does not meet the FCRA because I had been overpaying the account for years. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( holding credit reporting practices must utilize accurate, relevant, and current information in a confidential manner. Also see XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Holding any inaccurate information in a consumer report supports a FCRA claim ) Transunion, XXXX, and XXXX all show conflicting information on this account, this is indisputable evidence the information is being reported duplicitous. Its impossible for me to have been late in XXXX because I paid {$510.00} in in XXXX after the billing cycle therefore XXXX payment was satisfied, I wouldnt have been late for XXXX until XXXX XXXX XXXX payment was paid on the due date of XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account # XXXX. Violation Transunion have evidence in their system this loan originated on XX/XX/XXXX they have in their system that the loan contract was for 60 months. But post a 30 day late payment for XXXX XXXX 12 Violation Date of last payment, Transunion is reporting the last payment was made XX/XX/XXXX. \nAlthough the additional funds were precured by Identity Theft I made the {$1500.00} additional payment anyway. Trans Union and XXXX was assisting XXXX XXXX XXXX in their actions and both credit bureaus were using my credit report as a tool to ensure I paid the funds. 10 USC 987 allows suit for a minimum of {$500.00} per illegal transaction. My contract with XXXX XXXX XXXX was for 60 months the Identity theft and Transunion and XXXX involvement force me to pay XXXX payments and an additional {$1500.00} in which I paid on XX/XX/XXXX Transunion is recording me as paying on XXXX, XXXX XXXX because they were trying to cause a late payment for XXXX since the original contract had payment due every XXXX of the month, and if they changed the payment date that would have had me late for XXXX which originally they had a late payment for XXXX but they changed it. Transunion holds no jurisdiction to determine whether XXXX XXXX XXXX violated the Military Lending Act. The law 10 USC 987 make the account illegal ; Trans Union is required to follow the law. Transunion went above the legal rim by adding the additional fund to my credit report despite having a copy of the contract and knowing the account was in dispute. XXXX XXXX XXXX Transunion, and XXXX was all working together. XXXX XXXX XXXX posted several small payments to my account trying to force me to make a late payment, but I was able to catch them doing it and paid the small payments, this shows on my bank statement see exhibit No. XXXX this is long past what Transunion had in their system. I reported to Transunion that XXXX XXXX XXXX used my personal information and illegally changed the amount of the original contract for financial gain. There is no other contract that changes the terms from XXXX to {$8700.00} the original contract was written at the maximum allowed by Federal law of 36 % 10 USC 987. I spoke with Transunion on the phone and explained this the over {$2500.00} I paid XXXX XXXX XXXX was precured by Identity Theft. Transunion assisted XXXX XXXX XXXX ; they then went a deleted another XXXX XXXX XXXX account # XXXX explaining the deletion was due to the account being refinanced. This is indisputable proof Transunion is acting in bad faith beyond their mandated of reporting accurate records of a persons credit. Transunion is acting in bad faith because they deleted the account with all positive history to give the illusion that they deleted the account that was procured by Identity theft, they did this because they assisted XXXX XXXX XXXX to collect the illegal funds, they even changed the amount to give the illusion the theft was legitimate. Transunion is unmindful, that refinancing any consumer loan to a covered borrower by the same lender is highly prohibited and illegal under the Military Lending Act. Transunion assisted XXXX XXXX XXXX, but apparently unmindful that blatant violation of The Military Lending Act could be faced with criminal charges, the CFPB is the guardian and enforcer of the MLA. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Holding whether the violation under the FCRA was conducted willful in violation of Law ) See Exhibit No 9 ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  Contract ) XXXX Account number XXXX. \nXXXXViolation, Last report, last active, and last payment all show XX/XX/XXXX Transunion reported to the CFPB they did an investigation, and there is a TransUnion response on the CFPB website. This date is indisputable evidence that Transunion has not conducted an investigation in XXXX. Instead, Transunion lied to the CFPB. This- is not by coincidence. This account was reported as Identity Theft. I received an email on XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX stating they would not handle my Identity Theft issue and a bank named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX made the loan to me. The number ( XXXX ) XXXX was used to contact this bank on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX. Using my SSN, I asked the manager to check twice, and she replied that they had no record of me having received a loan. After waiting an hour, I called back, and this time I got a bank representative, who told me that XXXX was one of their brokers, but that no loan had been issued to me by their bank. Transunion wouldn't have had to lie to the CFPB if they conducted a reasonable investigation as required by law. They ignored the Identity Theft Affidavit and did not investigate. The Identity Theft Affidavit is a crucial document in the investigation process as it serves as a formal declaration from the victim stating that their identity has been stolen. It helps to establish a clear record of the incident and provides important information for law enforcement and other entities involved in resolving the case. By disregarding the Identity Theft Affidavit and failing to conduct a thorough investigation, Transunion not only violated legal requirements but also undermined the victim 's efforts to rectify the situation and seek justice. \n\nXXXX Account # XXXX XXXX Violation account shows 30 days late all three credit bureaus have conflicting information. XXXX directed me to contact the credit bureaus who were reporting the incorrect information ; therefore, I closed the account. \n14 Violation XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a dispute Transunion did not investigate the dispute. \n15. Violation On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed another Dispute Transunion did not conduct an investigation Violation 16- Trans Union alleges I open a dispute On XX/XX/XXXX, and they closed it on XX/XX/XXXX, I never filed a dispute on XX/XX/XXXX but they realized I was monitoring their actions and made this entry in their computer. \nDespite