{"took":96,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":97,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9865662","_score":19.507294,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally dispute the charges associated with my student loan account, which was originally for {$11000.00} but is now showing a balance of {$16000.00}. Despite my efforts, no one has been able to locate this loan in their records, and I have been informed that the account is closed. \n\nHere are the details of my situation : Loan History : I took out this student loan through the XXXX XXXX XXXX  as an alternative loan to finance my education. The loan was serviced by XXXXFirstmark Services . \n\nCommunication with Loan Servicers : On XX/XX/year>, I contacted XXXX XXXX, who informed me that they have no record of my loan and show a XXXXXXXX XXXX in their system. \nI then reached out to Firstmark Services, who indicated that the loan is supposedly in collections with XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). However, when I contacted XXXX, they informed me that the account had been closed by Firstmark Services and is not currently active in their system. \nI have made several attempts to trace the location and status of this loan, but no one seems to have any record of it, and the account remains closed without any explanation. \nDiscrepancy in Loan Balance : I am deeply concerned about the discrepancy in the loan balance, which has increased from the original {$11000.00} to {$16000.00}, despite the fact that no one can locate the loan or provide me with detailed records of how this balance was calculated. \nI request a thorough review of this account, including a full breakdown of all transactions, interest accruals, and any fees that have been applied. \nRequest for Resolution : Please investigate this matter urgently and provide me with a clear explanation as to why this account is unlocatable in any records and why it remains closed. \nIf the charges are found to be incorrect, I request that the balance be adjusted accordingly and that I be provided with a corrected statement and an explanation of any changes. \nIf the loan can not be found or verified, I request that this erroneous balance be removed from my credit report and that you provide confirmation of the accounts status. \nI would appreciate a prompt response to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-28T14:25:40.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Private student loan debt","zip_code":"27603","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9865662","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Nelnet, Inc.","date_received":"2024-08-20T17:19:29.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I would appreciate a prompt <em>response</em> to this matter."]},"sort":[19.507294,"9865662"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9862574","_score":19.506405,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally dispute the charges associated with my student loan account, which was originally for {$11000.00} but is now showing a balance of {$16000.00}. Despite my efforts, no one has been able to locate this loan in their records, and I have been informed that the account is closed. \n\nHere are the details of my situation : Loan History : I took out this student loan through the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX as an alternative loan to finance my education. The loan was serviced by XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nCommunication with Loan Servicers : On XX/XX/year>, I contacted XXXX XXXX, who informed me that they have no record of my loan and show a XXXX balance in their system. \nI then reached out to XXXX XXXX, who indicated that the loan is supposedly in collections with Transworld Systems Inc. ( TSI ). However, when I contacted TSI, they informed me that the account had been closed by XXXX XXXX and is not currently active in their system. \nI have made several attempts to trace the location and status of this loan, but no one seems to have any record of it, and the account remains closed without any explanation. \nDiscrepancy in Loan Balance : I am deeply concerned about the discrepancy in the loan balance, which has increased from the original {$11000.00} to {$16000.00}, despite the fact that no one can locate the loan or provide me with detailed records of how this balance was calculated. \nI request a thorough review of this account, including a full breakdown of all transactions, interest accruals, and any fees that have been applied. \nRequest for Resolution : Please investigate this matter urgently and provide me with a clear explanation as to why this account is unlocatable in any records and why it remains closed. \nIf the charges are found to be incorrect, I request that the balance be adjusted accordingly and that I be provided with a corrected statement and an explanation of any changes. \nIf the loan can not be found or verified, I request that this erroneous balance be removed from my credit report and that you provide confirmation of the accounts status. \nI would appreciate a prompt response to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-20T17:19:25.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"Private student loan debt","zip_code":"27603","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9862574","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC","date_received":"2024-08-20T16:50:13.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I would appreciate a prompt <em>response</em> to this matter."]