{"took":138,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":10,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18130657","_score":13.050602,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing as the consumer and rightful owner of the credit file associated with my name to formally dispute the accuracy, completeness, and lawful reporting of the XXXX  XXXX account ending in XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is currently reporting a balance of {$6400.00}, a date opened of XX/XX/XXXX, and a last activity date of XX/XX/XXXX * *. From the moment this account appeared on my credit report, the information associated with it has been unclear, confusing, and damaging. I did not receive clear or timely written notice explaining when repayment obligations began, how monthly payments were calculated, or what actions were required of me to remain in good standing. Despite this lack of proper disclosure, this account has been reported in a manner that suggests borrower fault rather than administrative or servicing failure. This creates a misleading and inaccurate narrative about my financial behavior. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), credit reporting agencies are required to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Reporting an account without validating billing timelines, repayment start dates, and proper notice violates this standard. Additionally, under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2, furnishers are prohibited from providing information that is incomplete or misleading. Until this account can be fully substantiated with original documentation, including proof of repayment terms and borrower notification, its current reporting is inaccurate and legally disputable. \nI am also formally disputing the XXXX XXXX XXXX  account ending in XXXX XXXX XXXX, which reports a balance of {$5900.00}, a date opened of XX/XX/XXXX, a last activity date of XX/XX/XXXX, and a delinquency status of 180 days late * *. This account has existed for many years and has been transferred between multiple servicers, which has resulted in fragmented records, inconsistent reporting, and a lack of continuity in communication. Throughout these transitions, I was never provided with documented proof that this account legitimately reached a 180-day delinquency status. I did not receive certified notices, default warnings, or written validation establishing the dates, amounts, or circumstances that would justify such severe adverse reporting. Reporting a long-standing federal student loan as severely delinquent without contemporaneous documentation is materially misleading and violates 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( d ) and 1681e ( b ), which require consumer reports to be fair, accurate, and reflective of verified facts. This misreporting has caused substantial harm to my credit profile, financial standing, and ability to access housing and credit, despite the absence of verified borrower misconduct. \nI further dispute the XXXX XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, showing a balance of {$6300.00}, with a date opened of XX/XX/XXXX, a last activity date of XX/XX/XXXX, and reported as 180 days late * *. The reporting of this account is internally inconsistent and misleading, as it reflects recent account activity while simultaneously alleging extended nonpayment. I was never provided timely billing statements, delinquency notices, or written explanations outlining how this account allegedly became 180 days past due. This form of reporting falsely implies willful nonpayment and financial irresponsibility, which does not reflect my intent or actions as a borrower. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ), negative information must be accurately aged and must not misrepresent consumer behavior. Furthermore, federal student loan servicing standards established under the Higher Education Act require servicers to provide borrowers with clear notice and an opportunity to resolve issues prior to adverse credit reporting. The failure to meet these requirements renders the reporting of this account unverifiable and legally disputable. \nLastly, I am disputing the XXXX XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which reports a balance of {$7500.00}, a date opened of XX/XX/XXXX, a last activity date of XX/XX/XXXX, and a delinquency status of 180 days late * *. Given the relatively recent opening of this account, the reporting of a severe XXXX delinquency is excessive, unreasonable, and unsupported by proper documentation. I did not receive certified correspondence, billing statements, repayment schedules, or default notices establishing a lawful delinquency timeline. Reporting a newly opened federal student loan as severely delinquent without proof of notice or validation directly contradicts the intent of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( a ), which was enacted to ensure accuracy, fairness, and transparency in consumer reporting. This accounts reporting has caused immediate and disproportionate damage to my creditworthiness. Until each credit bureau can independently verify this account with complete and original records from the furnisher, including notice history, payment obligations, and delinquency calculations, the information must be corrected or deleted as required by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-18T02:51:52.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30350","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18130657","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-18T02:49:41.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I was never provided timely billing <em>statements</em>, delinquency notices, or written explanations outlining how this account allegedly became 180 days past due. This form of reporting falsely implies willful <em>nonpayment</em> and financial irresponsibility, which does not reflect my intent or <em>actions</em> as a borrower. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ), negative information must be accurately aged and must not misrepresent consumer behavior."]},"sort":[13.050602,"18130657"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18130656","_score":13.050602,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing as the consumer and rightful owner of the credit file associated with my name to formally dispute the accuracy, completeness, and lawful reporting of the XXXX  XXXX account ending in XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is currently reporting a balance of {$6400.00}, a date opened of XX/XX/XXXX, and a last activity date of XX/XX/XXXX * *. From the moment this account appeared on my credit report, the information associated with it has been unclear, confusing, and damaging. I did not receive clear or timely written notice explaining when repayment obligations began, how monthly payments were calculated, or what actions were required of me to remain in good standing. Despite this lack of proper disclosure, this account has been reported in a manner that suggests borrower fault rather than administrative or servicing failure. This creates a misleading and inaccurate narrative about my financial behavior. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), credit reporting agencies are required to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Reporting an account without validating billing timelines, repayment start dates, and proper notice violates this standard. Additionally, under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2, furnishers are prohibited from providing information that is incomplete or misleading. Until this account can be fully substantiated with original documentation, including proof of repayment terms and borrower notification, its current reporting is inaccurate and legally disputable. \nI am also formally disputing the XXXX XXXX XXXX  account ending in XXXX XXXX XXXX, which reports a balance of {$5900.00}, a date opened of XX/XX/XXXX, a last activity date of XX/XX/XXXX, and a delinquency status of 180 days late * *. This account has existed for many years and has been transferred between multiple servicers, which has resulted in fragmented records, inconsistent reporting, and a lack of continuity in communication. Throughout these transitions, I was never provided with documented proof that this account legitimately reached a 180-day delinquency status. I did not receive certified notices, default warnings, or written validation establishing the dates, amounts, or circumstances that would justify such severe adverse reporting. Reporting a long-standing federal student loan as severely delinquent without contemporaneous documentation is materially misleading and violates 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( d ) and 1681e ( b ), which require consumer reports to be fair, accurate, and reflective of verified facts. This misreporting has caused substantial harm to my credit profile, financial standing, and ability to access housing and credit, despite the absence of verified borrower misconduct. \nI further dispute the XXXX XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, showing a balance of {$6300.00}, with a date opened of XX/XX/XXXX, a last activity date of XX/XX/XXXX, and reported as 180 days late * *. The reporting of this account is internally inconsistent and misleading, as it reflects recent account activity while simultaneously alleging extended nonpayment. I was never provided timely billing statements, delinquency notices, or written explanations outlining how this account allegedly became 180 days past due. This form of reporting falsely implies willful nonpayment and financial irresponsibility, which does not reflect my intent or actions as a borrower. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ), negative information must be accurately aged and must not misrepresent consumer behavior. Furthermore, federal student loan servicing standards established under the Higher Education Act require servicers to provide borrowers with clear notice and an opportunity to resolve issues prior to adverse credit reporting. The failure to meet these requirements renders the reporting of this account unverifiable and legally disputable. \nLastly, I am disputing the XXXX XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which reports a balance of {$7500.00}, a date opened of XX/XX/XXXX, a last activity date of XX/XX/XXXX, and a delinquency status of 180 days late * *. Given the relatively recent opening of this account, the reporting of a severe XXXX delinquency is excessive, unreasonable, and unsupported by proper documentation. I did not receive certified correspondence, billing statements, repayment schedules, or default notices establishing a lawful delinquency timeline. Reporting a newly opened federal student loan as severely delinquent without proof of notice or validation directly contradicts the intent of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( a ), which was enacted to ensure accuracy, fairness, and transparency in consumer reporting. This accounts reporting has caused immediate and disproportionate damage to my creditworthiness. Until each credit bureau can independently verify this account with complete and original records from the furnisher, including notice history, payment obligations, and delinquency calculations, the information must be corrected or deleted as required by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-18T02:51:52.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30350","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18130656","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-12-18T02:49:41.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I was never provided timely billing <em>statements</em>, delinquency notices, or written explanations outlining how this account allegedly became 180 days past due. This form of reporting falsely implies willful <em>nonpayment</em> and financial irresponsibility, which does not reflect my intent or <em>actions</em> as a borrower. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ), negative information must be accurately aged and must not misrepresent consumer behavior."]},"sort":[13.050602,"18130656"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17851405","_score":11.68931,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint against JPMorgan Chase & Co. because the company took, or threatened to take, negative and legal action against me regarding an account that I do not owe, did not authorize, and did not create. The companys actions have caused significant stress, financial harm, reputational damage, and ongoing confusion. Furthermore, Chase failed to provide proper verification, failed to investigate the matter reasonably, and continued to communicate in ways that constituted threats of legal escalation and negative consequences despite being notified that the account was disputed. These actions go directly against the consumer protections outlined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ).\n\nThis complaint is being submitted because I believe Chases conduct is unfair, inaccurate, and unlawful. I am requesting assistance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because Chase has failed to resolve the matter despite repeated attempts on my part to dispute, clarify, and correct what clearly appears to be a case of identity theft, unauthorized account activity, or misapplied information.\n\n1. I Do Not Owe This Account It Is Unauthorized or Fraudulent The most important fact in this complaint is that I do not owe this account. I did not open it, authorize it, or agree to its terms, and I did not benefit from any credit, services, or funds associated with it. I have no connection to the account Chase is attempting to associate with me.\n\nDespite this, Chase took actions and threatened to take actions that falsely implied that I was legally responsible for repayment. Chase treated the account as though it were valid, even though no documentation exists tying me to it. At no point did Chase provide a valid, original contract bearing my signature or authenticated identification verifying that I opened the account. Their failure to produce such documentation indicates either identity theft, internal error, or misreporting.\n\n2. Chase Took or Threatened to Take Negative / Legal Action Against Me Chases communications contained statements implying or directly expressing consequences such as : Potential legal escalation Negative credit reporting Additional fees, penalties, or charges associated with nonpayment Transfer of the account to collections Pursuit of all available remedies Warnings that nonpayment may result in further action These statements especially when directed toward a consumer disputing an unauthorized account are considered threats under the FDCPA and are strictly regulated. Chase continued using language suggesting legal consequences after being notified the account was not mine and was actively being disputed. This is intimidating, misleading, and unlawful.\n\nUnder FDCPA 807 ( 5 ), a creditor or collector may not threaten actions they can not legally take or do not intend to take. Under FDCPA 807 ( 10 ), they may not use any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. Under FDCPA 808, they may not engage in conduct intended to harass, oppress, or abuse a consumer.\n\nBecause the debt was unauthorized, Chase had no legal right to threaten litigation, negative credit reporting, or additional consequences. Yet they did repeatedly.\n\n3. Chase Continued to Pursue the Account Despite My Disputes I disputed the account. I explained that I did not open it, I did not authorize it, and I did not recognize any of the information tied to it. Despite this, Chase continued to : Send communications about the alleged debt Imply negative consequences Suggest potential escalation Fail to halt communication as required under law Provide no lawful documentation validating ownership Under FDCPA 809 ( b ), when a consumer disputes a debt, collection must cease until verification is provided. Under FCRA 623 ( b ), furnishers ( such as Chase ) must conduct a reasonable investigation and remove or correct any information that can not be verified.\n\nChase did neither. Their actions show a disregard for consumer dispute rights.\n\n4. Chase Failed to Validate or Provide Documentation Supporting the Debt Chase has provided no documentation proving that I opened the account. A lawful validation requires : A signed contract Documentation showing my identity was verified at account opening Statements confirming transactions linked to me Evidence that I personally benefited from the funds or services Chase provided none of the above. They provided generic statements instead of evidence, and they continued to threaten negative actions despite the absence of validation.\n\nThis violates : FDCPA 809 ( b ) FCRA 609 ( a ) FCRA 611 ( a ) A creditor can not pursue a debt let alone threaten legal action if they can not verify it belongs to the consumer.\n\n5. Chase Failed to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation After I disputed the account, Chase was legally required to : Investigate the dispute Review original documentation Compare signatures Evaluate identity theft indicators Determine accuracy Report corrected findings Instead, Chase appears to have relied on automated responses, generic verification codes, or superficial internal checks. That is not a lawful reinvestigation under FCRA 623 ( b ).\n\nA reasonable reinvestigation requires actual examination of the underlying records not clicking a button.\n\n6. Chase Misreported or Attempted to Report False Information to Credit Bureaus Chase threatened to report the account to the credit bureaus as delinquent. Reporting an unauthorized account is a violation of : FCRA 602 ( a ) promoting accuracy FCRA 607 ( b ) maximum possible accuracy FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) can not furnish information known to be inaccurate FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) must flag disputed accounts Because the account was not mine and was actively disputed, Chase had no right to : Threaten credit reporting Furnish negative information Fail to flag the account as disputed Treat the account as valid while lacking documentation Chases behavior put me at risk of severe financial damage, including a drop in credit score, denial of credit, and increased interest rates.\n\n7. Chase Caused Real Harm and Emotional Distress Chases threatening communications, combined with their refusal to validate the debt or investigate properly, caused : Severe anxiety Fear of legal consequences Fear of wage garnishment or lawsuit Stress regarding potential credit damage Confusion and emotional burden Time lost contacting credit bureaus, Chase, and regulatory agencies The harm is not hypothetical it has been real and ongoing.\n\n8. Chase Should Have Recognized This as Potential Identity Theft There were several indicators that this account was fraudulent : I immediately disputed it No documentation matched my signature No address or identifying data aligned with my personal information No transactions matched my behavior Chase could not produce identity-verification evidence Instead of recognizing this as identity theft, Chase continued to pursue and threaten.\n\nCreditors are supposed to apply heightened scrutiny when a consumer denies ownership. Under Red Flags Rules, banks must detect and respond to signs of identity theft. Chase did not.\n\n9. Chase Violated Multiple Federal Consumer Protection Laws FDCPA Violations 807 : False or misleading representations 807 ( 5 ) : Threatening actions not intended or permitted 807 ( 10 ) : Use of deceptive means to collect 808 : Harassment or abuse 809 ( b ) : Failure to validate FCRA Violations 602 : Right to accurate reporting 607 ( b ) : Maximum accuracy requirement 609 ( a ) : Right to information 611 ( a ) : Duty to reinvestigate 623 ( a ) : Furnishers must not report inaccurate info 623 ( b ) : Duty to investigate disputes Chase repeatedly ignored these standards.\n\n10. Threatening Legal Action Is Especially Unacceptable When the Consumer Denies Ownership Threatening legal consequences against a person who does not owe the debt is one of the most serious FDCPA violations. A threat of legal action is legally considered : A form of intimidation A coercive tactic A deceptive representation of authority A violation of debt collection standards Chases wording was constructed to create fear and urgency, pressuring me to pay or respond quickly despite the account being fraudulent.\n\nThis behavior is prohibited across multiple legal frameworks because it is abusive and predatory.\n\n11. Chase Failed to Communicate Properly After the Dispute Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), if a consumer disputes a debt, the furnisher must report the account as disputed. Chase failed to do so.\n\nUnder FDCPA 809 ( b ), all collection activity must cease during validation. Chase failed to do so.\n\nUnder FCRA 611 ( a ), incomplete or unverifiable information must be deleted. Chase failed to do so.\n\nChase had multiple opportunities to correct their behavior and did not.\n\n12. What I Am Requesting as a Fair Resolution A fair and lawful resolution requires Johnson Morgan Chase & Co. to : Stop all negative or legal threats immediately Fully cease all collection activity Not contact me again about this account Not sell, transfer, or assign the debt Provide written confirmation that the account is not mine Provide written verification of all steps taken Stop reporting or attempting to report the account Delete any reporting already made Update internal records to reflect identity theft / unauthorized activity Provide the CFPB with documentation supporting their prior actions These steps align with federal law and ensure no further harm occurs.\n\n13. Summary To summarize : I do not owe this account.\n\nI did not authorize it.\n\nChase failed to validate it.\n\nChase took or threatened negative/legal action.\n\nChase mishandled my dispute.\n\nChase violated consumer protection laws.\n\nChase failed to investigate properly. \n\nChase continued harmful behavior despite my dispute. \n\nA fair resolution requires deletion of the account, cessation of all collection activity, written confirmation, and appropriate corrective action.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-08T23:15:41.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"33169","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17851405","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-12-08T23:09:46.