having 30 days to investigate a consumer 's credit report, credit bureaus unjustly destroy a consumer 's reputation when they fail to do so. Credit bureaus play a crucial role in safeguarding consumer credit information by collecting and maintaining credit data from various sources. Their responsibility is to accurately report this information to lenders and other authorized parties. However, when credit bureaus neglect to thoroughly investigate and verify the accuracy of a consumer 's credit report within the allotted time, it can result in serious damage to the individual 's reputation and financial well-being. \n16. Violation Section 623 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( FCRA ) Transunion and the creditors were informed by me of the alleged ID theft, Transunion ignored the FTC Affidavit 17. Violation Section 607 ( b ) Transunion is required by law to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information. When Transunion fails to even conduct a preliminary investigation the law and my rights have been violated Violation Section 611 ( c ) of FCRA provides, whenever a statement of dispute is filed the consumer reporting agency shall, in any subsequent consumer report containing the information in question, clearly note that it is disputed by the consumer and provide that it is disputed by the consumer and provide either the consumer statement or a clear and accurate codification or summery thereof. \n18. violation XXXX account has no statement of dispute 19 violation account XXXX XXXX XXXX has no statement of dispute or Identity Theft 20.violation account XXXX has no statement of dispute or identity theft 21. violation account XXXX XXXX have no statement of dispute Violation FCRA section 605B ( 15 USC 1681c-2 22. violation A consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft not later than 4 business days. Transunion failed to follow this law because they know the truth but fell dedicated to protect the unlawful acts by using their position to hold someone credit report as collateral to ensure the unlawful payments are made.\n\n22 -26. violation 5 X accounts reported by FTC Affidavit as ID Theft Transunion ignored the report. The allege creditor also ignored the report. See XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( Holding concrete harm may be shown by FCRA violation that causes the consumer to suffer Harm which Congress sought to prevent when it enacted the FCRA ) BLUF : If Transunion believes the creditor, they're protecting is right in signing fraudulent loans in my name through an unknown attorney, and the law does not see this as Identity Theft, Or Transunion contribution to the theft of money by XXXX XXXX XXXX. It would be appropriate for Transunion to serve as a witness for these creditors in court. The FCRA requires Transunion to comply, and if they refuse, a jury can decide what should be done. A remedy to a factual dispute has already been made available to both parties by Congress.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-06-01T03:28:34.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"77389","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9141216","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-06-01T02:57:38.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A predatory lender has no <em>problem</em> taking someone to court and suing for a legitimate debt owed to <em>them</em>. This matter is no difference, American law allows a company to sue if someone use the law in bad faith, the law does not permit a credit reporting agency to play Judge and jury and disregard the law. The account is identity theft, and Transunion has violated their mandate by assisting the violators causing additional harm to me."]},"sort":[4.164304,"9141216"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10794902","_score":4.145814,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Page XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC XXXX\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nURGENCY: HIGH\nIMPORTANCE: HIGH\nThis is to complain against U. S. Bank.\nU. S. Bank account ending in: XXXX\nI wish to practice my right as a customer of U. S. Bank to use your organisation's service, seeking a\nformal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with U. S. Bank.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to U. S. Bank\nrespecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding,\nby taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and\ncomprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these\nfraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct\nof U. S. Bank to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a\nservice to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a\ntraditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with U. S. Bank, I found their communication ineffective, which further\nhides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are\nstruggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is\npresenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and\nregulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or about XXXX  2024, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operations run by DML Markets under the domain m.dml-markets.cc which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX  USD from my U. S. Bank account to fraudulent investment firm(s).\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether U. S. Bank did not take notice of any rule, law, or\nregulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that\nmay have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of U. S. Banks\nPage XXXX of XXXX\nXX/XX/2024\ncustodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so,\nwhether that duty was breached; (iii) whether U. S. Bank promoted the transaction(s) in question despite\nbeing aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether U. S. Bank was in compliance\nwith its own policies and procedures; (v) whether U. S. Bank owed duties to myself, what the scope of\nthose duties was, and whether U. S. Bank did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether U. S. Banks conduct\nwas unfair; and (vii) whether U. S. Bank has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me\nfor the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member\nadequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent\nand nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant\ncriteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and\nskill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not\nturn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In\nother words, U. S. Bank must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real\npossibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have\nknown that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a\nsense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective\nelement.