},"sort":[19.506405,"9862574"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16739990","_score":18.316227,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Chex Systems , Inc. ( ChexSystems ) Product/Issue : Credit reporting Incorrect information on your report Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation Company : Chex Systems , Inc. ( ChexSystems ) Date of problem : XX/XX/year> ( original dispute ) Company response date : XX/XX/year> ( Closed with explanation ) Whos affected : Myself Account number : N/A ( ChexSystems consumer file ) Problem narrative ( what happened ) On XX/XX/year>, I submitted a written dispute to ChexSystems regarding inaccurate and identity-theft-related information in my specialty consumer file. My dispute packet included an FTC Identity Theft Report and a Police Report. \n\nFTC Identity Theft Report : Ref # XXXX Police Report : Case # XXXX Despite receiving my identity-theft documentation, ChexSystems responded XXXX XX/XX/year> stating my complaint was closed with explanation and claiming the police report was not included. That is incorrect : both the FTC and police reports were provided with my dispute materials. ChexSystems did not apply an identity-theft block to the disputed items, did not conduct a proper reinvestigation, and referenced possible continued reporting/retention practices inconsistent with the FCRA. \n\nSpecific law/policy concerns FCRA 605B Identity-Theft Blocking With valid identity-theft documentation, ChexSystems must block the disputed information within 4 business days. This did not occur. \n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Failure to Reinvestigate ChexSystems closed the dispute without a full, free reinvestigation within the required 30 days, and ignored evidence I supplied.\n\nFCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) Improper Reinsertion Items previously deleted have re-appeared in downstream products without furnisher certification and 5-day written notice to me.\n\nFCRA 607 ( b ) Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy ChexSystems relied on incomplete/unverified furnisher data and disregarded the FTC/Police reports I provided.\n\nFCRA 605A Security Freeze/Alerts I requested ( and again request ) a security freeze on my ChexSystems file . I have not received adequate confirmation that a freeze or appropriate alerts have been placed. \n\nChexSystems response states it will initiate a review and suggests contacting other agencies. However, ChexSystems independently maintains my specialty file and has its own statutory duties under the FCRA to block, delete, or verify data and to confirm freezes/opt-outs. \n\nThe continued presence or reappearance of inaccurate identity-theft entries in ChexSystems ( and any downstream products ) is harming my ability to open accounts and obtain business funding, as banks and fintechs routinely query ChexSystems during underwriting.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-04T15:01:42.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30331","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16739990","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FNIS)","date_received":"2025-10-22T04:04:15.000Z","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":["CFPB Complaint Chex Systems , Inc. ( ChexSystems ) Product/Issue : Credit reporting Incorrect information on your report Problem with a credit reporting companys investigation Company : Chex Systems , Inc. ( ChexSystems ) Date of problem : XX/XX/<em>year</em>> ( <em>original</em> <em>dispute</em> ) Company <em>response</em> date : XX/XX/<em>year</em>> ( <em>Closed</em> with <em>explanation</em> ) <em>Whos</em> affected : Myself Account number : N/A ( ChexSystems consumer file ) Problem narrative ( what happened ) On XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, I submitted a written <em>dispute</em> to ChexSystems"],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[18.316227,"16739990"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20161003","_score":17.09,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint response regarding Capital One incorrect explanation continued withholding of funds and consumer harm. \n\nCapital One response does not address the facts of my complaint and contains a material factual error. \nCapital One states that my account restriction was triggered by a XX/XX/year> payment of {$1800.00} from a XXXX Bank account ending in XXXX. This statement is incorrect. \nMy transaction records clearly show that the {$1800.00} payment from the Regions account was cancelled and replaced with a payment of the same amount from my own Capital One 360 account on XX/XX/year>. Therefore the {$1800.00} was never taken from the Regions account. \nThe only Regions transaction that actually settled was a {$500.00} payment on XX/XX/year>. \nAfter discovering the mistake I reimbursed the owner of the Regions account in full and added {$5.00} making the total repayment {$500.00} on XX/XX/year>. No party suffered any financial loss. \nDespite this Capital One continues to maintain an account restriction and continues withholding {$1000.00} consisting of merchant refunds and rewards that belong to me. \nCapital One response also states that these funds can not be released until the restriction is cleared and that the restriction can only be cleared if I provide proof of authorization to use the Regions account or arrange a conference call with the bank and the account holder. \nThis demand is impossible to satisfy because the Regions account never belonged to me and I never had authority over it. Capital One representatives have repeatedly insisted that I must provide documentation confirming that I had authorization to use that account even though it was never my account. Complying with such a request would require me to misrepresent facts to a financial institution which would itself be improper conduct. \nIn effect Capital One has created an impossible condition that allows the bank to indefinitely withhold my funds. \nIn addition Capital One has removed the credited refunds and rewards from the visible account balance while continuing to demand payment on the credit card and continuing to charge interest and late fees. \nOver the course of this dispute I have spent hundreds of hours attempting to resolve this