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Chase Took or Threatened to Take Negative / Legal <em>Action</em> Against Me Chases communications contained <em>statements</em> implying or directly expressing consequences such as : Potential legal escalation Negative credit reporting Additional fees, penalties, or charges associated with <em>nonpayment</em> Transfer of the account to collections Pursuit of all available remedies <em>Warnings</em> that <em>nonpayment</em> may <em>result</em> in <em>further</em> <em>action</em> These <em>statements</em> especially when directed toward a consumer disputing an unauthorized account"]},"sort":[11.68931,"17851405"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3205836","_score":10.640979,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a bill by US Mail for a student loan from AES XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX MD XXXX. The bill alleged a last payment received date of XX/XX/XXXX, and an amount owed of {$540.00}. AES demanded payment of a minimum {$50.00}. \n\nAll of my student loans were paid off over 14 years ago, on or near XX/XX/XXXX. I have received no communications regarding any student loans since that date from any student loan lender or service company. My loans have been 100 % paid in full for over 14 years. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called AES to attempt to correct their records and demand that they cease invoices for a loan that does not exist. \n\nI spoke first with Employee # XXXX, XXXX, who told me she could not help because this was a private loan and there were instructions in their records to direct inquiries to XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX directed me to call XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) told me that XXXX XXXX XXXX  had no record of a loan for me, and that this was an AES issue, referring me back to the general number for AES. \n\nI then called AES and spoke with XXXX # XXXX, who claimed she could not help me, and referred me to XXXX # XXXX, who referred me to XXXX # XXXX, who ultimately informed me that there had been a problem with AES collections recently, and that I had been billed in error. XXXX told me that the original lender was XXXX, never XXXX XXXX, and that apparently, some stale borrower lists had been sent recently to AES in error, and my notice was a mistake. XXXX also told me they'd had the same issue with many other erroneous letters and collections, based on flawed, stale lists. XXXX told me not to worry about it, that it would \" work itself out '', and no further action was required by me. \n\nI asked for the XXXX contact number so I could verify that their records confirmed payment in full. My concern was that erroneous records and billing could result in filing of negative credit reports. XXXX gave me the number XXXX for XXXX, which I then called. \n\nXXXX looked up my account number, and informed me that their records did show a loan for that account number, but it had been paid in full on XX/XX/XXXX. This is the same date shown on the new bills from AES as \" last payment received ''. \n\nXXXX advised me that this bill was clearly a mistake by AES, and the fact that I'd not received any bills since XX/XX/XXXX should be sufficient proof that it had been paid in full. XXXX also said it would \" work itself out '', and I needed to do nothing further, but that it was clearly an AES problem, and that XXXX did not have anything to do with it. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a second bill from AES for payment on this loan. Two bills and collection attempts on the same alleged loan within 2 weeks, when I had already called to dispute, and been told \" don't worry about it, no action needed ''. \n\nI called AES and spoke with XXXX # XXXX, who said that she could not answer any questions about the account. I explained the history on this matter, and requested immediate resolution. XXXX said she couldn't answer any questions, and \" just answered the phone '', and wanted to transfer my call. After the literal hours I spent on XX/XX/XXXX, I was reluctant to be shoveled to yet another uninformed and unhelpful person. After several insistent requests as to where, exactly, she intended to transfer my call, XXXX told me she would be referring me to the \" Student Loans Department '', which is odd, since the whole business purpose of AES is \" student loans '', so when one calls the number on the \" student loan '' bill, does one not reach anyone who deals with \" student loans ''? I agreed to be transferred, and XXXX # XXXX took my call. \n\nXXXX told me that this alleged loan was a PHEAA loan, but then retracted that statement and agreed it appeared to be a XXXX loan. He alleged that payments were made on this loan as late as XX/XX/XXXX, which is false. XXXX also claimed that there is yet another loan with a balance due, however, as of this date, I have received no information on any additional loan. After a lengthy discussion in which I gave XXXX the recent details of the bills from AES, and my information I had gathered from all my calls, I requested that AES ( 1 ) cease collection on this nonexistent loan, ( 2 ) provide evidence that any debt is substantiated, ( 3 ) suspend all internal action while this matter is under dispute, and ( 4 ) suspend any further action, such as any credit reports, accrual of interest, or penalties during this period. \n\nTo date, I have spent approximately 4 hours on the phone attempting to track down anyone who could competently address and resolve this ridiculous debt collection for alleged loans which have been paid in full for nearly 15 years. There are several recent court cases in which AES has been found to have poor and insufficient records, unsubstantiated debts, and collection practices in violation of federal law. It is beyond ridiculous that any consumer is put in the position of having to spend hours of valuable time to correct records on a 15 year old debt paid in full, and it is unconscionable that any financial institution has the power to wage a collection campaign and record false allegations of nonpayment without a court order. \n\nI request that the CFPB investigate my own issue, and, by extension, what, according to AES 's own employees ' statements to me, is a large scale case of a mistaken collection campaign. It is conceivable that, for certain small amounts like mine, AES is intentionally using scare tactics to collect on nonexistent loans from many people who, like me, can not or do not want to spend the time dredging up records, languishing on \" hold '', and dealing with tens of layers of anonymous, internal bureaucracy. Additionally, I will want to know the statute of limitations on collection for a loan like this. It is, as Employee XXXX XXXX said, evidence enough that I had XXXX communications from any loan service since XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nAES is at best willfully ignorant and mismanaged, and at worst engaged in a large scale fraudulent collection practice, using their power as a financial institution to threaten individuals into paying amounts they do not owe, without any basis in fact or evidence. Because lending institutions have the power to impact credit reports without warning or meaningful citizen recourse, and thus all personal finances, the mere transmission of an erroneous bill is sufficiently threatening to constitute a violation of rights.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-04-16T20:18:14.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Private student loan debt","zip_code":"741XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3205836","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AES/PHEAA","date_received":"2019-04-09T03:24:28.000Z","state":"OK","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was paid"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX told me not to worry about it, that it would \" work itself out '', and no <em>further</em> <em>action</em> was required by me. \n\nI asked for the XXXX contact number so I could verify that their records confirmed payment in full. My concern was that erroneous records and billing could <em>result</em> in filing of negative credit reports. XXXX gave me the number XXXX for XXXX, which I then called."]},"sort":[10.640979,"3205836"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9529467","_score":9.979121,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Legal Note : Victim v. Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc . \nSubject : Negligence in Loan Modification Process, Misrepresentation, and Credit Damage Background : During the XXXX pandemic, Victim relied on the United States Federal Government 's assurance that mortgage payments could be deferred and addressed after the pandemic. XXXX XXXX Victim 's tenant ceased paying rent during this period, prompting her to utilize the grace period offered by the federal government. The mortgage for her property at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Maryland XXXX, was initially held by XXXX XXXX, with the loan originating from XXXX XXXX and serviced by XXXX XXXX, a loan brokerage company. \nThe government promised that deferred mortgage payments would either be reintegrated into the loan at a higher monthly rate or appended to the end of the loan term. Despite XXXX XXXX Victim complying with all required procedures, XXXX XXXX failed to honor this promise. In the fall of XXXX, XXXX XXXX Victim was informed that her loan was sold to Select Portfolio Servicing, XXXX ( SPS ). Since XX/XX/XXXX, her mortgage has been serviced by SPS, which has not acted in good faith to facilitate a loan modification. \nClaims of Negligence and Misrepresentation : Failure to Engage and Process Loan Modification : SPS has been negligent in its duty to engage with XXXX XXXX Victim, who has requested a loan modification for the amount of {$12000.00} since XX/XX/XXXX. SPS has failed to process this request, exacerbating the financial burden on XXXX XXXX Victim. \nNon-application of Payments : SPS has not applied any payments towards the increasing delinquency, resulting in a perpetual and compounding financial strain. \nFalse Statements : SPS has lied multiple times regarding the reasons for not processing the loan modification, including false claims that XXXX XXXX Victim did not sign the necessary documents correctly. These statements are untrue and constitute deliberate misrepresentation. \nImpact on Credit and Additional Hardships : The negligence of SPS has severely impacted XXXX XXXX Victim 's XXXX XXXX. She is currently facing a family emergency and is unable to obtain a Home Equity Line of Credit ( HELOC ) from her primary residence due to SPS 's refusal to complete the loan modification. Her credit has deteriorated significantly as a result of SPS 's actions. \nXXXX XXXX : Elimination of Delinquent Payments : XXXX XXXX Victim requests that the court enforce a judgment to eliminate all delinquent mortgage payments as of the court appearance date. \nFixed Monthly Payment : She seeks a court order ensuring that the current mortgage payment of {$570.00} per month, as indicated on SPS 's web portal, remains fixed until the mortgage is fully paid off in accordance with Maryland state law. \nCredit Restoration : XXXX XXXX Victim also asks for the removal of all adverse actions taken by SPS that have damaged her XXXX XXXX and for her XXXX XXXX to be restored to its previous state. \nConclusion : Due to the negligence, misrepresentation, and detrimental impact on XXXX XXXX Victim 's credit by SPS, she is entitled to judicial relief. The court 's intervention is essential to protect her rights, address the financial damages incurred, and hold SPS accountable for their failures in managing the loan modification process. \nAddendum to Complaint : Victim v. Select Portfolio Servicing, XXXX et al. \nSubject : Addition of Defendants, Request for Damages for Pain and Suffering, and Allegations of Illegality and Abuse Background : Additional defendants have been included in the existing complaint against Select Portfolio Servicing XXXX XXXX ( \" SPS '' ) due to their alleged complicity in the wrongful actions perpetrated against the plaintiff, Victim. These actions have caused significant distress and financial harm to the plaintiff. \nDefendants Added : XXXX XXXX : President and CEO of Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc . \nXXXX XXXX : XXXX and XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX. \nThese individuals, by virtue of their positions, are responsible for the operational environment at SPS and XXXX XXXX, which allegedly fostered practices of deception and customer mistreatment, contributing to the grievances detailed herein. \nClaims of Aggravated Actions and Illegality : Unlawful Fund Transfer : On or around XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX Victim discovered irregularities in the management of her mortgage payments post-receipt of her lawsuit by SPS. Funds designated for her property at XXXX XXXX XXXX were inappropriately redirected to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX without her consent, which contravenes lawful procedures and ethical standards. \nCoercive Communication and Default Threats : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX Victim received XXXX default threats and a coercive communication demanding payment by XX/XX/XXXX. These actions reflect a pattern of abusive practices and unwarranted pressure on the plaintiff. \nXXXX XXXX Demands : Despite the substantial financial burden, XXXX XXXX Victim complied with SPS 's demands. On XX/XX/XXXX, she was informed by an SPS agent that she owed {$2900.00} to bring the account for XXXX XXXX XXXX current and {$9900.00} for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, both of which she paid as documented in the attached bank statements. However, it was later revealed that these funds were not properly recorded in SPS 's system. \nUnauthorized Loan Modification : Contrary to the plaintiff 's intentions, an SPS agent automatically initiated a loan modification for XXXX XXXX XXXX. This action was taken without XXXX XXXX Victim 's request, and SPS falsely claimed that she requested the withdrawal of this modification. \nLack of Transparency : The SPS online portal fails to reflect the payments made by XXXX XXXX Victim, further evidencing SPS 's deliberate negligence and mishandling of her accounts. \nDamages and Request for Compensation : In light of the severe distress and financial damage caused by SPS 's actions, and the complicity of XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX Victim seeks an additional {$10000.00} in damages for pain and suffering. The ongoing mismanagement, unlawful fund transfer, coercive demands, and false claims by SPS have exacerbated her financial strain, deteriorated her credit, and hindered her ability to address a pressing family emergency. \nComplaint Filed : A formal complaint has been filed with the Better Business Bureau against SPS for their abusive practices and failure to address XXXX XXXX Victim 's legitimate concerns. \nConclusion : The deliberate negligence and harmful actions of SPS, supported by XXXX XXXX, have violated the principles of reconciliation and current mortgage law. The plaintiff, XXXX XXXX Victim, has endured significant emotional and financial suffering, justifying the request for {$10000.00} in compensatory damages for the ongoing harm experienced. \nXXXX XXXX : The court should enforce the elimination of all delinquent mortgage payments as of the court appearance date. \nThe court should ensure the fixed monthly mortgage payment of {$570.00} for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX until the mortgage is fully paid off per Maryland law. \nThe court should order the removal of all adverse credit actions by SPS and restore XXXX XXXX Victim 's XXXX XXXX. \nAn additional {$10000.00} in damages for pain and suffering is requested. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nReview of Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc . \nMy experience with Select Portfolio Servicing, XXXX ( SPS ) over the last XXXX months has been profoundly negative. SPS has persistently refused to process my loan modification request despite having all the required documentation since the beginning of the year. Their handling of my case has been marred by a lack of transparency and repeated misrepresentation. \nThroughout this period, I have received XXXX letters from SPS falsely claiming that I had failed to submit the necessary information for my loan modification. These claims are completely baseless ; all requested documents were provided promptly. This pattern of sending misleading communications appears to be a deliberate effort to avoid addressing my modification request. \nMoreover, XXXX management of my mortgage payments has been highly problematic. Payments that I have made have not been correctly applied, leading to an unjust increase in my delinquency. This mishandling of funds exacerbates the financial pressure and creates a misleading representation of my payment status. \nThe customer service provided by SPS has been equally troubling. Instead of offering assistance, their communications have been hostile and coercive, demanding immediate payments under threat of default. This abrasive approach only adds to the stress and frustration of dealing with them. \nXXXX refusal to modify the loan and their consistent dissemination of false information reflect a deep-seated issue with their service quality and ethical standards. This experience has severely impacted my financial situation and XXXX XXXX, causing significant personal distress. I strongly advise caution to anyone considering engaging with SPS due to their negligent practices and the unnecessary hardship they have caused. \n-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - Addendum to Complaint : Victim v. Select Portfolio Servicing, XXXX et al. \nSubject : Additional Defendant, Allegations of Systemic Misconduct, Threatening Communications, and Request for Damages Introduction : This addendum addresses the ongoing misconduct by Select Portfolio Servicing XXXX XXXX ( \" SPS '' ) and the addition of XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX of SPS, as a defendant. It details the systemic issues and deceptive practices at SPS, supported by recent customer reviews and complaints. Additionally, it outlines the threatening communications received by Victim and requests further damages for pain and suffering. \nSystemic Misconduct and Customer Feedback : SPS continues to inflict pain and suffering on the plaintiff, Victim. The company has demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty and incompetence in its customer interactions, as corroborated by its dismal average rating of XXXX out of XXXX stars based on XXXX customer reviews on the Better Business Bureau ( \" BBB '' ) website. Over the past XXXX years, SPS has had XXXX complaints closed, with XXXX complaints closed in the last 12 months alone. This significant number of complaints underscores the widespread dissatisfaction with SPS 's service, indicating an environment of incompetence and a lack of genuine customer care. \nAddition of Defendant : Given his leadership role and responsibility for the operational practices at SPS, XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX of SPS, is hereby added as a defendant in this lawsuit. His inclusion reflects his accountability for the pervasive issues within the organization that have adversely impacted the plaintiff and numerous other customers. \nThreatening Communications : The plaintiff received a threatening letter from SPS 's registered agent, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the removal of SPS from XXXX case under the threat of imposing legal fees on the plaintiff. This coercive tactic further demonstrates SPS 's willingness to intimidate and exert undue pressure on the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff petitions the court to mandate that all legal fees imposed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX by SPS, XXXX to their collusion in fostering an unfair and broken system that harms customers. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : SPS sent a letter falsely claiming that the plaintiff requested the transfer of funds from the mortgage account for XXXX XXXX XXXX to cover alleged late payments on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. There is no evidence to support this claim, and the plaintiff did not make such a request. All phone transcripts are recorded and will demonstrate that SPS fabricated this claim. Subsequently, SPS issued a default threat for XXXX XXXX XXXX, alleging non-payment, which further illustrates SPS 's manufactured default in violation of their procedures. \nRefusal to Correct Credit Report Errors : Despite repeated requests, SPS has refused to correct errors on the plaintiffs credit report, causing continued harm and impeding her ability to manage a family emergency. The ongoing refusal to rectify these inaccuracies further exacerbates the plaintiffs distress and financial challenges. \nRequest for Additional Damages : In light of the continued harm, abusive practices, and refusal to address legitimate concerns, the plaintiff seeks an additional {$10000.00} in damages for pain and suffering. \nAdditional Measures : The plaintiff intends to contact XXXX XXXX, Chairman of the XXXX XXXX XXXX, to request oversight and intervention concerning SPS 's practices. The House XXXX XXXX XXXX has jurisdiction over economic and banking system issues, housing, and consumer protection. Bringing the XXXX of SPS before the XXXX XXXX be necessary to ensure accountability and initiate systemic reform. Additionally, consideration is being given to initiating a class action lawsuit to address the ongoing harm inflicted on XXXX customers and to effectuate permanent change. \nConclusion : The addition of XXXX XXXX as a defendant, the documentation of systemic issues, and the request for further damages are essential to address the significant and ongoing harm caused by SPS. The plaintiff seeks judicial relief to rectify these issues and hold SPS accountable for their actions. \n\n\nAddendum to Complaint : Victim v. Select Portfolio Servicing, XXXX et al. \nSubject : Allegations of Systemic Misconduct and Request for Additional Damages XXXX. Overview of Deceptive Practices and Retaliation : Select Portfolio Servicing, XXXX ( \" SPS '' ) has exhibited a consistent pattern of deceptive and uncaring activities towards the plaintiff, Victim. Despite fulfilling all requirements for a loan modification in XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, SPS has refused to XXXX the modification. The agents handling the plaintiff 's case were inadequately trained and uninformed about the status and procedures necessary for processing the loan modification. \nXXXX. Retaliatory and Deceptive Correspondence : SPS engaged in retaliatory actions by sending the plaintiff XXXX letters falsely asserting that she had not submitted all necessary materials for the loan modification concerning the property located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Maryland XXXX. Despite the plaintiff making full payments and maintaining her account status up to date, SPS falsely claimed that she had missed payments for XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Bank XXXX XXXX statements provided by the plaintiff contradict these claims. Furthermore, SPS issued misleading notifications alleging delinquency, despite phone transcripts confirming the plaintiffs account was current. \nXXXX. Systemic Misconduct : The conduct of SPS towards the plaintiff demonstrates a pattern of misleading, illusory, ambiguous, deceptive, deceitful, fraudulent, and callous behavior. Such actions are indicative of systemic misconduct within SPS, reflecting a broader issue of incompetence and malice. \nXXXX. Impact on Credit and Request for Damages : SPSs actions have caused significant harm to the plaintiffs credit. SPS has refused to engage in standard arbitration procedures to resolve these issues and has instead acted in a manner that can be construed as retaliatory towards the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff requests additional restitution of {$8000.00} for the continued injustice suffered. The total amount of restitution sought by the plaintiff is {$30000.00}. \nXXXX. Warning of Further Legal Action : Should this matter not be resolved amicably, which is the plaintiff 's preference, Victim intends to escalate the case from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The plaintiff seeks justice and equitable relief from the court to address the ongoing and deliberate harm inflicted by SPS. \n\nConclusion : The court must not condone such behavior from SPS and should take into account the malicious and uncaring nature of their actions towards the plaintiff. The plaintiff, Victim, respectfully requests that the court XXXX the additional restitution sought and ensure that SPS is held accountable for their continued deceptive practices and retaliation.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-16T19:34:38.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"20721","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9529467","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","date_received":"2024-07-16T18:52:02.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As a <em>result</em>, the plaintiff requests additional restitution of {$8000.00} for the continued injustice suffered. The total amount of restitution sought by the plaintiff is {$30000.00}. \nXXXX. <em>Warning</em> of <em>Further</em> Legal <em>Action</em> : Should this matter not be resolved amicably, which is the plaintiff 's preference, Victim intends to escalate the case from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX."]},"sort":[9.979121,"9529467"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12404166","_score":9.49348,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX VALIDATION AND PROOF OF CLAIM IS STILL REJECTED WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE Violation XXXX. ) trying to collect a charge off you dont have legal rights too. \nXXXX. ) Furnishing deceptive forms. \nXXXX. ) False and misleading representation Collection of extensions of credit by extortionate. \nXXXX. ) Violate my right to privacy. \nXXXX. ) Sharing non-public personal information. \nXXXX. ) Willful noncompliance. \nXXXX. ) threaten to sue 12 CFR part 1016.7 And I am now exercising my right to opt out! \nT o Whom it May Concern Last and final warning before I get my legal team involved. Your company is in direct violation of the FDCPA, TAX Regulations, PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 and the FCRA. I've exercised my right in the letter Ive sent your company by mail as well online. \n15 usc 1692 ( A ) ( C ) Communication in connection with a debt collection. ( a ) Communication with the consumer generally Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector or the express permission of a court of competent jurisdiction, a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt ( c ) Ceasing communication If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except ( 1 ) to advise the consumer that the debt collectors further efforts are being terminated ; ( 2 ) to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor; or ( 3 ) where applicable, to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor intends to invoke a specified remedy.\n\nIf such notice from the consumer is made by mail, notification shall be complete upon receipt. \nThe Definition of the word Communication ( 2 ) The term communication means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium.\n\nThis report is a form of communication, your company is using XXXX, XXXX and XXXX as a medium to communicate to me about a debt I dont owe. \nYour company has no legal rights to a charge-off. As stated by the IRS, If your debt is forgiven or discharged, the debt is considered canceled for the forgiven or discharged amount that you no longer need to pay. Cancellation of a debt may occur if the creditor can't collect, or gives up on collecting, the amount you're obligated to pay. In general, if your debt is canceled, forgiven, or discharged, the amount of the canceled debt is taxable. If taxable, you must report the canceled debt on your tax. The key word in what the IRS definition of a charge off was you dont have to pay, so you can not attempt something that is canceled and written off as a tax deduction.\n\na Form 1099-C, means an applicable entity has reported an identifiable event to the IRS regarding a debt you owe.\n\n\nEven if you didn't receive a Form 1099-C, you must report canceled debt as gross income on your tax return Schedule 1 ( Form 1040 ), line 8c, if the debt is a nonbusiness debt ; Code GDecision or policy to discontinue collection. Code G is used to identify cancellation of debt as a result of a decision or a defined policy of the creditor to discontinue collection activity and cancel the debt. For pur- poses of this identifiable event, a defined policy includes both a written policy and the creditor 's established business practice.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1692e - False or misleading representations A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.\n\n( XXXX ) The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value. \n26 CFR 1.6050P-1 - Information reporting for discharges of indebtedness by certain entities ( XXXX  ) No multiple reporting. If discharged indebtedness is reported under this section, no further reporting under this section is required for the amount so reported, notwithstanding that a subsequent identifiable event occurs with respect to the same amount. Further, no additional reporting.\n\n( G ) A discharge of indebtedness pursuant to a decision by the creditor, or the application of a defined policy of the creditor, to discontinue collection activity and discharge debt. \nYour company XXXX can not mislead consumers in connection with any debt. XXXX can not make false legal form claims to sue for a debt your company dose not own. \n15 U.S. Code 1692i - Legal actions by debt collectors ( a ) Venue Any debt collector who brings any legal action on a debt against any consumer shall ( 1 ) in the case of an action to enforce an interest in real property securing the consumers obligation, bring such action only in a judicial district or similar legal entity in which such real property is located ; or ( 2 ) in the case of an action not described in paragraph ( 1 ), bring such action only in the judicial district or similar legal entity ( A ) in which such consumer signed the contract sued upon ; or ( B ) in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action.\n\n( b ) Authorization of actions Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize the bringing of legal actions by debt collectors.\n\nExhibit A is false documents trying to take me to court that is breaking the above federal law 15 usc 1692i ( B ) Authorization of actions Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize the bringing of legal actions by debt collectors.\n\n18 U.S.C 884- Collection of extensions of credit by extortionate means ( A ) whoever knowingly participates in any way, or conspires to do so, in the use of any extortionate means. ( 1 ) to collect or attempt to collect any extension of credit, or ( 2 ) to punish any person for the nonpayment thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than XXXX  years, or both.\n\nThis is now considered a certificate of indebtedness per the IRS and income can not be reported. \nOn the consumer report this account is late payment. That is a direct violation 15 usc 1666B TIMING OF PAYMENTS ( a ) TIME TO MAKE PAYMENTS A creditor may not treat a payment on a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan as late for any purpose, unless the creditor has adopted reasonable procedures designed to ensure that each periodic statement including the information required by section 1637 ( b ) of this title is mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than XXXX  days before the payment due date.\n\nThe above referenced the FCRA and stated a creditor may not treat a payment on a credit card account late unless a statement was mailed to the consumer XXXX  days before the payment due date. Your company has not done any of these steps that makes the reporting of this late payment/past due a violation of my consumer rights.\n\nI have a right to privacy and Per the Privacy Act of 1974 as a federally protected consumer I am now revoking any and all authorization I the consumer may have given a written, non written, verbal, and nonverbal per 5 U.S. Code 552a I am opting out of your reporting services. Per my right Privacy Act of 1974 and 12 CFR part 1016.7 1 Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods.\n\n( g ) Time to comply with opt out. You must comply with a consumer 's opt out direction as soon as reasonably practicable after you receive it. \n( h ) Continuing right to opt out. A consumer may exercise the right to opt out at any time.\n\nXXXX, XXXX and XXXX are not affiliates of your company nor are they \" bureaus. The only true credit bureau is the CFPB and they DO NOT furnish consumer reports as stated in federal law. I have a right to privacy and Per the Privacy Act of 1974 as a federally protected consumer, Its only XXXX credit bureau The Dodd-Frank Act granted rulemaking authority under the FDCPA & FCRA to XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX CFPB ) XXXX and, with respect to entities under its jurisdiction, granted authority to the CFPB to XXXX for and enforce compliance with the FDCPA & FCRA. \n15 U.S. Code 6809 - Definitions ( 5 ) Nonaffiliated XXXX  party The term nonaffiliated third party means any entity that is not an affiliate of, or related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control with, the financial institution, but does not include a joint employee of such institution.\n\nI have the right to make sure my private information isn't shared which is backed by 15 USC 6801 which states '' It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers nonpublic personal information. Per the FCRA as a federally protected consumer I am now opting out of any and all authorizations I the consumer may have given you writing unwritten verbal and nonverbal per 15 USC 6802.\n\n15 usc 1681s2. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if- ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.\n\nthe efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system In conclusion I have shown you and youre being put on notice that you are reporting inaccurate information, The information, is in fact inaccurate. The continued reporting of this inaccurate information is a clear violation of the Law 15 USC 1681 S-2 of your responsibilities as a furnisher of information.\n\nYou have caused me and my family severe harm due to your negligence and inaccurate reporting. This is a final opportunity to Cure and DELETE This Erroneous, Inaccurate account from my Consumer report XXXX XXXX and XXXX. \n15 usc 1681a ( 2 ) definition rules of construction ( 2 ) EXCLUSIONS.\n\nExcept as provided in paragraph ( XXXX ), the term consumer report does not include ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; This explains that transaction ( payment history ) or ( experience ) chargeoff between the consumer ( me ) and the person ( business ) making the report does not go on a consumer report. Furthermore showing how illegal this account is according to the fair debt reporting act. \nI see that your company has been sued numerous times before for these same violations in XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX XXXX. XXXX YOU HAVE XXXX Calendar days to DELETE THIS ACCOUNT FROM MY CONSUMER REPORTS. \n15 usc 1681n. Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.\n\nAny person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter of- with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum ( XXXX ) ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00}. \nIll be sending a copy to the state attorney general, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX  XXXX My consumer XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX XXXX  XXXX  XXXX XXXX and 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 for XXXX and XXXX XXXX  ( NCDA ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX MO XXXX XXXX IRS IRS XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, DC XXXX XXXX : XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-11T00:53:55.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"33313","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12404166","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","date_received":"2025-03-11T00:47:27.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Threatened to sue you for very old debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":[") to punish any person for the <em>nonpayment</em> thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than XXXX  years, or both."],"issue":["Took or threatened to take negative or legal <em>action</em>"]},"sort":[9.49348,"12404166"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13693898","_score":6.791508,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint for Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Introduction : Nature of the Action : Plaintiff XXXX XXXX XXXX ( hereinafter Plaintiff ) brings this Complaint against Defendant TransUnion Consumer Solutions ( TransUnion ) for repeated and willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and for failure to comply with industry Metro 2 reporting standards. Plaintiff alleges that TransUnion has persistently reported inaccurate and fraudulent information on his credit report and failed to conduct reasonable reinvestigations of disputed information, in violation of federal law. Despite multiple disputes and a prior identity theft report, TransUnion has continued to report erroneous account information, causing ongoing harm to Plaintiffs credit reputation and financial well-being.\n\nSummary of Violations : TransUnions wrongful conduct includes : ( a ) reporting charged-off accounts with ongoing past-due balances, which is inconsistent with FCRA accuracy requirements and Metro 2 guidelines\n; ( b ) failing to reinvestigate and correct these inaccuracies within the time frame required by law ; ( c ) refusing to provide Plaintiff with the documentation or description of its investigation as required ; and ( d ) effectively performing only cursory, automated investigations that merely parrot furnishers responses, contrary to the FCRAs mandate of a genuine, reasonable investigationcaselaw.findlaw.comcaselaw.findlaw.com. These practices have been condemned by courts and regulators alike, including in a recent enforcement action where the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) described TransUnions dispute handling as sham investigations that flout federal lawconsumerfinance.gov.\n\nPurpose of Complaint : Through this legal-style complaint ( modeled as a federal civil action ), Plaintiff seeks to compel TransUnion to immediately delete all disputed, inaccurate accounts from his credit file and to ensure full compliance with the FCRA and Metro 2 standards. Plaintiff further puts TransUnion on notice that failure to comply within 14 days will result in legal action in federal court, where Plaintiff will seek all available relief, including statutory and punitive damages for TransUnions willful noncompliance. This Complaint is deliberately structured in a formal legal manner so as to bypass automated e-OSCAR dispute processing and demand direct attention from TransUnions compliance and legal departments.\n\nJurisdiction and Venue : Jurisdiction : This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681p and 28 U.S.C. 1331, because Plaintiffs claims arise under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. TransUnions violations of 15 U.S.C. 1681i and 1681e ( b ) give rise to a private right of action for which Plaintiff seeks relief. Supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims ( if asserted ) would be proper under 28 U.S.C. 1367. \nXXXX  : XXXX is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391 ( b ) because Plaintiff resides in this District and the events giving rise to the claims occurred here. TransUnion regularly conducts business in this District and maintains substantial contacts here. TransUnion, as one of the nations largest consumer reporting agencies, is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District and throughout the United States. Given that the harm to Plaintiffs credit report was felt in this District, venue is appropriate for the adjudication of this dispute. \n\nIntradistrict Assignment : ( If applicable under local rules. ) The events described herein occurred primarily in the county of Plaintiffs residence ( XXXX XXXX, Maryland ). Accordingly, assignment to the XXXX XXXX of this XXXX would be proper. \n\nParties Plaintiff : XXXX XXXX XXXX is a natural person and consumer residing in XXXX XXXX, XXXX. Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( c ), in that he is an individual about whom TransUnion prepares and furnishes consumer credit reports. Plaintiff has at all relevant times been the victim of false and inaccurate credit reporting by TransUnion, which has adversely affected his credit score, credit opportunities, and peace of mind. \n\nDefendant : TransUnion Consumer Solutions/TransUnion LLC ( TransUnion ) is a publicly traded company in XXXX under the ticker symbol XXXX on the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TransUnion principal place of business is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX. TransUnion is a consumer reporting agency ( CRA ) as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ) : it regularly engages in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties for monetary fees. TransUnion does business nationwide, including substantial business in the XXXX of XXXX. At all relevant times, TransUnion acted through its agents, employees, or representatives, who were in the scope of their employment and under TransUnions supervision and control. \n\nNon-Party Furnishers : Various creditor institutions and debt collectors furnished the information at issue to TransUnion. These furnishers include, XXXXXXXX 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  ( collectively, the Furnishers ). While not named as defendants in this complaint, the Furnishers are mentioned to the extent that TransUnion relied on their information and responses. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), these Furnishers have duties to investigate and correct disputed information when notified by a CRA. TransUnions conduct in this case is intertwined with the Furnishers failures to correct the false data ; TransUnions actions effectively facilitated and continued those statutory violations by the Furnishers. \n\nFactual Allegations XXXX XXXX XXXX Account : TransUnion was reporting an installment loan account with XXXX XXXX XXXX that had been charged off after alleged non-payment. Here again, TransUnion listed the XXXX account with a status of XXXX XXXX while simultaneously indicating a significant past-due balance remaining. The presence of a past-due balance on an account flagged as a charge-off is contrary to the Metro 2 reporting standards set by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Metro 2 guidelines require that once an account is charged off, the account should reflect a zero current balance and no ongoing past due amount ( since the debt is no longer an open receivable on a current schedule ). TransUnions reporting of the XXXX account violated this standard by showing the account as if payments were still actively delinquent post-charge-off. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : TransUnion was also reporting a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX credit card ( XXXX XXXX ) account with inaccurate status. This account was listed as a charge-off with a past-due balance of several XXXX dollars. If this account was legitimately charged off by XXXX XXXX, it should not have a continuing past due amount in the manner a currently delinquent account would. The reporting created a misleading impression that XXXX had an open, delinquent balance with XXXX XXXX, when in reality the account was closed and charged off ( or, potentially, was also impacted by identity theft or prior disputePlaintiff had previously contested its accuracy ). \n\nOther Accounts and Inaccuracies : In addition to the above, other accounts on Plaintiffs TransUnion report showed similar discrepancies ( charge-off notations with continuing balances, inconsistent dates or amounts, etc. ). Each of these inaccuracies represents a failure by TransUnion to assure maximum possible accuracy in Plaintiffs credit file as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). For example, at least XXXX collection account continued to be reported even after the underlying debt was resolved, and several accounts did not reflect notices of dispute that Plaintiff had lodged, which TransUnion is required to note on the report per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( c ). For brevity, this Complaint focuses on the primary accounts listed above, but Plaintiff alleges that any and all disputed accounts on his TransUnion report contain errors that TransUnion negligently and willfully failed to correct. \n\nImpact of Inaccurate Reporting : The inaccurate information described in Paragraph XXXX was highly damaging to Plaintiff. TransUnions report portrayed Plaintiff as significantly more delinquent and high-risk than he actually is. The reporting of multiple active past-due balances on charged-off accounts made Plaintiffs credit profile appear as if he had multiple severe, unresolved delinquencies at the same time. This has adversely affected Plaintiffs credit score and has led to credit denials or offers on far worse terms than Plaintiff would otherwise qualify for. Moreover, the continued presence of fraudulent accounts ( the XXXX XXXX cards opened by identity thieves ) on the report means Plaintiff is effectively being penalized for crimes committed by others, a harm the FCRA specifically intended to prevent through 1681c-2. Plaintiff has suffered credit damage, loss of credit opportunities, and considerable emotional distress ( including stress, anxiety, and frustration ) as a direct result of TransUnions reporting failures. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Plaintiffs Dispute to TransUnion : Promptly after reviewing the XX/XX/XXXX credit report, on or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX submitted a detailed dispute to TransUnion, challenging the inaccurate accounts. Plaintiff utilized the CFPBs consumer complaint portal to lodge this dispute ( CFPB XXXX XXXX. XXXX, submitted XX/XX/XXXX, and forwarded to TransUnion shortly thereafter ). In his dispute, Plaintiff clearly identified each erroneous account and explained why the reporting was incorrect or inconsistent with the FCRA and Metro 2 standards. Specifically, Plaintiffs dispute highlighted that TransUnion was : Reporting charge-off accounts with an active past-due balance, which is a contradiction and an FCRA violation ( failing to maintain accuracy ) as well as a Metro 2 violation. Plaintiff cited 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ( requirement for consumer reporting agencies to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of information ) and noted that this standard was breached by the blatant errors on his report. \n\nFailing to note previous disputes/investigations. Plaintiff referenced that he had disputed the same accounts before ( in XXXX ), and TransUnions reinvestigation obligations under 15 U.S.C. 1681i had not been met, as the results remained incorrect. He emphasized that TransUnion must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of each disputed item, contact the Furnishers with all relevant information, and delete or correct any information that can not be verified as accurate. \n\nPossibly ignoring supporting documentation. Plaintiff attached and/or referenced supporting documents in the CFPB complaint ( such as correspondence, prior dispute results, the identity theft police report, billing statements showing discrepancies, etc. ), and insisted that TransUnion review this evidence rather than relying on automated means alone. \n\nIn this XX/XX/XXXX dispute, Plaintiff expressly requested that TransUnion : ( a ) delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts ; ( b ) remove or correct the past-due balance reporting on any charged-off accounts ( including XXXX and XXXX Card ) and several other accounts so that they are accurate or deleted if unverifiable ; and ( c ) provide Plaintiff with a copy of the updated report and an explanation of the investigation results. Plaintiff also indicated that if the accounts were verified as accurate, he wanted to be provided with the method of verification and documentation that TransUnion relied upon, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( 7 ).\n\nTransUnions Statutory Duty to Reinvestigate : Upon receiving Plaintiffs dispute, TransUnion was legally required to conduct a meaningful reinvestigation of the disputed items. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), a consumer reporting agency must reinvestigate disputed information on a consumers report within 30 days of receiving notice of the dispute ( with a possible 15-day extension if the consumer provides additional relevant information during the 30-day period ). By law, TransUnion was required to : notify the Furnishers of the dispute, provide them all relevant information about the dispute, review and consider all information provided by Plaintiff, and then delete or modify any information that is found to be inaccurate or unverifiable. If the reinvestigation resulted in no change, TransUnion was obligated to send Plaintiff a notice of the results and, upon request, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information ( the method of verification ) per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) and ( 7 ). These FCRA provisions impose a grave responsibility on TransUnion to do more than simply take a creditors word if the information could be inaccuratecaselaw.findlaw.com. \n\nTransUnions Failure to Timely Respond ( No Response in 30 Days ) : TransUnion did not provide any response or results of investigation within the 30-day period following Plaintiffs XX/XX/XXXX dispute. By law, the reinvestigation should have been completed by approximately XX/XX/XXXX ( 30 days after the dispute was communicated to TransUnion ), or by XX/XX/XXXX if a XXXX extension applied due to additional information provided by XXXX. Those dates passed with no communication from TransUnion. Plaintiff received no update in XX/XX/XXXX regarding the status or outcome of his dispute. This silence itself was a violation of FCRA 1681i. TransUnions failure to reinvestigate and respond within the statutory timeframe is a clear violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ), which mandates prompt handling of consumer disputes. Indeed, TransUnions conduct forced Plaintiff to take further action, as described below. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX Delayed TransUnion Response : On XX/XX/XXXX roughly 51 days after Plaintiffs dispute TransUnion provided a belated response through the CFPB portal, which TransUnion characterized as the results of its investigation. In this response ( which Plaintiff received on that date ), TransUnion claimed to have verified the disputed accounts as accurate and made no meaningful changes to the report. TransUnion did not delete the fraudulent XXXX XXXX accounts ; it did not remove the past-due balance fields on the charge-off accounts ; and it did not otherwise correct the misinformation. Essentially, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX response indicated that the data was verified as accurate by the source. The response was cursory and failed to specifically address the evidence Plaintiff had provided. Furthermore, TransUnion did not provide any of the underlying documents or details of the verification process. It did not, for example, supply Plaintiff with copies of any verification forms or correspondence from XXXX XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX XXXX. Nor did it explain how a charge-off with a past-due balance could be deemed accurate under industry standards. \n\nNo Method of Verification Provided : Plaintiff, upon receiving TransUnions XX/XX/XXXX response, noticed that TransUnion did not include a method of verification letter or description. On XX/XX/XXXX ( the same day the response was received ), Plaintiff requested via follow-up communication that TransUnion provide a detailed description of the procedures used to verify the disputed information, as is his right under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 7 ). TransUnion failed to comply with this request. TransUnion did not send any further explanation of how it conducted its reinvestigation. It provided no information about who at the Furnishers was contacted, what information was given to the Furnishers, or what the Furnishers replied with. This lack of transparency violated TransUnions obligation to provide the method of verification upon request, an important consumer right designed to allow individuals to assess whether the credit bureaus investigation was reasonable. By withholding this information, TransUnion hindered Plaintiffs ability to further challenge or correct the errors, effectively stonewalling his dispute. \n\nTransUnions XXXX on Automated Procedures : From the substance of TransUnions XX/XX/XXXX investigation results, it is evident that TransUnion relied solely on automated processes ( e.g., e-OSCAR ) and the Furnishers electronic responses in handling Plaintiffs dispute. TransUnions response to the CFPB complaint was generic and gave no indication of any human review of Plaintiffs documentation. Upon information and belief, TransUnion simply sent an Automated Consumer Dispute Verification ( ACDV ) form through the e-OSCAR system to XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, and other accounts and then blindly accepted their responses that the accounts were verified as reported. TransUnion did not exercise any independent judgment or scrutiny, even though the face of the data contained glaring inconsistencies ( such as a charge-off with an ongoing balance ). In essence, TransUnions investigation was no investigation at all it was an automated forwarding of information and regurgitation of whatever the Furnishers responded with.\n\nFailure to Conduct a Reasonable Reinvestigation : TransUnions handling of the dispute fell far short of a reasonable reinvestigation as required by FCRA 1681i ( a ). A reasonable investigation would have entailed, at minimum : recognizing the obvious red flags in the data, seeking clarifications from Furnishers about the charge-off status vs. balance discrepancy, and independently verifying the identity theft claims ( for example, by reviewing the police report, comparing signatures, or examining account application records for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. TransUnion did none of this. It merely confirmed the information with the source and took no further steps, which courts have held to be inadequate. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX held that simply sending a form to the creditor and doing nothing more is insufficient a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers in a reinvestigationcaselaw.findlaw.com. Similarly, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Trans Union Corp. held that a reinvestigation that merely parrots the creditors position can not fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute.caselaw.findlaw.com TransUnions conduct here mirrors the discredited practices in those cases. It shifted the burden back to Plaintiff and the Furnishers, rather than actually resolving the dispute, thus violating the core purpose of 1681i. \n\nCFPB Recognition of XXXX XXXX Practices : XXXX pattern of handling disputes in this automated, perfunctory manner is not only a violation of the FCRA as interpreted by the courts, but it has also drawn regulatory scrutiny. On XX/XX/XXXX, the CFPB filed a public enforcement action against XXXX, alleging that XXXX  does not take sufficient steps to ... investigate ... consumer disputes, resulting in the inclusion of incorrect information on credit reports.consumerfinance.gov The CFPBs Director XXXX XXXX stated that TransUnion was conducting sham investigations rather than properly reviewing the disputes as required by federal law.consumerfinance.gov The experiences of the Plaintiff in this case exemplify the very misconduct that the CFPB identified. XXXX failure to genuinely investigate Plaintiffs dispute especially in the context of identity theft and blatant reporting errors aligns with the CFPBs allegations that XXXX systems prioritize speed and automation over accuracy and fairness. This regulatory action underscores that TransUnions violations in Plaintiffs case are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of willful non-compliance. \n\nContinued Reporting of Disputed Accounts : As of the filing of this Complaint, TransUnion continues to report the disputed accounts on Plaintiffs credit file without the corrections requested. The XXXX XXXX accounts remain, still marked as charge-offs with balances ; the XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX and other accounts, still show past-due amounts despite charge-off status. Each monthly cycle that passes, these accounts potentially update in TransUnions system as continuing derogatory marks, further prolonging the damage to Plaintiffs creditworthiness. Plaintiff has expended considerable time and effort trying to resolve these issues ( including writing complaints, gathering evidence, and researching his rights ), all due to TransUnions failure to meet its statutory obligations. \nTransUnions Violations Were Willful or, Alternatively, Negligent : TransUnions conduct described above was willful. TransUnion is fully aware of its duties under the FCRA it has been subject to prior lawsuits and regulatory actions for similar conduct, and it literally co-owns the e-OSCAR system used for disputes. TransUnion knew or had reason to know that the information it was reporting about Plaintiff was inaccurate ( the inconsistencies were facially obvious ), yet it willfully chose to ignore the red flags. TransUnion also willfully decided to use an automated dispute verification system without employing any manual review for Plaintiffs dispute, despite the complexity ( involving identity theft and multiple accounts ). In the alternative, if TransUnion claims it did not act intentionally, then at minimum its actions were negligent. Any reasonable company in TransUnions position, acting with due care, would have conducted a proper investigation and corrected the errors. TransUnions failure to do so, whether by conscious design or gross indifference, directly caused harm to Plaintiff.\n\nSummary of Harm to Plaintiff : As a direct result of TransUnions actions and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered injury including damage to his credit reputation, denial of credit opportunities, higher interest rates on credit offers, and emotional distress ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) from the ongoing inability to correct his credit report. Plaintiff has been forced to engage in a protracted struggle to have basic errors corrected, undermining his confidence in the fairness of the credit reporting system. These harms are precisely what the FCRA was designed to prevent. TransUnions repeated failure to comply with the FCRAs mandates is particularly egregious given the multiple opportunities it had to correct course ( in XXXX and again in XXXX ). Plaintiff now brings this Complaint seeking relief to finally rectify the situation and hold TransUnion accountable under the law. \n\nCase Law and Regulatory Support XXXX XXXX TransUnion XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : In XXXX, the XXXX XXXX emphasized that a credit bureaus reinvestigation of disputed information must be more than a token effort. The court held that the FCRA imposes grave responsibilities on agencies like TransUnion to ensure accuracy, and that a so-called reinvestigation that merely rubber-stamps the furnishers response is inadequatecaselaw.findlaw.com. In that case, Trans Union had verified an obviously fraudulent account by simply asking the creditor, which the court found could violate 1681i. The XXXX XXXX flatly stated that the burden of investigation is on the consumer reporting agency, not the consumer : the statute places the burden of reinvestigation squarely on the [ CRA ] a reinvestigation that merely shifts the burden back to the consumer and the credit grantor can not fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute.caselaw.findlaw.comcaselaw.findlaw.com TransUnions handling of Plaintiffs disputes in the present case mirrors the disapproved conduct in XXXX. Like TransUnion in this case, TransUnion simply parroted information from its subscribers ( creditors ) without carrying out its own duty to verify accuracy. Under XXXX, such conduct violates 1681is requirement of a reasonable reinvestigation. \n\nXXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) : In XXXX, the XXXX XXXX confronted a scenario involving fraudulent accounts ( opened by the plaintiffs son ) where the CRA relied solely on form requests to creditors during reinvestigation. The court held this was insufficient. It famously wrote : In a reinvestigation of the accuracy of credit reports, a credit bureau must bear some responsibility for evaluating the accuracy of information obtained from subscribers.caselaw.findlaw.com The XXXX XXXX reasoned that if a consumer has alerted the agency that the source of information ( the creditor ) maXXXX be unreliable ( for example, due to fraud or error ), the agency is obliged to go beyond the initial source and conduct a more searching inquirylaw.justia.com. It rejected the argument that a consumer should have to resolve the fraud directly with the creditor, affirming that the onus is on the CRA to resolve it caselaw.findlaw.com. In the case at bar, Plaintiff explicitly alerted TransUnion that the accounts were products of fraud or error ( and even provided an identity theft report and other evidence ). Under XXXX, TransUnion was duty-bound to do more than just ask the creditor via e-OSCAR. TransUnions failure to take any additional steps ( such as actually examining the police report or contacting Plaintiff for more info ) runs afoul of the standard set in XXXX. The lessons of XXXX reinforce that TransUnions simplistic approach to Plaintiffs dispute was legally deficient. \n\nXXXX v. XXXX  XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) : In XXXX, the plaintiffs disputed an erroneous credit item multiple times, and XXXX  repeatedly verified it by relying on the creditors word, despite evidence the information was wrong. The court denied summary judgment for XXXX, holding that 1681i ( a ) can require a CRA to go beyond the original source of information when the circumstances indicate the source may be XXXX. The decision noted that the majority of courts have found that a CRA must verify the accuracy of its initial source in certain situations, rather than blindly trusting the XXXX. In XXXX, the plaintiffs had even provided court documents to prove the account was resolved, yet XXXX  still took the creditors outdated report at face valuelaw.justia.com. The court cited XXXX and XXXX approvingly in concluding that whether a CRAs investigation was reasonable is usually a question for the XXXX, especially when the consumer has provided information calling the creditors data into XXXX. XXXX applies squarely here : XXXX gave TransUnion ample reason to doubt the furnishers ( pointing out obvious errors and fraud ), but TransUnion persisted in relying exclusively on those furnishers. Just as in XXXX, a fact-finder could ( and likely would ) determine that TransUnion willfully failed to conduct a proper reinvestigation. The case law thus supports Plaintiffs position that TransUnions conduct was unlawful under the FCRA. \n\nRecent CFPB Enforcement CFPB XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX. XXXX. XXXX ) : The Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus lawsuit against Experian, filed in XX/XX/XXXX, serves as powerful confirmation by the nations chief consumer credit regulator that XXXX  dispute-handling practices violate the FCRA.\n\nMetro 2 Compliance Standards : While not codified in the FCRA, the Metro 2 format guidelines ( issued by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) are the industry standard for reporting credit information. Adherence to Metro 2 is indicative of reasonable procedures for accuracy under 1681e ( b ). One key Metro 2 guideline is that an account that is charged off ( Category Profit and Loss Write-Off ) should have a current balance of {$0.00} and no past-due amount, since the debt is no longer an open obligation in the creditors portfolio. .Metro 2 Compliance Standards. Adherence to Metro 2 is indicative of reasonable procedures for accuracy under 1681e ( b ). One key Metro 2 guideline is that an account that is charged off ( Category Profit and Loss Write-Off ) should have a current balance of {$0.00} and no past-due amount, since the debt is no longer an open obligation in the creditors portfolio. By maintaining past-due balances on charged-off accounts, TransUnion deviated from Metro 2 standards, further highlighting the unreasonableness of its procedures. Additionally, Metro 2 provides specialized codes for indicating disputed information and identity theft accounts ; TransUnion either did not use these codes or ignored them in Plaintiffs case. The result was tradelines that were blatantly non-compliant with industry norms, reinforcing that TransUnions conduct was not just a technical error but a failure of the very controls meant to ensure data integrity.\n\nWillfulness and Pattern of Non-Compliance : The above legal authorities show that TransUnion has been on notice for decades that it must do more than superficial checks when consumers dispute information, especially in cases of fraud or obvious error. XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX ( XXXX ) have long been part of FCRA jurisprudence, and the FCRA statute itself is clear in its language. The fact that in XXXX TransUnion is still engaging in conduct that those cases found unlawful strongly suggests willfulness. TransUnions pattern of ignoring both court guidance and regulatory warnings ( like those from the CFPB and prior state Attorneys General settlements ) constitutes reckless disregard of consumers rights, which meets the standard for willfulness under 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( a ). Consequently, not only is TransUnion liable to Plaintiff for actual damages ( and/or statutory damages ), but an award of punitive damages is warranted to deter TransUnion from continuing its unlawful practices and to punish it for this pattern of misconduct.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-24T15:47:29.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20904","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13693898","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-05-24T15:20:03.