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not\naverage care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is\nreasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of\nthe evidence suggests that U. S. Bank did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious\ndangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the\nstandard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the\npast.\nU. S. Banks Position:\nOnXX/XX/2024 U. S. Bank wrote in a letter We regret any frustration or inconvenience this matter\nmay have caused you. We understand that being the victim of a scam can be confusing, time consuming,\nand inconvenient.\nUpon receiving your request for assistance, our records confirm two claims were opened with our Wire\nDepartment on XXXX XXXX which debited your account ending XXXX  on XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX in the amounts\nof XXXX and XXXX  A request was sent to the beneficiary bank for recall of these funds.\nPlease know, the receiving institution is not obligated to return these funds or respond to our request. The\nelapsed time from the time of the transfers to the time of the claim submission limits the chances of\nrecalling the funds. We recommend you also continue working directly with your local law enforcement\nofficials to attempt to recover your money from the beneficiary of this payment.\nPage XXXX of XXXX\nXX/XX/2024Refuting U. S. Banks arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nU. S. Banks position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to\nprotect innocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches\nare doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only\nmeaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the\nattention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn U. S. Banks view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten laws,\npracticality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when\ntaking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense\nand are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make U. S. Bank morally obligated to\ndo something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if U. S. Bank encounter the\nsuffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the\ndegree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as U. S. Bank.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by U. S. Bank carefully, and it unfortunately provides no\nresponse to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the\nresources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as\nmyself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and\nhad a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that U. S. Bank, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the\nkey questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other\nthan its own interests.\nIt is U. S. Bank here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to\nsay, that U. S. Bank adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its\nextensive experience compared to mine. It is U. S. Bank that claims that the damages which I have\nsuffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree\nof care is not, and has not been, commensurate with U. S. Banks capacity, experience, expertise, or scope\nof services in any way. To reemphasize, U. S. Banks indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to\npurely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing\nthose transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby\nenhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all U. S. Bank has done in this regard is set up a\ndichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go\none-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions\ncan, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nU. S. Bank is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may\nbe being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam\nwith the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\nPage XXXX of XXXX  XX/XX/2024\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that\nmight occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers\nwho might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary\nactions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a\nservice that:\nXXXX) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it\nsets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general\npoint, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and\nmethodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised\nand unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to\nthe detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious\ntransactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following\nexamples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are\ntransactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the\neconomic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no\napparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the\ncustomer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the\nsuspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nU. S. Bank are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging\nexperience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to\navert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which\nPage XXXX of XXXX\nXX/XX/2024requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-\njustified.\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the\nexistence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of\nconsumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled,\npositively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability  U. S. Bank adopts a\nrather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to\nensue if no responsibility is adopted by U. S. Bank in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly\ndetailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which,\nafter careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly\nunfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly\nmalevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is\nabundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall\nfraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their\nundisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital\narena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively\nnavigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in\nthis connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent\npractices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that U. S. Banks business conduct was\ninsufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and\nresponsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too\ncrucial to be taken lightly. U. S. Banks non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is,\nto completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is\ninexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of\nthe patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a)\nfinancial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in\nquestion was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming.\nIt is extremely unfortunate that U. S. Bank pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these things\ndespite evidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and\ncompanywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\nThank you.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  Page XXXX of XXXXXX/XX/2024\nTHE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\nDemand for Return of Funds\nXX/XX/2024\nU.S. Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX MN XXXX Re: XXXX XXXX XXXX Account number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Demand for Return of Funds Dear XXXX  or XXXX, I am writing to you concerning my account referenced above to notify you that the transactions described below were fraudulent, and to demand that funds in the amount of XXXX  be returned immediately.\nThe Transactions\nI made the following transfers from the Account:\nDate Amount Recipient InstitutionXX/XX/2024 XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/2024 XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nAll of the foregoing transfers were the result of fraud. Specifically, I bonded with an individual online and\ngot introduced to investing in a seemingly innocent manner. She directed me to a carefully replicated\nXXXX  Markets website, under the domain m.dml-markets.cc. Initially, I seemed to be profiting from my\ninvestments, according to their platform. However, I was later notified that my account and funds had\nbeen frozen due to suspicious activity and leveraged on my trust and fear of slipping into an unfortunate\nfinancial situation, successfully tricking me into depositing additional funds in order to resolve the issue.\nUltimately, I was unable to complete further transfer requests they made. Despite the highly irregular\nnature of these transactions compared to my usual patterns, I was never approached for clarification by\nany institution involved.\nPlease note the following:\n I have never transacted with cryptocurrency in such a manner before.\n The pattern of the Transactions fits within well-known fraudulent schemes.\n I am an elderly individual.\n The bank failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect elderly customers from known fraud\nschemes, potentially violating the \"reasonable security\" standard under various state laws.\n The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's guidelines on preventing elder financial abuse\nsuggest that banks should have systems in place to detect and prevent this type of fraud\n The bank did not attempt to contact me to verify this large, unusual transaction before processing\nit, which may be considered a failure in their duty of care.\nDemand for Return of Funds\nBasis For Demand\nThe foregoing Transactions were fraudulent, and I am therefore entitled to have the amounts set forth\nabove returned to my account pursuant to the representations made by you. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. Further, the Transactions had all the clear markings of well-known scams, about which you have been\nrepeatedly warned by law enforcement and other government agencies. Your facilitation of the\nTransactions is another basis for the return of the Funds. See XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX (applying the should have known standard under statute); see alsoXXXX 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 XXXXXX/XX/XXXX).\nRight to File Claim\nNothing in this letter should be construed as a waiver of my rights to damages not expressly set forth\nherein. It is my hope that the Funds are returned quickly, and that no further action is necessary.\nIf we cannot reach a resolution, then I will have no choice but to file an arbitration claim pursuant to your\nterms and conditions.\n\nu s D a n K . XXXX XXXX  CA XXXX U.S. BANK SMARTLY CHECKING U.S. Bank National Association Card Withdrawals (continued) Card Number: XXXX Date Description of Transaction R e f Number Uni-Statement Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Statement Period: XXXX XXXX XXXX through XXXX XXXX XXXX\nPage XXXX of XXXX\n(CONTINUED)\nAccount Number XXXX\nAmount\nCard XXXX Withdrawals Subtotal\nTotal Card Withdrawals\nRef Number\nXXXX XXXX\nOther Withdrawals\nDate Description of Transaction XXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal\nREF=XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Electronic Withdrawal\nREF=XXXX XXXX XXXX Wire Transfer Fee XXXX XXXX Wire  Debit XXXX\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SA\nChecks Presented Conventionally\nCheck\nXXXX\nDate Ref Number XXXX XXXX XXXX  Amount XXXX  Check\nXXXX  Total Other Withdrawals\nDate\nXXXX XXXX  $\nRef NumbeXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Amount XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX-\nAmount XXXX\nu s b a n k JXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXXXXXX\nU.S. BANK SMARTLY CHECKING\nU.S. Bank National Association\nCard Withdrawals (continued)\nCard Number: XXXXXXXX\nDate Description of Transaction Ref Number\nUni-Statement\nAccount Number:\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nStatement Period:\nXXXX XXXX XXXX through\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nPage XXXX of XXXX XXXXCONTINUED)\nAccount Number XXXX\nAmount\nOther Withdrawals\nDate Description of Transaction\nXXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal\nREF=XXXX\nCard XXXX  Withdrawals Subtotal\nTotal Card Withdrawals\nRef Number\nTo XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX-\nA m o u n t\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  Wire Transier Fee XXXX XXXX  Wire Debit REFXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal\nREF=XXXX XXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal\nREF=XXXX\nXXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal\nREF=XXXX XXXX\nChecks Presented Conventionally\nCheck Date Ref Number\nXXXX 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  Total Other Withdrawals\nAmount\nXXXX  Check XXXX Date Ref Number\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  Conventional Checks Paid (2)\n\n\nu s b a n k .\nusbankXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXX  Re: Account ending in XXXX\nDear XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX:\nThe Office of the President received your request for assistance. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your\nc o n c e r n s .