issue through Capital One customer service and fraud department. I have repeatedly explained the same facts to numerous representatives who had no authority to resolve the issue and who continued repeating the same impossible demand. \nThis prolonged process has caused significant inconvenience distress and disruption and has effectively resulted in months of unnecessary harassment in a situation where no financial loss occurred and the original mistake was promptly corrected. \nI am also concerned that the CFPB closed my complaint without fully reviewing the evidence that I submitted. I provided detailed transaction records showing the cancelled {$1800.00} transaction and the reimbursement of the Regions account holder. Capital One on the other hand did not provide documentary evidence supporting its explanation. Closing the complaint without examining the evidence submitted by both parties appears to have allowed an incorrect narrative to stand unchallenged. \nCapital One conduct in this matter raises concerns regarding unfair or abusive practices including the continued withholding of funds that belong to the consumer while imposing conditions that can not reasonably be satisfied. \nI respectfully request that Capital One be required to release the withheld funds and rewards totaling {$1000.00} correct the factual errors regarding the {$1800.00} transaction remove the account restriction or allow account closure once funds are released reverse any interest charges or fees related to this dispute provide compensation for the extensive time inconvenience and distress caused by this prolonged dispute and provide a written explanation supported by the actual transaction records.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-11T12:11:08.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"37934","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20161003","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-03-11T11:59:50.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Can't close your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Complaint <em>response</em> regarding Capital One incorrect <em>explanation</em> continued withholding of funds and consumer harm. \n\nCapital One <em>response</em> does not address the facts of my complaint and contains a material factual error. \nCapital One states that my account restriction was triggered by a XX/XX/<em>year</em>> payment of {$1800.00} from a XXXX Bank account ending in XXXX. This statement is incorrect."]},"sort":[17.09,"20161003"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2560498","_score":16.699274,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"My USAA member number is XXXX, this is a follow up complaint to the original CFPB complaint XXXX. <P/>Most of the statements made by USAA in response to CFPB complaint XXXX are false, incomplete while other parts of the complaint were completely ignored and without a response. USAA claims I resubmitted and re-entered the 4 different fraud claims. This is a false statement. USAA agents resubmitted the same claim 4 different times as they were never able to submit it correctly. This includes the final re submission by the CEO 's office which finally corrected all the previous agents errors and finalized the credits issued in writing a year ago. Below I will describe each violation by USAA and would like a response, justification and documentation to explain and support EACH and every one of them. Please do not write a general explanation ignoring half of the issues and sweeping the others away without providing a detailed explanation! <P/><P/>First No response was given to the 90 day timeline violation provided by law to provide a final billing error resolution. Yet in response to response CFPB complaint XXXX USAA states in writing it violated the 90 day timeline not once but twice. First when it issued the final credits in XX/XX/XXXX which was past the 90 day timeline from the date of initial report. Then again in XX/XX/XXXX over a year after the initial report and a year after USAA stated in writing the investigation was complete and I was found not responsible and the credits issued were permanent. I have requested all documentation used for this violation for months and have yet to receive a response or justification. <P/>Furthermore in the response USAA states the following : \" In keeping with the companys core values and our commitment to the membership as a whole, USAA has adopted a policy that affects members who do not meet certain obligations with us. To the extent allowed by law, our business policy prohibits USAA and our affiliates from doing business with a member where there is unacceptable behavior and activity. When this basic principle is compromised, we remove access to view your accounts on usaa.com and mobile.usaa.com. However, you can obtain your account information by mail or telephone. '' I requested clarification and documentation as to what obligation I failed to meet, yet have not received any response these past few months. My requests for any / all documentation used to come to this decision were also ignored. It 's been 2 months and have yet to receive a response or any requested documentation. <P/>Lastly, according to USAA 's statement I was found responsible for {$1300.00} a year after the \" final investigation '' found me not responsible and provided permanent credits. Thus USAA reversed the \" permanent credits '' a year later, violating the 90 billing error resolution timeline required by law. Furthermore, I never received any notice, statements, justification, documentation or evidence of this adverse action taken. This is yet another violation I request justification for. <P/>While I still had access to USAA.com I noticed WAY more \" transfer adjustments '' than the {$1300.00} USAA claims to have reversed and charged back onto my card. Yet have my requests for documentation, clarification and justification have been ignored. This