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Plaintiff attached and/or referenced supporting documents in the CFPB complaint ( such as correspondence, prior dispute <em>results</em>, the identity theft police report, billing <em>statements</em> showing discrepancies, etc. ), and insisted that TransUnion review this evidence rather than relying on automated means alone."]},"sort":[6.791508,"13693898"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11337048","_score":4.964504,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"on XX/XX/XXXX early am an unknown company damage my driveway while repo a vehicle without notices also refuse to provide driver insurance or contact information, I was told to sue them by the receptionist as result I have done following steps. \n\nThird Party XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEBT COMPANY ORIGINAL NAVY FEDERAL, CHARGED OFF DEBT FAIL TO RESPOND TO BONAFIDE DISPUTE / XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX debt is sold to a collection agency. \nUnder UCC 3-301, the collection agency must be able to prove that they are entitled to collect the debt by providing proof that they are the holder of the debt or have the right to enforce it. \nIf they can not produce evidence of the assignment or demonstrate they are the rightful holder, you have a valid defense under UCC 3-301 that they do not have the legal right to enforce the debt. \nConclusion : UCC 3-301 ( 1 ) definitely applies when a third-party debt collector attempts to enforce a charged-off debt. The debt collector must be able to prove they are the holder of the debt or have the right to enforce the debt, typically through documentation of the debts transfer or assignment. If they can not provide such evidence, they may lack the legal standing to collect the debt, and you could successfully challenge their efforts. \nIf you are dealing with a third-party debt collector, you have the right to request proof of their entitlement to collect on the debt. If they fail to prove their right to collect, they may be violating the UCC and other consumer protection laws, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \nUCCC 3-301 ( 1 ) In the case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the Oklahoma Supreme Court dealt with the issue of self-help repossession and the legal rights of parties involved in a repossession, particularly regarding the proper notice and procedures required before and after repossession. Although the case primarily concerns the legal standing of the creditor ( the bank ) and the debtor in a repossession scenario, it is highly relevant to your question about the repo of a car without notice. \nLets break it down to see how it applies : The Case : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX In XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, the bank has repossessed a vehicle from the debtor, XXXX XXXX, without providing prior notice. The key issue in the case was whether the bank had acted unlawfully in repossessing the car without giving the required notice or affording the debtor an opportunity to redeem the vehicle. \nThe Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that self-help repossession is only lawful if it does not breach the peace and if the repossession complies with the terms of the contract ( in this case, the security agreement ). However, in this case, the court found that the bank 's actions in repossessing the car without notice violated the debtor 's rights under the law. \nKey Points of the Case : Right to Notice Before Repossession : The case reinforced that the debtor is entitled to notice before a repossession occurs. This includes notice that the creditor intends to repossess the vehicle and provide an opportunity to cure the default ( if applicable ), especially when required by the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) or the security agreement. \nSelf-Help Repossession Must Not Breach the Peace : The ruling emphasizes that self-help repossession ( when the lender or creditor takes back the vehicle without involving law enforcement ) must not breach the peace. This means the creditor must avoid actions like taking the car in the middle of the night or forcibly entering the debtor 's property. A breach of peace could render the repossession illegal and subject the creditor to damages. \nDue Process and Fair Treatment : The case aligns with the notion that repossessions must be carried out in a manner that respects the debtors due process rights. This includes reasonable notice and an opportunity to address the default before drastic actions like repossession are taken. \nApplication to Your Example : Repossessed Car without Notice If your situation mirrors the example you gave where a company repossessed your car in the middle of the night without any prior notice XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  can be relevant in several ways : Breach of Peace : If the repo company took the car without providing notice and did so in a manner that disrupted your peace ( such as repossessing it while you were unaware, in the middle of the night, or in a threatening manner ), this could be considered a breach of peace under UCC 9-609 ( which governs repossessions ). The Supreme Court in XXXX XXXXXXXX highlighted that the repossession must not disturb the peace, and if it did, the repossession could be considered illegal. \nLack of Notice : If you did not receive notice of the repossession or any opportunity to redeem the car, this could also be a violation of your rights under UCC 9-611, which requires the secured party ( the lender or creditor ) to notify the debtor of the repossession and sale. In your case, if you didnt receive a pre-repossession notice, or notice of the intent to sell the vehicle, this could be a violation of UCC requirements and a breach of your rights. \nOpportunity to Cure : If there was no attempt to provide you with a chance to cure the default ( such as catching up on missed payments before the car was taken ), then the creditor may have violated the terms of the security agreement or failed to follow the proper process outlined in UCC 9-609 and 9-611. \nRemedies Available : If the repossession was deemed to have violated UCC provisions or was conducted in an unlawful manner, you could potentially seek remedies such as damages for the illegal repossession, return of the car, or even monetary compensation for any harm caused by the wrongful repossession. In XXXX XXXXXXXX, the court upheld the idea that a creditor must follow legal procedures to protect the debtors rights, and a failure to do so could result in liability for the creditor. \nWhat You Can Do in a Similar Situation : If you find yourself in a situation where a car has been repossessed without notice, and especially if it was done in the middle of the night or under questionable circumstances, the principles of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX may apply to your case. Heres what you can do : Demand Proof of Notice : You can ask the creditor or the repossession company to provide proof that they properly notified you before the repossession took place. Under UCC 9-611, the creditor is required to give you notice of the intended sale of the vehicle before taking any action, and under UCC 9-609 , they can not repossess in a way that breaches the peace. \nCheck for Breach of Peace : If the repossession took place under circumstances that caused a disturbance or were carried out without your knowledge ( such as at night when you were not expecting it ), you might have grounds to claim a breach of peace. If the repossession was conducted in an aggressive, disruptive, or clandestine manner, this could be deemed unlawful. \nExamine the Security Agreement : Review the security agreement you signed when you took out the loan. Many agreements outline how and when a creditor can repossess the vehicle, what notices are required, and any potential penalties for non-payment. If the creditor violated any terms of that agreement ( e.g., failing to provide notice or not giving you an opportunity to cure the default ), you may have a case for wrongful repossession. \nSeek Legal Remedies : If the repossession was wrongful, you may be entitled to remedies such as : Return of the vehicle if it was wrongfully repossessed. \nDamages for any emotional distress, financial loss, or other harm caused by the wrongful repossession. \nA lawsuit for breach of contract or violation of your rights under the UCC. \nConsult an Attorney : If you believe your car was wrongfully repossessed in violation of your rights, it may be helpful to consult with an attorney who specializes in consumer protection, debt collection, or repossession laws. They can advise you on your legal rights, assist you in taking action against the repossession company, and help you seek compensation if applicable. \nConclusion : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  applies to your example by underscoring the requirements for repossession, particularly the need for notice and the prohibition against breach of peace. If the car was taken without notice, especially in the middle of the night, it could very well be considered a violation of both UCC requirements and your legal rights. You might have grounds to challenge the repossession and pursue legal action for damages or wrongful repossession, as the creditor is generally required to follow proper procedures. \nPER THE THIRD PARTY COLLECTING THE CAR WITHOUT NOTICE OF REPO OR ANY CONTRACT TO SHOW OWNERSHIP OR RIGHT OF REPO A LAWSUIT INEVITABLE Yes, if a third-party company repossesses your car without providing notice, without a valid contract, and without showing the right to repossess ( i.e., without demonstrating legal ownership or the right to act on behalf of the creditor ), there are strong grounds for a lawsuit. This is especially true if the repossession violates UCC provisions or consumer protection laws. \nLet 's break down why a lawsuit is inevitable under these circumstances and what the potential causes of action would be. \nKey Legal Issues in Your Scenario : Lack of Notice ( UCC and Consumer Protection ) : Under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), specifically UCC 9-609, a secured creditor ( or their authorized agent ) may repossess the vehicle, but notice is usually required before and after the repossession. \nNotice before repossession : While the UCC doesn't always require pre-repossession notice in every case ( if the contract allows for immediate repossession after default ), notice after repossession is almost always required especially if the car is going to be sold. \nIf the car was taken without any prior notice to you, and you didnt have an opportunity to cure the default, this could be a violation of UCC requirements. \nLack of Ownership or Right to Repossess : Third-Party Debt Collectors and Repo Agents : A third-party collector must prove they have the right to repossess the vehicle. If the repossession agent or debt collector can not produce evidence of ownership or a contract that clearly shows they have legal standing to repossess the vehicle, they may be violating your rights. \nIf they can not demonstrate they have the right to enforce the contract ( via a valid assignment or proof of ownership of the debt ), the repossession can be contested as unlawful. Under UCC 3-301, they must prove they have the right to enforce the debt. Without proper evidence, they may lack legal standing. \nBreach of Peace : Even if the third-party collector has the right to repossess, UCC 9-609 requires that repossession must be carried out without a breach of peace. If the repo occurred at an unreasonable time ( e.g., in the middle of the night ) or in a manner that caused disruption or fear, that could be considered a breach of peace. \nIn this case, repossession without notice, in the middle of the night, could be argued to constitute a breach of peace, which would make the repossession itself unlawful. \nPotential Causes of Action for a Lawsuit : Given the facts you've outlined, here are the potential legal claims or causes of action that could lead to a lawsuit against the third-party repo agent, the creditor, or both : 1. Wrongful Repossession ( Breach of Contract & UCC Violations ) Lack of Notice : If the repossession was carried out without proper notice as required under UCC 9-611 ( post-repossession notice of intent to sell the car ), or if there was no opportunity for you to cure the default, you may have grounds for wrongful repossession. \nLack of Standing : If the third-party repo agent can not prove that they have the legal right to repossess ( i.e., a valid assignment or proof that they own the debt ), they may not have had the legal right to take your car. In this case, you can sue for wrongful repossession. \n2. Breach of Peace ( UCC Violation ) Breach of Peace occurs when the repossession is conducted in a manner that disturbs the peace. This can include repossession at night, without warning, or in a manner that causes confrontation or distress. \nIf the repo was conducted improperly ( e.g., forcibly entering your property, taking the car without your knowledge or consent ), the creditor or repo company could be liable for damages due to breach of peace. \n3. Conversion ( Theft or Unauthorized Taking ) Conversion is the wrongful taking or control over another person 's property. If the third party took the car without legal authorization, and they are unable to prove that they had the right to take it, you could have a claim for conversion. This is especially relevant if the car was taken without notice, without a contract, and without the proper authority to do so. \n4. Violation of Consumer Protection Laws ( Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, UCC, etc. ) FDCPA Violations : If the repossession was carried out by a debt collector ( i.e., a third-party collection agency ), and they did so improperly, you might have grounds to bring a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The FDCPA protects consumers from harassment and abusive practices by debt collectors, including improper or illegal repossession tactics. \nThe UCC also protects consumers from creditors who act outside the bounds of the contract and the law. \n5. Emotional Distress ( Potential Tort Claim ) If the manner of repossession caused you significant emotional distress ( e.g., the stress of having your car taken unexpectedly at night or being wrongfully deprived of your vehicle ), you might have grounds for a claim of emotional distress. This is a more difficult claim to win, but if the repossession was done in an extremely inappropriate manner, it could potentially form the basis for damages. \nWhat You Can Do : Demand Proof : Send a formal demand letter to the creditor or repo company requesting proof of ownership and the right to repossess the car. They should provide you with a contract, proof of assignment, and any relevant documents that show they had the legal right to take the car. \n\nFile a Complaint : You can file a formal complaint with consumer protection agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), or your states attorney general office, if you believe the repossession violated consumer protection laws. \nConsider a Lawsuit : If the third-party repo company or creditor failed to follow the proper legal procedures ( notice, standing, etc. ), you may have a valid claim for wrongful repossession, conversion, breach of peace, or even emotional distress. Your attorney can assist in filing a lawsuit for damages. \nConclusion : Yes, based on the facts you've outlined, a lawsuit is highly likely and advisable. The third-party collector repossessing your car without notice, without showing proper ownership, and potentially in violation of the UCC and consumer protection laws creates significant legal exposure for them. You may have several potential claims, including wrongful repossession, breach of peace, conversion, and violations of consumer protection laws. \nIts important to act quickly and consult with an experienced consumer rights attorney who can help guide you through the process of seeking damages, return of the car, or other legal remedies. : REPO DRIVER DAMAGE PROPERTY TO REPO THE CAR THE REPO COMPANY STATES THEY ARE NOT LIABLE TO GIVE DRIVERS NAME OR INFORMATION IS THIS TRUE IF NOT STEPS TO ENFORCE RELEASE OF INFORMATION POLICE REPORT HAS BEEN FILED In your situation, where the repo driver damaged your property during the repossession of your car and the repo company is refusing to provide the driver 's name or any information, you do have legal avenues to pursue in order to enforce the release of that information and hold the responsible parties accountable. \nKey Legal Issues to Address : Property Damage During Repossession : If the repo driver caused damage to your property while attempting to repossess your car, this may constitute tortious conduct, such as negligence or even intentional damage. Depending on the circumstances, you may have grounds for a claim for property damage. \nRight to Know Who Caused the Damage : You are entitled to know the identity of the person who damaged your property during the repossession. The repossession company ( or the principal party responsible ) should not be withholding this information if a police report has been filed and if the damage is part of the repossession process. \nLiability of the Repossession Company : Even though the repossession driver may be the one who caused the damage, the repossession company is generally liable for the actions of its agents ( in this case, the driver ) while they are acting within the scope of their employment or job duties ( such as repossessing a vehicle ). \nIf the repossession was carried out by an independent contractor, there may be additional steps to take to identify and hold the contractor accountable, but the repossession company could still bear responsibility for ensuring that their contractors act within the law and do not damage property. \nSteps to Enforce Release of Information and Hold the Repo Company Accountable : 1. Reaffirm Your Right to the Information ( Legal Basis ) The repossession company is likely bound by state laws that require it to provide information about the incident, especially if a police report has been filed. If they are refusing to provide the driver 's name or contact information, you can take the following steps : State Law on Property Damage : Many states have consumer protection laws and tort laws that hold repossession companies liable for damages caused by their agents. The repossession company is obligated to assist you in pursuing any claims you have for damage caused during repossession. \nRequest in Writing : Formally request, in writing, that the repo company provide the driver 's information as part of the property damage claim. This letter should state the nature of the damage, the fact that a police report has been filed, and your demand for the driver 's identity. \n\nDONE Police Report : Since you've filed a police report, obtain a copy of the report if you haven't already. The police report should contain : Details about the incident ( the property damage ). \nThe repo companys information. \nAny witness statements or documentation related to the repossession. \nIdentifying details about the driver, if provided by the repo company or the driver himself. \nThe police report will help validate your claim of property damage and is often necessary to pursue legal action or to file a claim with your insurance. \n3. SENT Formal Demand Letter If the repossession company is unresponsive to your initial requests, send a formal demand letter requesting the driver 's information and any relevant documentation. You can include : Details about the damage ( photographs, estimates, etc. ). \nA reference to the police report. \nYour demand that they provide the driver 's name so you can proceed with your claim. \nThis letter should also specify a deadline for a response ( e.g., 10-15 business days ) and clearly state that if they do not respond, you will pursue further legal action, including the involvement of consumer protection agencies or litigation. \n4. Contact Consumer Protection Agencies ( If Repo Company Refuses ) If the repo company still refuses to provide information, consider escalating the matter by contacting relevant consumer protection agencies : State Attorney Generals Office : They may have specific guidelines or complaints related to repossession companies that are not complying with the law or are withholding information unlawfully. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  : Filing a complaint with the XXXX  can put public pressure on the company to resolve your issue. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : If the repossession was carried out by a debt collector, you can also file a complaint with the CFPB, which enforces the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n5. Small Claims Court or Lawsuit ( Legal Action ) If you are unable to resolve the matter through the repossession company or consumer protection agencies, filing a lawsuit or taking the matter to small claims court may be your next option : Sue for Property Damage : If the repossession company refuses to provide the driver 's name or cooperate, you can consider filing a lawsuit for property damage. The repossession company may be held liable for the actions of its agent ( the repo driver ). \nIn many states, you can file a small claims lawsuit for property damage ( often under a certain dollar amount, such as {$5000.00} or {$10000.00}, depending on the state ). \nSue for Breach of Contract : If the repo company violated terms of your agreement ( e.g., repossession was conducted improperly ), you may also have a breach of contract claim. \n\nDemand the Driver 's Information in writing, citing the police report and property damage. \nObtain the Police Report and use it as evidence to support your claim. \nFile a Complaint with the Attorney General or consumer protection agencies if the company continues to refuse to cooperate. \nConsider Small Claims Court or Legal Action if the company is uncooperative or refuses to provide the necessary information. \nYou have the legal right to know who caused the damage to your property and to seek compensation for the damages. If the repo company is refusing to provide that information, legal recourse is your next step. Consulting with an attorney who specializes in consumer protection or tort law could provide additional support to ensure your rights are protected. \n\nNAVY FEDERAL IS THE COMPANY THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH THERE WAS BONAFIDE DISPUTE SUBMITTED TO THEM VIA REGISTERED MAIL THEY NEVER REPLIED ENFORCEMENT ACCORDING TO SATISFACTION UCC 3-311 WAS NAVY FEDERAL ABLE TO SELL THE DEBT AFTER CHARGING IT OFF AND NOT REPLYING TO BONAFIDE DISPUTE? \n\nUnder the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), particularly UCC 3-311, the situation you've described involves some important legal principles regarding disputes and charge-offs, as well as the sale of a debt after a Bonafide dispute has been raised. Lets break this down step-by-step : 1. Bonafide Dispute Under UCC 3-311 : UCC 3-311 specifically addresses disputes and the right of the debtor to dispute the validity of a debt. When a debtor raises a Bonafide dispute ( a legitimate, good faith dispute about the debt or its amount ), the creditor is required to acknowledge and respond to the dispute in a reasonable manner. If a dispute is raised and the creditor fails to respond or resolve it, they may be in violation of certain provisions of the UCC and other applicable consumer protection laws. \nUCC 3-311 states that if a debtor sends a dispute ( such as a registered mail notice, which you did ), the creditor is required to respond or provide a resolution. A failure to respond to a bona fide dispute could affect the creditor 's ability to enforce the debt or take certain actions, including selling the debt or charging it off. \n2. Charging Off the Debt : Charge-off is an accounting action that the lender ( in this case, XXXX XXXX XXXX takes to declare the debt as unlikely to be collected. A charge-off does not extinguish the debt ; it is simply an accounting procedure that moves the debt off the creditors balance sheet. It is still a valid debt that the creditor ( or a third party ) can attempt to collect, unless there is some legal reason why the debt can not be enforced ( such as a Bonafide dispute or a failure to respond to the dispute ). \nIn your case, if Navy Federal charged off the debt after receiving your dispute and without responding to it, they may have violated UCC 3-311. Charging off the debt without addressing the dispute could mean that the creditor has waived their right to enforce the debt or sell the debt, depending on the nature of the dispute. \n3. Selling the Debt After Charge-Off : After a charge-off, the creditor ( in this case, Navy Federal ) has the right to sell the debt to a third-party collection agency or debt buyer. However, there are specific conditions under the UCC and related laws that govern this process : Failure to Respond to a Bona Fide Dispute : If Navy Federal did not respond to your Bonafide dispute, they could have violated UCC 3-311, which requires them to address the dispute and offer a resolution before continuing with collection efforts. If they ignored the dispute, they might not have been legally able to sell the debt or attempt to enforce it while the dispute remains unresolved. \nConsumer Protection Laws : In addition to the UCC, there are consumer protection laws, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), that require creditors and debt collectors to act fairly and respond to disputes. If the debt was sold to a third party after the dispute, the third-party collector must still adhere to these same laws, including validating the debt before attempting to collect it. \n4. Legal Impact of Not Responding to a Bonafide Dispute : Under UCC 3-311, creditors are not allowed to enforce or transfer a debt for collection if there is an unresolved Bonafide dispute. This means that if Navy Federal failed to address your bona fide dispute, they may not have been legally allowed to sell the debt or continue to attempt collection. Their failure to respond to your dispute could have prevented them from enforcing the debt, and any subsequent actions, such as selling the debt to a third-party collection agency, could be legally questionable. \n5. What Can You Do? \nHere are your options to enforce your rights under UCC 3-311 and other applicable laws : a. I HAVE DocumentED Everything : Keep copies of the dispute letter you sent to Navy Federal ( via registered mail ). \nEnsure you have proof of the failure to respond from Navy Federal. If they didn't reply to your dispute, this could be an important piece of evidence that they violated UCC provisions. \nRequest copies of any communication or documentation related to the sale of the debt. If they sold the debt, they should have informed you of the sale and the new holder of the debt.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-31T19:11:17.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"374XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11337048","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2024-12-31T19:11:15.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Seized or attempted to seize your property"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This letter should also specify a deadline for a response ( e.g., 10-15 business days ) and clearly state that if they do not respond, you will pursue <em>further</em> legal <em>action</em>, including the involvement of consumer protection agencies or litigation. \n4."],"issue":["Took or threatened to take negative or legal <em>action</em>"]},"sort":[4.964504,"11337048"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11337642","_score":4.9623404,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"on XX/XX/XXXX early am an unknown company damage my driveway while repo a vehicle without notices also refuse to provide driver insurance or contact information, I was told to sue them by the receptionist as result I have done following steps. \n\nXXXX XXXX RESURGENT CAPITAL LP /LLC COLLECTION DEBT COMPANY ORIGINAL XXXX XXXX, CHARGED OFF DEBT FAIL TO RESPOND TO BONAFIDE DISPUTE / XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX debt is sold to a collection agency. \nUnder UCC 3-301, the collection agency must be able to prove that they are entitled to collect the debt by providing proof that they are the holder of the debt or have the right to enforce it. \nIf they can not produce evidence of the assignment or demonstrate they are the rightful holder, you have a valid defense under UCC 3-301 that they do not have the legal right to enforce the debt. \nConclusion : UCC 3-301 ( 1 ) definitely applies when a third-party debt collector attempts to enforce a charged-off debt. The debt collector must be able to prove they are the holder of the debt or have the right to enforce the debt, typically through documentation of the debts transfer or assignment. If they can not provide such evidence, they may lack the legal standing to collect the debt, and you could successfully challenge their efforts. \nIf you are dealing with a third-party debt collector, you have the right to request proof of their entitlement to collect on the debt. If they fail to prove their right to collect, they may be violating the UCC and other consumer protection laws, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \nUCCC 3-301 ( 1 ) In the case XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Oklahoma Supreme Court dealt with the issue of self-help repossession and the legal rights of parties involved in a repossession, particularly regarding the proper notice and procedures required before and after repossession. Although the case primarily concerns the legal standing of the creditor ( the bank ) and the debtor in a repossession scenario, it is highly relevant to your question about the repo of a car without notice. \nLets break it down to see how it applies : The Case : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, the bank has repossessed a vehicle from the debtor, XXXX XXXXXXXX, without providing prior notice. The key issue in the case was whether the bank had acted unlawfully in repossessing the car without giving the required notice or affording the debtor an opportunity to redeem the vehicle. \nThe Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that self-help repossession is only lawful if it does not breach the peace and if the repossession complies with the terms of the contract ( in this case, the security agreement ). However, in this case, the court found that the bank 's actions in repossessing the car without notice violated the debtor 's rights under the law. \nKey Points of the Case : Right to Notice Before Repossession : The case reinforced that the debtor is entitled to notice before a repossession occurs. This includes notice that the creditor intends to repossess the vehicle and provide an opportunity to cure the default ( if applicable ), especially when required by the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) or the security agreement. \nSelf-Help Repossession Must Not Breach the Peace : The ruling emphasizes that self-help repossession ( when the lender or creditor takes back the vehicle without involving law enforcement ) must not breach the peace. This means the creditor must avoid actions like taking the car in the middle of the night or forcibly entering the debtor 's property. A breach of peace could render the repossession illegal and subject the creditor to damages. \nDue Process and Fair Treatment : The case aligns with the notion that repossessions must be carried out in a manner that respects the debtors due process rights. This includes reasonable notice and an opportunity to address the default before drastic actions like repossession are taken. \nApplication to Your Example : Repossessed Car without Notice If your situation mirrors the example you gave where a company repossessed your car in the middle of the night without any prior notice XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX can be relevant in several ways : Breach of Peace : If the repo company took the car without providing notice and did so in a manner that disrupted your peace ( such as repossessing it while you were unaware, in the middle of the night, or in a threatening manner ), this could be considered a breach of peace under UCC 9-609 ( which governs repossessions ). The Supreme Court in XXXX XXXXXXXX highlighted that the repossession must not disturb the peace, and if it did, the repossession could be considered illegal. \nLack of Notice : If you did not receive notice of the repossession or any opportunity to redeem the car, this could also be a violation of your rights under UCC 9-611, which requires the secured party ( the lender or creditor ) to notify the debtor of the repossession and sale. In your case, if you didnt receive a pre-repossession notice, or notice of the intent to sell the vehicle, this could be a violation of UCC requirements and a breach of your rights. \nOpportunity to Cure : If there was no attempt to provide you with a chance to cure the default ( such as catching up on missed payments before the car was taken ), then the creditor may have violated the terms of the security agreement or failed to follow the proper process outlined in UCC 9-609 and 9-611. \nRemedies Available : If the repossession was deemed to have violated UCC provisions or was conducted in an unlawful manner, you could potentially seek remedies such as damages for the illegal repossession, return of the car, or even monetary compensation for any harm caused by the wrongful repossession. In XXXX XXXXXXXX, the court upheld the idea that a creditor must follow legal procedures to protect the debtors rights, and a failure to do so could result in liability for the creditor. \nWhat You Can Do in a Similar Situation : If you find yourself in a situation where a car has been repossessed without notice, and especially if it was done in the middle of the night or under questionable circumstances, the principles of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX may apply to your case. Heres what you can do : Demand Proof of Notice : You can ask the creditor or the repossession company to provide proof that they properly notified you before the repossession took place. Under UCC 9-611, the creditor is required to give you notice of the intended sale of the vehicle before taking any action, and under UCC 9-609 , they can not repossess in a way that breaches the peace. \nCheck for Breach of Peace : If the repossession took place under circumstances that caused a disturbance or were carried out without your knowledge ( such as at night when you were not expecting it ), you might have grounds to claim a breach of peace. If the repossession was conducted in an aggressive, disruptive, or clandestine manner, this could be deemed unlawful. \nExamine the Security Agreement : Review the security agreement you signed when you took out the loan. Many agreements outline how and when a creditor can repossess the vehicle, what notices are required, and any potential penalties for non-payment. If the creditor violated any terms of that agreement ( e.g., failing to provide notice or not giving you an opportunity to cure the default ), you may have a case for wrongful repossession. \nSeek Legal Remedies : If the repossession was wrongful, you may be entitled to remedies such as : Return of the vehicle if it was wrongfully repossessed. \nDamages for any emotional distress, financial loss, or other harm caused by the wrongful repossession. \nA lawsuit for breach of contract or violation of your rights under the UCC. \nConsult an Attorney : If you believe your car was wrongfully repossessed in violation of your rights, it may be helpful to consult with an attorney who specializes in consumer protection, debt collection, or repossession laws. They can advise you on your legal rights, assist you in taking action against the repossession company, and help you seek compensation if applicable. \nConclusion : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX applies to your example by underscoring the requirements for repossession, particularly the need for notice and the prohibition against breach of peace. If the car was taken without notice, especially in the middle of the night, it could very well be considered a violation of both UCC requirements and your legal rights. You might have grounds to challenge the repossession and pursue legal action for damages or wrongful repossession, as the creditor is generally required to follow proper procedures. \nPER THE THIRD PARTY COLLECTING THE CAR WITHOUT NOTICE OF REPO OR ANY CONTRACT TO SHOW OWNERSHIP OR RIGHT OF REPO A LAWSUIT INEVITABLE Yes, if a third-party company repossesses your car without providing notice, without a valid contract, and without showing the right to repossess ( i.e., without demonstrating legal ownership or the right to act on behalf of the creditor ), there are strong grounds for a lawsuit. This is especially true if the repossession violates UCC provisions or consumer protection laws. \nLet 's break down why a lawsuit is inevitable under these circumstances and what the potential causes of action would be. \nKey Legal Issues in Your Scenario : Lack of Notice ( UCC and Consumer Protection ) : Under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), specifically UCC 9-609, a secured creditor ( or their authorized agent ) may repossess the vehicle, but notice is usually required before and after the repossession. \nNotice before repossession : While the UCC doesn't always require pre-repossession notice in every case ( if the contract allows for immediate repossession after default ), notice after repossession is almost always required especially if the car is going to be sold. \nIf the car was taken without any prior notice to you, and you didnt have an opportunity to cure the default, this could be a violation of UCC requirements. \nLack of Ownership or Right to Repossess : Third-Party Debt Collectors and Repo Agents : A third-party collector must prove they have the right to repossess the vehicle. If the repossession agent or debt collector can not produce evidence of ownership or a contract that clearly shows they have legal standing to repossess the vehicle, they may be violating your rights. \nIf they can not demonstrate they have the right to enforce the contract ( via a valid assignment or proof of ownership of the debt ), the repossession can be contested as unlawful. Under UCC 3-301, they must prove they have the right to enforce the debt. Without proper evidence, they may lack legal standing. \nBreach of Peace : Even if the third-party collector has the right to repossess, UCC 9-609 requires that repossession must be carried out without a breach of peace. If the repo occurred at an unreasonable time ( e.g., in the middle of the night ) or in a manner that caused disruption or fear, that could be considered a breach of peace. \nIn this case, repossession without notice, in the middle of the night, could be argued to constitute a breach of peace, which would make the repossession itself unlawful. \nPotential Causes of Action for a Lawsuit : Given the facts you've outlined, here are the potential legal claims or causes of action that could lead to a lawsuit against the third-party repo agent, the creditor, or both : 1. Wrongful Repossession ( Breach of Contract & UCC Violations ) Lack of Notice : If the repossession was carried out without proper notice as required under UCC 9-611 ( post-repossession notice of intent to sell the car ), or if there was no opportunity for you to cure the default, you may have grounds for wrongful repossession. \nLack of Standing : If the third-party repo agent can not prove that they have the legal right to repossess ( i.e., a valid assignment or proof that they own the debt ), they may not have had the legal right to take your car. In this case, you can sue for wrongful repossession. \n2. Breach of Peace ( UCC Violation ) Breach of Peace occurs when the repossession is conducted in a manner that disturbs the peace. This can include repossession at night, without warning, or in a manner that causes confrontation or distress. \nIf the repo was conducted improperly ( e.g., forcibly entering your property, taking the car without your knowledge or consent ), the creditor or repo company could be liable for damages due to breach of peace. \n3. Conversion ( Theft or Unauthorized Taking ) Conversion is the wrongful taking or control over another person 's property. If the third party took the car without legal authorization, and they are unable to prove that they had the right to take it, you could have a claim for conversion. This is especially relevant if the car was taken without notice, without a contract, and without the proper authority to do so. \n4. Violation of Consumer Protection Laws ( Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, UCC, etc. ) FDCPA Violations : If the repossession was carried out by a debt collector ( i.e., a third-party collection agency ), and they did so improperly, you might have grounds to bring a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The FDCPA protects consumers from harassment and abusive practices by debt collectors, including improper or illegal repossession tactics. \nThe UCC also protects consumers from creditors who act outside the bounds of the contract and the law. \n5. Emotional Distress ( Potential Tort Claim ) If the manner of repossession caused you significant emotional distress ( e.g., the stress of having your car taken unexpectedly at night or being wrongfully deprived of your vehicle ), you might have grounds for a claim of emotional distress. This is a more difficult claim to win, but if the repossession was done in an extremely inappropriate manner, it could potentially form the basis for damages. \nWhat You Can Do : Demand Proof : Send a formal demand letter to the creditor or repo company requesting proof of ownership and the right to repossess the car. They should provide you with a contract, proof of assignment, and any relevant documents that show they had the legal right to take the car. \n\nFile a Complaint : You can file a formal complaint with consumer protection agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), or your states attorney general office, if you believe the repossession violated consumer protection laws. \nConsider a Lawsuit : If the third-party repo company or creditor failed to follow the proper legal procedures ( notice, standing, etc. ), you may have a valid claim for wrongful repossession, conversion, breach of peace, or even emotional distress. Your attorney can assist in filing a lawsuit for damages. \nConclusion : Yes, based on the facts you've outlined, a lawsuit is highly likely and advisable. The third-party collector repossessing your car without notice, without showing proper ownership, and potentially in violation of the UCC and consumer protection laws creates significant legal exposure for them. You may have several potential claims, including wrongful repossession, breach of peace, conversion, and violations of consumer protection laws. \nIts important to act quickly and consult with an experienced consumer rights attorney who can help guide you through the process of seeking damages, return of the car, or other legal remedies. : REPO DRIVER DAMAGE PROPERTY TO REPO THE CAR THE REPO COMPANY STATES THEY ARE NOT LIABLE TO GIVE DRIVERS NAME OR INFORMATION IS THIS TRUE IF NOT STEPS TO ENFORCE RELEASE OF INFORMATION POLICE REPORT HAS BEEN FILED In your situation, where the repo driver damaged your property during the repossession of your car and the repo company is refusing to provide the driver 's name or any information, you do have legal avenues to pursue in order to enforce the release of that information and hold the responsible parties accountable. \nKey Legal Issues to Address : Property Damage During Repossession : If the repo driver caused damage to your property while attempting to repossess your car, this may constitute tortious conduct, such as negligence or even intentional damage. Depending on the circumstances, you may have grounds for a claim for property damage. \nRight to Know Who Caused the Damage : You are entitled to know the identity of the person who damaged your property during the repossession. The repossession company ( or the principal party responsible ) should not be withholding this information if a police report has been filed and if the damage is part of the repossession process. \nLiability of the Repossession Company : Even though the repossession driver may be the one who caused the damage, the repossession company is generally liable for the actions of its agents ( in this case, the driver ) while they are acting within the scope of their employment or job duties ( such as repossessing a vehicle ). \nIf the repossession was carried out by an independent contractor, there may be additional steps to take to identify and hold the contractor accountable, but the repossession company could still bear responsibility for ensuring that their contractors act within the law and do not damage property. \nSteps to Enforce Release of Information and Hold the Repo Company Accountable : 1. Reaffirm Your Right to the Information ( Legal Basis ) The repossession company is likely bound by state laws that require it to provide information about the incident, especially if a police report has been filed. If they are refusing to provide the driver 's name or contact information, you can take the following steps : State Law on Property Damage : Many states have consumer protection laws and tort laws that hold repossession companies liable for damages caused by their agents. The repossession company is obligated to assist you in pursuing any claims you have for damage caused during repossession. \nRequest in Writing : Formally request, in writing, that the repo company provide the driver 's information as part of the property damage claim. This letter should state the nature of the damage, the fact that a police report has been filed, and your demand for the driver 's identity. \n\nDONE Police Report : Since you've filed a police report, obtain a copy of the report if you haven't already. The police report should contain : Details about the incident ( the property damage ). \nThe repo companys information. \nAny witness statements or documentation related to the repossession. \nIdentifying details about the driver, if provided by the repo company or the driver himself. \nThe police report will help validate your claim of property damage and is often necessary to pursue legal action or to file a claim with your insurance. \n3. SENT Formal Demand Letter If the repossession company is unresponsive to your initial requests, send a formal demand letter requesting the driver 's information and any relevant documentation. You can include : Details about the damage ( photographs, estimates, etc. ). \nA reference to the police report. \nYour demand that they provide the driver 's name so you can proceed with your claim. \nThis letter should also specify a deadline for a response ( e.g., 10-15 business days ) and clearly state that if they do not respond, you will pursue further legal action, including the involvement of consumer protection agencies or litigation. \n4. Contact Consumer Protection Agencies ( If Repo Company Refuses ) If the repo company still refuses to provide information, consider escalating the matter by contacting relevant consumer protection agencies : State Attorney Generals Office : They may have specific guidelines or complaints related to repossession companies that are not complying with the law or are withholding information unlawfully. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Filing a complaint with the XXXX  can put public pressure on the company to resolve your issue. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : If the repossession was carried out by a debt collector, you can also file a complaint with the CFPB, which enforces the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). \n5. Small Claims Court or Lawsuit ( Legal Action ) If you are unable to resolve the matter through the repossession company or consumer protection agencies, filing a lawsuit or taking the matter to small claims court may be your next option : Sue for Property Damage : If the repossession company refuses to provide the driver 's name or cooperate, you can consider filing a lawsuit for property damage. The repossession company may be held liable for the actions of its agent ( the repo driver ). \nIn many states, you can file a small claims lawsuit for property damage ( often under a certain dollar amount, such as {$5000.00} or {$10000.00}, depending on the state ). \nSue for Breach of Contract : If the repo company violated terms of your agreement ( e.g., repossession was conducted improperly ), you may also have a breach of contract claim. \n\nDemand the Driver 's Information in writing, citing the police report and property damage. \nObtain the Police Report and use it as evidence to support your claim. \nFile a Complaint with the Attorney General or consumer protection agencies if the company continues to refuse to cooperate. \nConsider Small Claims Court or Legal Action if the company is uncooperative or refuses to provide the necessary information. \nYou have the legal right to know who caused the damage to your property and to seek compensation for the damages. If the repo company is refusing to provide that information, legal recourse is your next step. Consulting with an attorney who specializes in consumer protection or tort law could provide additional support to ensure your rights are protected. \n\nXXXX XXXX IS THE COMPANY THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH THERE WAS BONAFIDE DISPUTE SUBMITTED TO THEM VIA REGISTERED MAIL THEY NEVER REPLIED ENFORCEMENT ACCORDING TO SATISFACTION UCC 3-311 WAS XXXXXXXX XXXX ABLE TO SELL THE DEBT AFTER CHARGING IT OFF AND NOT REPLYING TO BONAFIDE DISPUTE? \n\nUnder the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), particularly UCC 3-311, the situation you've described involves some important legal principles regarding disputes and charge-offs, as well as the sale of a debt after a Bonafide dispute has been raised. Lets break this down step-by-step : 1. Bonafide Dispute Under UCC 3-311 : UCC 3-311 specifically addresses disputes and the right of the debtor to dispute the validity of a debt. When a debtor raises a Bonafide dispute ( a legitimate, good faith dispute about the debt or its amount ), the creditor is required to acknowledge and respond to the dispute in a reasonable manner. If a dispute is raised and the creditor fails to respond or resolve it, they may be in violation of certain provisions of the UCC and other applicable consumer protection laws. \nUCC 3-311 states that if a debtor sends a dispute ( such as a registered mail notice, which you did ), the creditor is required to respond or provide a resolution. A failure to respond to a bona fide dispute could affect the creditor 's ability to enforce the debt or take certain actions, including selling the debt or charging it off. \n2. Charging Off the Debt : Charge-off is an accounting action that the lender ( in this case, XXXX XXXX ) takes to declare the debt as unlikely to be collected. A charge-off does not extinguish the debt ; it is simply an accounting procedure that moves the debt off the creditors balance sheet. It is still a valid debt that the creditor ( or a third party ) can attempt to collect, unless there is some legal reason why the debt can not be enforced ( such as a Bonafide dispute or a failure to respond to the dispute ). \nIn your case, if XXXX XXXX charged off the debt after receiving your dispute and without responding to it, they may have violated UCC 3-311. Charging off the debt without addressing the dispute could mean that the creditor has waived their right to enforce the debt or sell the debt, depending on the nature of the dispute. \n3. Selling the Debt After Charge-Off : After a charge-off, the creditor ( in this case, XXXX XXXX ) has the right to sell the debt to a third-party collection agency or debt buyer. However, there are specific conditions under the UCC and related laws that govern this process : Failure to Respond to a Bona Fide Dispute : If XXXX XXXX did not respond to your Bonafide dispute, they could have violated UCC 3-311, which requires them to address the dispute and offer a resolution before continuing with collection efforts. If they ignored the dispute, they might not have been legally able to sell the debt or attempt to enforce it while the dispute remains unresolved. \nConsumer Protection Laws : In addition to the UCC, there are consumer protection laws, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), that require creditors and debt collectors to act fairly and respond to disputes. If the debt was sold to a third party after the dispute, the third-party collector must still adhere to these same laws, including validating the debt before attempting to collect it. \n4. Legal Impact of Not Responding to a Bonafide Dispute : Under UCC 3-311, creditors are not allowed to enforce or transfer a debt for collection if there is an unresolved Bonafide dispute. This means that if XXXX XXXX failed to address your bona fide dispute, they may not have been legally allowed to sell the debt or continue to attempt collection. Their failure to respond to your dispute could have prevented them from enforcing the debt, and any subsequent actions, such as selling the debt to a third-party collection agency, could be legally questionable. \n5. What Can You Do? \nHere are your options to enforce your rights under UCC 3-311 and other applicable laws : a. I HAVE DocumentED Everything : Keep copies of the dispute letter you sent to XXXX XXXX ( via registered mail ). \nEnsure you have proof of the failure to respond from XXXX XXXX. If they didn't reply to your dispute, this could be an important piece of evidence that they violated UCC provisions. \nRequest copies of any communication or documentation related to the sale of the debt. If they sold the debt, they should have informed you of the sale and the new holder of the debt.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-31T19:11:05.000Z","issue":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","sub_product":"Auto debt","zip_code":"374XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11337642","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","date_received":"2024-12-31T17:18:14.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Seized or attempted to seize your property"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This letter should also specify a deadline for a response ( e.g., 10-15 business days ) and clearly state that if they do not respond, you will pursue <em>further</em> legal <em>action</em>, including the involvement of consumer protection agencies or litigation. \n4."],"issue":["Took or threatened to take negative or legal <em>action</em>"]},"sort":[4.9623404,"11337642"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12173612","_score":4.7445087,"_source":{"product":"Debt or credit management","complaint_what_happened":"USA PATRIOT Act Customer Identification Program Notice XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX USA PATRIOT Act Customer Identification Program Notice Important Information You Need to Know About Opening A New Account To help the government fight the funding of terrorism and money laundering activities, federal law requires financial institutions to obtain, verify, and record information that identifies each person who opens an account. \nTypes of Information You Will Need to Provide When you open an account, we are required to collect information such as the following from you : Your name Date of birth Address Identification number XXXXXXXX XXXX : taxpayer identification number ( Social Security Number ) XXXX XXXX XXXX taxpayer identification number, passport number and country of issuance, XXXX  identification card number, or government-issued identification showing nationality, residence and a photograph of you. \nYou may also need to show your driver 's license or other identifying documents. \nIf Your Identity Can not Be Verified We may not be able to open an account for you. \nWe thank you for your patience and hope that you will support the financial industry 's efforts to deny terrorists and money launderers access to America 's financial system. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX Truth in Savings Disclosure for Certificate of Deposit FIXED RATE INFORMATION The interest rate on your account is 0.10 % with an annual percentage yield ( APY ) of 0.10 %. You will be paid this rate until maturity. \nCOMPOUNDING AND CREDITING Interest will be compounded annually and will be credited to your account annually. The annual percentage yield assumes interest will remain on deposit until maturity. A withdrawal will reduce earnings. If you close your account before interest is credited, you will not receive the accrued interest. \nMINIMUM BALANCE REQUIREMENTS You must deposit {$510.00} to open this account. \nBALANCE COMPUTATION METHOD We use the daily balance method to calculate interest on your account. This method applies a daily periodic rate to the principal in the account each day. \nACCRUAL ON NONCASH DEPOSITS Interest begins to accrue on the business day you deposit noncash items ( for example, checks ). \nTRANSACTION LIMITATIONS You may not make deposits into your account until the maturity date. You may not make withdrawals from your account until the maturity date. \nMATURITY DATE Your account will mature on XX/XX/XXXX. \nEARLY WITHDRAWAL PROVISIONS Withdrawals made prior to maturity may be assessed a penalty of 90 days interest. If the CD closes before interest is credited to the CD, the customer will not receive the interest, which may result in a loss of principal due to penalty. \nRENEWAL POLICIES Your account will not automatically renew at maturity. If you do not renew the account, your deposit will be paid to you by check. \nADDITIONAL INFORMATION The rate ( s ) and annual percentage yield ( s ) disclosed above were offered within the most recent seven calendar days, and were accurate as of XX/XX/XXXX. To obtain current rate and annual percentage yield information, please call ( XXXX ) XXXX. \n\nTerms and Conditions Terms and Conditions : Time Deposit Agreement- This document, along with your Truth in Savings disclosure for Certificate of Deposit, account selection form, Certificate Receipt, Privacy Notice, and other disclosures provided to you, constitutes our agreement with you regarding your Time Deposit. You have agreed to keep the funds on deposit until maturity. If your account has not matured, any withdrawal of all or part of the funds from your account may result in an early withdrawal penalty. We will consider requests for early withdrawal and, if granted, the penalty provided in the schedule will apply. \nPenalty - The early withdrawal penalty is calculated as a forfeiture of part of the accrued interest that has or would be earned on the account. If your account has not yet earned enough interest so that the penalty can be deducted from earned interest, or if the interest has already been paid, the difference will be deducted from the principal amount of your account. \nWithdrawals - Generally, unless clearly indicated otherwise on the account records, any of you, acting alone, who sign to open the account or has authority to make withdrawals may withdraw or transfer all or any part of the account balance at any time. Each of you ( until we receive written notice to the contrary ) authorizes each other person who signs or has authority to make withdrawals to endorse any item payable to you or your order for deposit to this account or any other transaction with us. \nExceptions - We may let you withdraw money from your account before the maturity date without an early withdrawal penalty : ( 1 ) when one or more owners on the account dies or is determined legally incompetent by a court or other administrative body of competent jurisdiction; or ( 2 ) when the account is an individual retirement account ( IRA ) established in accordance with Title 26 U.S.C. Section 408 and the money is paid within seven ( 7 ) calendar days after the account is opened ; or ( 3 ) when the account is a XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ), if you forfeit at least the interest earned on the withdrawn funds ; or ( 4 ) if the time deposit is an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX established pursuant to Title 26 U.S.C. Section 408 or Title 26 U.S.C. Section 401, when you reach age XXXX XXXX or become disabled; or ( 5 ) within an applicable grace period ( if any ). \nRight of Setoff - Subject to applicable law, we may exercise our right of setoff that we are entitled to exercise under common law, under this agreement and under statute, or security interest to recover amounts you owe us from any and all accounts you maintain with us without notice to you, except that this provision does not apply to any XXXX XXXX XXXX certain trust accounts ( but excluding XXXX XXXX accounts ), or health savings accounts. We may exercise our right of setoff for any liability or debt of any of you, whether joint or individual, whether direct or contingent, whether now or hereafter existing, and whether arising from overdrafts, endorsements, guarantees, loans, attachments, garnishments, levies, attorneys fees, or other obligations. \nNotice of Amendments - You agree that from time to time we may amend the terms and conditions of this agreement, including without limitation all rates, fees, and charges, to the extent permitted by law. We will notify you of amendments as required by law. \nPayment of Interest - Interest will be compounded annually and will be credited to your account annually. Please see your Truth in Savings disclosures for the current rate and policies.\n\nAdditional Deposits - You may not make additional deposits to your time account.\n\nYour Deposit You agree that instead of holding your deposit in a deposit account with us, we may act as your agent and place your funds into a deposit account held by us on your behalf at another financial institution. The same terms as apply to your deposit with us will apply to any funds deposited by us on your behalf at another financial institution, including any assignment of deposit account that you execute with us. You can contact us at XXXX to find out at which financial institution your funds have been placed. Regardless of where your funds are placed, you will continue to access your funds through your account with us. You further grant us authority to execute such documents on your behalf as may be necessary to transfer and maintain your funds at another insured financial institution.\n\nFDIC Insurance Subject to the provisions of this section, the funds in your account will be FDIC-insured up to the limits provided by applicable law. FDIC insurance currently covers deposit accounts in any insured bank up to {$250000.00}. If, acting as your agent, we place your funds at another insured financial institution, any deposits you otherwise maintain at such financial institution in the same ownership capacity as the funds in your account will be combined with your account funds for purposes of determining your FDIC insurance coverage limit. Therefore, if you have funds on deposit at any financial institution that, when combined with the funds in your account, would be in excess of {$250000.00}, please notify us immediately by calling XXXX and identify the financial institution. As long as proper and timely notification is provided to us, the funds in your account will continue to be FDIC-insured up to the limits provided by applicable law. \n\nFACTS Why? \nFinancial Companies choose how they share your personal information. Federal law gives consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal law also requires us to tell you how we collect, share and protect your personal information. Please read this notice carefully to understand what we do. \nWhat? \nThe types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service you have with us. This information can include : Social Security Number and Income Account Balances and Payment History Credit History and Credit Scores When you are no longer our customer, we continue to share your information as described in this notice. \nHow? \nAll financial companies need to share customer 's personal information to run their everyday business. In the section below, we list the reasons financial companies can share their customer 's personal information ; the reasons XXXX XXXX, XXXX. chooses to share ; and whether you can limit this sharing. \nWHAT DOES XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION? \nReasons we can share your personal information For our everyday business purposes such as to process your transactions, maintain your account ( s ), respond to court orders and legal investigations, or report to credit bureaus Yes No Does XXXX XXXX XXXX. Share? \nYes For joint marketing with other financial companies Yes Can you limit this sharing? \nNo No No We don't share We don't share We don't share For our marketing purposes to offer our products and services to you For our affiliates everyday business purposes Yes No For our affiliates to market to you No For nonaffiliates to market to you No Questions? Call ( XXXX ) XXXX or go to XXXX  information about your transactions and experiences For our affiliates everyday business purposes information about your creditworthiness XXXX XXXX Who we are Who is providing this notice? \nXXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX. \nWhat we do How does XXXX XXXX, XXXX. protect my personal information? \nTo protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use, we use security measures that comply with federal law. These measures include computer safeguards and secured files and buildings. \nHow does XXXX XXXX, XXXX. collect my personal information? \nWe collect your personal information, for example, when you Open an Account or Deposit Money Pay your bills or Apply for a loan Make a wire transfer We also collect your personal information from others, such as credit bureaus, affiliates, or other companies. \nWhy can't I limit all sharing? \nFederal law gives you the right to limit only Sharing for affiliates everyday business purposes- information about your creditworthiness, Affiliates from using your information to market to you, sharing for nonaffiliates to market to you State laws and individual companies may give you additional rights to limit sharing. \nDefinitions Affiliates Companies related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. \nOur affiliates include financial companies such as University XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nNonaffiliates Companies not related by common ownership or control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. \nXXXX XXXX, XXXX. does not share with nonaffiliates so they can market to you. \nJoint marketing A formal agreement between nonaffiliated financial companies that together market financial products or services to you. \nOur joint marketing partners include a credit card companies. \n\nCovered Borrower Identification Statement Borrower : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX Lender : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX COVERED BORROWER