\nWe regret any frustration or inconvenience this matter may have caused you. We understand that being the victim of a\nscam can be confusing, time consuming, and inconvenient.\nUpon receiving your request for assistance, our records confirm two claims were opened with our Wire Department on\nXXXX XXXX  which debited your account ending XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in the amounts of XXXX XXXX XXXX. A\nrequest was sent to the beneficiary bank for recall of these funds.\nPlease know, the receiving institution is not obligated to return these funds or respond to our request. The elapsed time\nfrom the time of the transfers to the time of the claim submission limits the chances of recalling the funds. We\nrecommend you also continue working directly with your local law enforcement officials to attempt to recover your\nmoney from the beneficiary of this payment.\nPlease refer to the section of the Your Deposit Account Agreement (Agreement) titled Funds Transfers, which states, \"A\nwire transfer is irrevocable once payment has been transmitted to the beneficiary's bank. At your request, we may\nrequest that the beneficiary's bank return funds previously transferred. However, you acknowledge that the beneficiary's\nbank is under no obligation to comply with this request.\" The most current copy of the Agreement is available on\nusbank.com or at your local U.S. Bank branch. The Agreement is also included with the documentation provided when a\nnew account is opened.\nOur customers are generally protected from liability for unauthorized transactions or fraud. Any transactions you initiate\nare considered authorized by you. Also, if you send funds to someone for products or services, and they fail to deliver the\ndesired service, it becomes a civil matter and unfortunately falls outside of our ability to recover those funds. We\nrecommend you continue to work with the recipient of the funds to request a refund. You may also consider working with\nyour local law enforcement officials to attempt to recover your money from the beneficiary of this payment.\nIn your correspondence you enclosed a statement and mention four additional fraudulent transfers on your account\nending XXXX  in the amounts oXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Please note, we were unable to locate any claims on\nthe transactions mentioned above. If there are transactions you believe should be disputed, please contact our Fraud\nDispute Intake team at XXXX to file a claim, where representatives are available to assist you XXXX  hours a day,\nseven days a week (we accept relay calls).\nAdditionally, in your correspondence you also expressed concern regarding our alleged failure to prevent the above\ntransactions from occurring. A review of the wire interaction confirmed the branch representative asked appropriate\nverification questions and determined you had previously sent similar wires.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-14T21:28:16.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"92027","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10794902","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2024-11-14T21:06:04.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Bank did not take notice of any rule, law, or\nregulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that\nmay have <em>prevented</em> <em>them</em> from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of U. S. Banks\nPage XXXX of XXXX\nXX/XX/2024\ncustodianship over my funds or by its control over <em>them</em>, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so,\nwhether that duty was breached; (iii) whether U. S."]},"sort":[4.145814,"10794902"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":27,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":27}]}},"product":{"doc_count":27,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":9,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":9}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":3},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":2},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":2},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":2},{"key":"CD (Certificate of Deposit)","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Rental debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Private student loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":27,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Unable to get your credit report or credit score","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem getting your free annual credit report","doc_count":5}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":1},{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1},{"key":"Deposits or withdrawals","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":1},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"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":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money was not available when promised","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 with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"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":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Struggling to repay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't get other flexible options for repaying your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":27,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":27}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":27,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":24},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":3}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":27,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":27}]}},"company":{"doc_count":27,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":4},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":3},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"Advanced Resolution Services Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CBC Companies, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Coinbase, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":1},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"ProCollect, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ria Envia, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":27,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MI","doc_count":5},{"key":"FL","doc_count":4},{"key":"TX","doc_count":4},{"key":"CA","doc_count":3},{"key":"NY","doc_count":2},{"key":"TN","doc_count":2},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"RI","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":27,"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":10}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":27,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":3},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[4.1455383,"10794902"]}}}