is yet another violation I 'd like explained. <P/>Continuing on USAA failed to respond as to why USAA reported both my XXXX anD XXXX XXXX cards as being at or near it 's credit limit to the credit reporting agencies. This was done despite both accounts being in dispute, the XXXX having been paid in full and the XXXX having less than 30 % of the credit line used. The actions constitute several more consumer protection laws I would like USAA to answer for. <P/>Next, USAA failed to provide me with advance notice of adverse action taken as USAA decided to close all my accounts. I only received the notice weeks over a month after my access was restricted and weeks after the accounts were already closed. I would like an answer as to why USAA failed to adhere to the law and did not provide notice prior to taking action as required by law. <P/>I would also like an explanation as to why USAA closed my accounts despite the XXXX and XXXX XXXX  having active unresolved billing disputes and prior to providing any documentation of any status updates or resolutions to said disputes. This violates yet another law. <P/>It is illegal to take adverse action in response to me exercising my rights set forth in consumer protection laws. Yet in response to my filing my initial complaint with the CFPB USAA begain taking multiple adverse actions violation a multitude of laws as stated in the many examples above. I would like a response to this as well. <P/>Please provide an answer for each violation explained in each paragraph of this complaint in full detail and with complete explanation providing in writing all supporting documentation as I Have repeatedly asked for and been refused.","date_sent_to_company":"2017-06-27T22:47:16.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"78723","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2560498","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2017-06-27T22:21:50.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error","sub_issue":"Other problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<P/>I would also like an <em>explanation</em> as to why USAA <em>closed</em> my accounts despite the XXXX and XXXX XXXX  having active unresolved billing <em>disputes</em> and prior to providing any documentation of any status updates or resolutions to said <em>disputes</em>. This violates yet another law. <P/>It is illegal to take adverse action in <em>response</em> to me exercising my rights set forth in consumer protection laws."]},"sort":[16.699274,"2560498"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14626958","_score":15.714824,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/year>, I made a purchase using my XXXX XXXX virtual card, which I later returned through XXXX XXXX. Although the item was refunded, the refund failed to clear properly and was not applied to my XXXX balance. As a result, a 30-day late payment was reported to the credit bureaus. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, after receiving a credit alert, I contacted XXXX and then followed up with XXXX, who confirmed that the refund had been issued to the original payment method ( my XXXX virtual card ). That same day, I emailed XXXX XXXX explaining the situation. Over the following weeks, I had multiple phone calls with XXXX representativeseach of which was recorded. In XXXX of those calls, a representative named XXXX assured me the matter would be escalated and that the 30-day late mark would be removed. However, I never received any follow-up as promised. When I called back a few weeks later, I was informed that the account had already been reviewed and closed, and that no further action would be taken. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I sent a formal dispute letter to XXXX credit reporting department via USPS XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a response via email from XXXX XXXX reporting team stating that the account had been verified as accurate, and that I could dispute the information with the credit bureauswhich I had already done previously. This email did not include any documentation or explanation of the investigation. I followed up that same day, asking clarifying questions and again expressing my willingness to resolve the issue amicably by correcting the late mark. As of XX/XX/XXXX, this follow-up email to XXXX remains unanswered. \n\nFollowing XXXX direction, I also disputed the tradeline with all three major credit bureausXXXX XXXX, and TransUnion. All three investigations were closed within several days, with the account marked as verified as accurate. The 30-day late mark still remains, and no documentation or verification has been provided to support its accuracy. \n\nAs of the drafting of this complaint, I have obtained updated credit reports showing that XXXX  now reflects the XXXX delinquency for XX/XX/year>, while XXXX  and TransUnion list it for XX/XX/year>, which XXXX  previously XXXX on file for XX/XX/year>. These inconsistencies in reporting not only contradict XXXX claim of accuracy but also raise serious concerns of noncompliance with the FCRA. Furnishers of information have a legal obligation under FCRA 623 to provide complete and accurate information to all credit reporting agencies. The discrepancies, and changes to existing historical reporting of the months, combined with the lack of supporting documentation and the failure to correct or clarify the data after multiple formal disputes, appear to constitute a violation of those statutory obligations. \n\nI have made multiple attempts to resolve this directly with XXXX over the course of several months. Their lack of follow-through, limited communication, and failure to provide any supporting documentation has left me with no choice but to escalate the matter through this formal complaint.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-13T23:05:49.