IDENTIFICATION STATEMENT Federal law provides important protections to XXXX XXXX XXXX  of the XXXX XXXX and their dependents. To ensure that these protections are provided to eligible applicants, we require you to sign one of the following statements as applicable : I AM a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  of the XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, or XXXX XXXX, serving on XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  or order that does not specify a period of 30 days or fewer. \nBORROWER : XXXX XXXX XXXX Date I AM a dependent of a member of the XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX as described above, because I am the members spouse, the members child under the age of XXXX XXXX XXXX or I am an individual for whom the member provided more than one-half of my financial support for 180 days immediately preceding todays date. \nBORROWER : XXXX XXXX XXXX Date I AM NOT a regular or reserve member of the XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, or XXXX XXXX, serving on XXXX XXXX under a call or order that does not specify a period of 30 days or fewer. \nBORROWER : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX Date WARNING : It is important to fill out this form accurately. Knowingly making a false statement on a credit application is a CRIME. \n\nDisclosure Statement DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Principal Loan Date Maturity Loan No. Account {$510.00} XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX References in the boxes above are for Lenders use only and do not limit the applicability of this document to any particular loan or item. \nBorrower : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, FL XXXX Lender : XXXX XXXX XXXX \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE The cost of my credit as a yearly rate. \nFINANCE CHARGE The dollar amount the credit will cost me. \nAmount Financed The amount of credit provided to me or on my behalf. \nTotal of Payments The amount I will have paid after I have made all payments as scheduled. \n{$600.00} 15.92 % {$89.00} {$510.00} PAYMENT SCHEDULE. My payment schedule will be XXXX  monthly payments of {$25.00} each, beginning XX/XX/XXXX. \nSECURITY. I am giving security interest in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with XXXX with an approximate balance of {$510.00}. \nPREPAYMENT. If I pay off early, I will not have to pay a penalty. \nREQUIRED DEPOSIT. The Annual Percentage Rate does not take into account my required deposit. \nLATE CHARGE. If a payment is 15 days or more late, I will be charged 5.00 % of the payment. \nI will look at my contract documents for any additional information about nonpayment, default, any required repayment in full before the scheduled date, and prepayment refunds. \nI read and was given a completed copy of this Disclosure Statement on XX/XX/XXXX, prior to signing the note. \nBorrower : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Itemization of Amount Financed of {$510.00} Amount paid directly to your Certificate of Deposit : {$510.00} Deposited to Certificate of Deposit Number : XXXX Administrative Fee : Prepaid Finance Charge : {$0.00} Note Principal : {$510.00} Total amount paid to your Certificate of Deposit : {$510.00} Account Type Definitions XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX BS SINGLE-PARTY ACCOUNT WITHOUT P.O.D. ( PAYABLE ON DEATH ) DESIGNATION : The party to the account owns the account. On the death of the party, ownership of the account passes as a part of the partys estate under the partys will or by intestacy. \nSINGLE-PARTY ACCOUNT WITH P.O.D. ( PAYABLE ON DEATH ) DESIGNATION : The party to the account owns the account. On the death of the party, ownership of the account passes to the P.O.D. beneficiaries of the account. The account is not a part of the partys estate. \nEnter the name or names of the P.O.D. beneficiaries and their addresses : Name Addresses : I acknowledge that I have read each paragraph of this Notice and affirm that I selected the account type next to which my initials are found. \nXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Signature Date Collateral Receipt COLLATERAL RECEIPT Principal Loan Date Maturity Loan No. Account {$510.00} XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX References in the boxes above are for Lenders use only and do not limit the applicability of this document to any particular loan or item. \nXXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, FL XXXX Lender : Sunrise Banks, XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX DESCRIPTION OF COLLATERAL Certificate of Deposit Number XXXX with Lender with an approximate balance of {$510.00} By signing below, you acknowledge that the Collateral described above will be used to open an account ( the Collateral Account ) that will be held as collateral against your Note # XXXX. \nOnce the Promissory Note you signed is paid off in full, if there is any balance held in the Collateral Account, it will be sent back to you ( \" XXXX '' ). \nXXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Signature Card XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX Account Owner Name & Address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX Account Open Date Account Number XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Backup Withholding Certifications Ownership Type Individual Initial Deposit {$510.00} Term 24 Months The types of accounts provided by Minnesota law have been disclosed on the separate Single-Party or Multiple-Party Account Selection Form Notice ( Selection Form Notice ), on which the undersigned have initialed to designate the ownership type selected. The undersigned acknowledge ( s ) receipt of a copy of the completed Selection Form Notice.\n\nOther ( If not a \" U.S. Person '', certify foreign status separately ) By signing signature field ( XXXX ) on this document, I certify under penalties of perjury that the statements made in this section are true and that I am a XXXX XXXX or other XXXX person ( as defined in the instructions ). \nTaxpayer I.D . Number ( TIN ) - XXXX The Taxpayer Identification Number ( TIN ) shown is my correct taxpayer identification number. \nExempt Recipients. I am an exempt recipient under the Internal Revenue Service Regulations. Exempt payee code ( if any ) FATCA Code. The FATCA code entered on this form ( if any ) indicating that I am exempt from FATCA reporting is correct. FATCA code ( if any ) Signature ( XXXX ). The undersigned certifies the accuracy of the information he/she has provided and acknowledges receipt of a completed copy of this form. The undersigned authorizes the financial institution to verify credit and employment history and/or have a credit reporting agency prepare a credit report on the undersigned, as individuals. The undersigned also acknowledges the receipt of a copy and agrees to the terms of the following agreement ( XXXX ) and/ or disclosure ( s ) : Backup Withholding. I am not subject to backup withholding either because I have not been notified that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of failure to report all interest or dividends, or the Internal Revenue Service has notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding. \nThe Internal Revenue Service does not require your consent to any provision of this document other than the certifications required to avoid backup withholding. \nTerms & Conditions Truth In Savings Privacy Certificate Receipt XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Negative Information Disclosure NEGATIVE INFORMATION DISCLOSURE Principal Loan Date Maturity Loan No. Account {$510.00} XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX References in the boxes above are for Lenders use only and do not limit the applicability of this document to any particular loan or item. \nBorrower : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TER XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX Lender : Sunrise Banks, XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX We XXXX report information about your account to credit bureaus. Late payments, missed payments, or other defaults on your account may be reflected in your credit report. \nI read and understood this Negative XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. \nBorrower : X XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ACCOUNT Principal Loan Date Maturity Loan No. Account {$510.00} XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX References in the boxes above are for Lenders use only and do not limit the applicability of this document to any particular loan or item. \nXXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, FL XXXX Lender : Sunrise Banks, XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX INDEX. The following index is for convenience purposes only and is not to be used to interpret or to define any provisions of this Agreement. \n1. DEFINITIONS ( A ) Account ( B ) Agreement ( C ) Borrower ( D ) Collateral ( E ) Event of Default ( F ) Grantor ( G ) Guaranty ( H ) Indebtedness ( I ) Lender ( J ) Note ( K ) Property ( L ) Related Documents 2. ASSIGNMENT 3. COLLATERAL DESCRIPTION 4. RIGHT OF SETOFF 5. GRANTOR 'S REPRESENTATIONS AND PROMISES WITH RESPECT TO THE COLLATERAL ( A ) Ownership ( B ) Right to Grant Security Interest ( C ) No Prior Assignment ( D ) No Further Transfer ( E ) No Defaults ( F ) Proceeds ( G ) Validity ; Binding Effect ( H ) Financing Statements 6. LENDER 'S RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE COLLATERAL 7. LENDER 'S EXPENDITURES 8. LIMITATIONS ON OBLIGATIONS OF LENDER 9. DEFAULT 10. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES ON DEFAULT ( A ) Accelerate Indebtedness ( B ) Application of Account Proceeds ( C ) Transfer Title ( D ) Other Rights and Remedies ( E ) Deficiency Judgment ( F ) Election of Remedies ( G ) Cumulative Remedies 11. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ( A ) Amendments ( B ) Attorneys ' Fees ; Expenses ( C ) Caption Headings ( D ) Governing Law ( E ) Choice of Venue ( F ) No Waiver by Lender ( G ) Notices ( H ) Power of Attorney ( I ) Severability ( J ) Successors and Assigns ( K ) Survival of Promises ( L ) Time is of the Essence 1. DEFINITIONS. The following words shall have the following meanings when used in this Agreement : ( A ) Account. The word \" Account '' means the deposit account ( s ) described in the \" Collateral Description '' section.\n\n( B ) Agreement. The word \" Agreement '' means this Assignment of Deposit Account, as this Assignment of Deposit Account may be amended or modified from time to time, together with all exhibits and schedules attached to this Assignment of Deposit Account from time to time. \n( C ) Borrower. The word \" Borrower '' means XXXX XXXX and includes all co-signers and co-makers signing the Note and all their successors and assigns. \n( D ) Collateral. The word \" Collateral '' means all of Grantor 's right, title and interest in and to all the Collateral as described in the Collateral Description section of this Agreement.\n\n( E ) Event of Default. The words \" Event of Default '' mean any of the events of default set forth in this Agreement in the default section of this Agreement.\n\n( F ) Grantor. The word \" Grantor '' means XXXX XXXX. \n( G ) Guaranty. The word \" Guaranty '' means the guaranty from guarantor, endorser, surety, or accommodation party to Lender, including without limitation a guaranty of all or part of the Note.\n\n( H ) Indebtedness. The word \" Indebtedness '' means the indebtedness evidenced by the Note or Related Documents, including all principal and interest together with all other indebtedness and costs and expenses for which Grantor is responsible under this Agreement or under any of the Related Documents.\n\n( I ) Lender. The word \" Lender '' means XXXX XXXX, XXXX, its successors and assigns. The words \" successors or assigns '' mean any person or company that acquires any interest in the Note. \n( J ) Note. The word \" Note '' means the note or credit agreement dated XX/XX/XXXX, in the principal amount of {$510.00} from XXXX XXXX to Lender, together with all renewals of, extensions of, modifications of, refinancings of, consolidations of and substitutions for the note or credit agreement. \n\n( K ) Property. The word \" Property '' means all of Grantor 's right, title and interest in and to all the Property as described in the \" Collateral Description '' section of this Agreement.\n\n( L ) Related Documents. The words \" Related Documents '' mean all promissory notes, credit agreements, loan agreements, environmental agreements, guaranties, security agreements, mortgages, deeds of trust, security deeds, collateral mortgages, and all other instruments, agreements and documents, whether now or hereafter existing, executed in connection with the Indebtedness. \nTHIS ASSIGNMENT OF DEPOSIT ACCOUNT dated XX/XX/XXXX, is made and executed between XXXX XXXX ( \" XXXX '' ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \" XXXX '' ). \nXXXX. ASSIGNMENT. For valuable consideration, Grantor assigns and grants to Lender a security interest in the Collateral, including without limitation the deposit account ( s ) described below, to secure the Indebtedness and agrees that Lender shall have the rights stated in this Agreement with respect to the Collateral, in addition to all other rights which Lender may have by law. \nXXXX. COLLATERAL DESCRIPTION. The word \" Collateral '' means the following described deposit account ( s ) ( \" Account '' ) : Certificate of Deposit Number XXXX with Lender with an approximate balance of {$510.00} together with ( A ) all interest, whether now accrued or hereafter accruing ; ( B ) all additional deposits hereafter made to the Account ; ( C ) any and all proceeds from the Account ; and ( D ) all renewals, replacements and substitutions for any of the foregoing. \n4. RIGHT OF SETOFF. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Lender reserves a right of setoff in all Grantor 's accounts with Lender ( whether checking, savings, or some other account ). This includes, without limitation, all accounts Grantor holds jointly with someone else and all accounts Grantor may open in the future. However, this does not include any XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX accounts, or any trust accounts for which setoff would be prohibited by law. Grantor authorizes Lender, to the extent permitted by applicable law, to charge or setoff all sums owing on the Indebtedness against any and all such accounts. \n5. GRANTOR 'S REPRESENTATIONS AND PROMISES WITH RESPECT TO THE COLLATERAL. Grantor represents and promises to Lender that : ( A ) Ownership. Grantor is the lawful owner of the Collateral free and clear of all loans, liens, encumbrances, and claims except as disclosed to and accepted by Lender in writing.\n\n( B ) Right to Grant Security Interest. Grantor has the full right, power, and authority to enter into this Agreement and to transfer the Collateral to Lender.\n\n( C ) No Prior Assignment. Grantor has not previously granted a security interest in the Collateral to any other creditor.\n\n( D ) No Further Transfer. Grantor will not sell, assign, encumber, or otherwise dispose of any of Grantor 's rights in the Collateral except as provided in this Agreement.\n\n( E ) No Defaults. There are no defaults relating to the Collateral, and there are no offsets or counterclaims to the same. Grantor will strictly and promptly do everything required of Grantor under the terms, conditions, promises, and agreements contained in or relating to the Collateral.\n\n( F ) Proceeds. Any and all replacement or renewal certificates, instruments, or other benefits or proceeds related to the Collateral that are received by Grantor shall be held by Grantor in trust for Lender and immediately shall be delivered by Grantor to Lender to be held as part of the Collateral.\n\n( G ) Validity ; Binding Effect. This Agreement is binding upon Grantor and Grantor 's successors and assigns and is legally enforceable in accordance with its terms.\n\n( H ) Financing Statements. Grantor authorizes Lender to file a UCC financing statement, or alternatively, a copy of this Agreement to perfect Lender 's security interest. At Lender 's request, Grantor additionally agrees to sign all other documents that are necessary to perfect, protect, and continue Lender 's security interest in the Property. Grantor will pay all filing fees, title transfer fees, and other fees and costs involved unless prohibited by law or unless Lender is required by law to pay such fees and costs. Grantor will promptly notify Lender of any change to Grantor 's name or the name of any individual Grantor, any individual who is a partner for a Grantor, and any individual who is a trustee or settlor or trustor for a Grantor under this Agreement. Grantor will also promptly notify Lender of any change to the name that appears on the most recently issued, unexpired driver 's license or state-issued identification card, any expiration of the most recently issued driver 's license or state-issued identification card for XXXX or any individual for whom Grantor is required to provide notice regarding name changes.\n\n6. LENDER 'S RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE COLLATERAL.\n\nWhile this Agreement is in effect, Lender may retain the rights to possession of the Collateral, together with any and all evidence of the Collateral, such as certificates or passbooks. This Agreement will remain in effect until ( a ) there no longer is any Indebtedness owing to Lender ; ( b ) all other obligations secured by this Agreement have been fulfilled ; and ( c ) Grantor, in writing, has requested from Lender a release of this Agreement.\n\n7. LENDER 'S EXPENDITURES. If Grantor fails ( A ) to keep the Collateral free of all taxes, liens, security interests, encumbrances, and other claims, ( B ) to provide any required insurance on the Collateral, or ( C ) to make repairs to the Collateral then Lender may do so. If any action or proceeding is commenced that would materially affect Lender 's interests in the Collateral, then Lender on Grantor 's behalf may, but is not required to, take any action that Lender believes to be appropriate to protect Lender 's interests. All expenses incurred or paid by Lender for such purposes will then bear interest at the rate charged under the Note from the date incurred or paid by Lender to the date of repayment by Grantor. All such expenses will become a part of the Indebtedness and, at Lender 's option, will ( A ) be payable on demand ; ( B ) be added to the balance of the Note and be apportioned among and be payable with any installment payments to become due during either ( 1 ) the term of any applicable insurance policy ; or ( 2 ) the remaining term of the Note ; or ( C ) be treated as a balloon payment which will be due and payable at the Note 's maturity. The Agreement also will secure payment of these amounts. The rights provided for in this paragraph shall be in addition to any other rights or any remedies to which Lender may be entitled on account of any default. Any such action by Lender shall not be construed as curing the default so as to bar Lender from any remedy that it otherwise would have had.\n\n8. LIMITATIONS ON OBLIGATIONS OF LENDER. Lender shall use ordinary reasonable care in the physical preservation and custody of any certificate or passbook for the Collateral but shall have no other obligation to protect the Collateral or its value. In particular, but without limitation, Lender shall have no responsibility ( A ) for the collection or protection of any income on the Collateral ; ( B ) for the preservation of rights against issuers of the Collateral or against third persons ; ( C ) for ascertaining any maturities, conv","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-22T15:47:41.000Z","issue":"Charged upfront or unexpected fees","sub_product":"Credit repair services","zip_code":"34207","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12173612","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Self Financial Inc.","date_received":"2025-02-22T15:39:42.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["BORROWER : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX Date <em>WARNING</em> : It is important to fill out this form accurately. Knowingly making a false <em>statement</em> on a credit application is a CRIME. \n\nDisclosure <em>Statement</em> DISCLOSURE <em>STATEMENT</em> Principal Loan Date Maturity Loan No. Account {$510.00} XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX References in the boxes above are for Lenders use only and do not limit the applicability of this document to any particular loan or item."]},"sort":[4.7445087,"12173612"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":10,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":10}]}},"product":{"doc_count":10,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":2},{"key":"Private student loan debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Debt or credit management","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit repair services","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":10,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Seized or attempted to seize your property","doc_count":2},{"key":"Threatened to sue you for very old debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":1},{"key":"Debt was paid","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":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Charged upfront or unexpected fees","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":10,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":10}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":10,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":7},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":3}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":10,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":10}]}},"company":{"doc_count":10,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"AES/PHEAA","doc_count":1},{"key":"ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Self Financial Inc.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":10,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":3},{"key":"GA","doc_count":2},{"key":"MD","doc_count":2},{"key":"TN","doc_count":2},{"key":"OK","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":10,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":2},{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":10,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}