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"80401","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14626958","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-13T23:05:20.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["When I called back a few weeks later, I was informed that the account had already been reviewed and <em>closed</em>, and that no further action would be taken. \n\nOn XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, I sent a formal <em>dispute</em> letter to XXXX credit reporting department via USPS XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a <em>response</em> via email from XXXX XXXX reporting team stating that the account had been verified as accurate, and that I could <em>dispute</em> the information with the credit bureauswhich I had already done previously."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[15.714824,"14626958"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14622308","_score":15.708319,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/year>, I made a purchase using my Sezzle Anywhere virtual card, which I later returned through XXXX XXXX. Although the item was refunded, the refund failed to clear properly and was not applied to my Sezzle balance. As a result, a 30-day late payment was reported to the credit bureaus. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, after receiving a credit alert, I contacted Sezzle and then followed up with XXXX, who confirmed that the refund had been issued to the original payment method ( my Sezzle virtual card ). That same day, I emailed Sezzle Support explaining the situation. Over the following weeks, I had multiple phone calls with Sezzle representativeseach of which was recorded. In one of those calls, a representative named XXXX assured me the matter would be escalated and that the 30-day late mark would be removed. However, I never received any follow-up as promised. When I called back a few weeks later, I was informed that the account had already been reviewed and closed, and that no further action would be taken. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I sent a formal dispute letter to Sezzles credit reporting department via USPS Express. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a response via email from Sezzles credit reporting team stating that the account had been verified as accurate, and that I could dispute the information with the credit bureauswhich I had already done previously. This email did not include any documentation or explanation of the investigation. I followed up that same day, asking clarifying questions and again expressing my willingness to resolve the issue amicably by correcting the late mark. As of XX/XX/XXXX, this follow-up email to XXXX remains unanswered. \n\nFollowing Sezzles direction, I also disputed the tradeline with all three major credit bureausXXXX XXXX and XXXX. All three investigations were closed within several days, with the account marked as verified as accurate. The 30-day late mark still remains, and no documentation or verification has been provided to support its accuracy.\n\nAs of the drafting of this complaint, I have obtained updated credit reports showing that XXXX  now\nreflects the 30-day delinquency for XX/XX/year>, while XXXX  and XXXX  list it for XX/XX/year>, which XXXX  previously had on file for XX/XX/year>. These inconsistencies in reporting not only contradict Sezzles claim of accuracy but also raise serious concerns of noncompliance with the FCRA. Furnishers of information have a legal obligation under FCRA 623 to provide complete and accurate information to all credit reporting agencies. The discrepancies, and changes to existing historical reporting of the months, combined with the lack of supporting documentation and the failure to correct or clarify the data after multiple formal disputes, appear to constitute a violation of those statutory obligations.\n\nI have made multiple attempts to resolve this directly with Sezzle over the course of several months. Their lack of follow-through, limited communication, and failure to provide any supporting documentation has left me with no choice but to escalate the matter through this formal complaint.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-14T16:36:44.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"80401","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14622308","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Sezzle Inc.","date_received":"2025-07-13T22:17:17.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["When I called back a few weeks later, I was informed that the account had already been reviewed and <em>closed</em>, and that no further action would be taken. \n\nOn XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, I sent a formal <em>dispute</em> letter to Sezzles credit reporting department via USPS Express. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a <em>response</em> via email from Sezzles credit reporting team stating that the account had been verified as accurate, and that I could <em>dispute</em> the information with the credit bureauswhich I had already done previously."]},"sort":[15.708319,"14622308"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14625826","_score":15.691097,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/year>, I made a purchase using my XXXX  Anywhere virtual card, which I later returned through XXXX XXXX. Although the item was refunded, the refund failed to clear properly and was not applied to my XXXX balance. As a result, a 30-day late payment was reported to the credit bureaus. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, after receiving a credit alert, I contacted XXXX and then followed up with XXXX, who confirmed that the refund had been issued to the original payment method ( my XXXX virtual card ). That same day, I emailed XXXX XXXX explaining the situation. Over the following weeks, I had multiple phone calls with XXXX representativeseach of which was recorded. In one of those calls, a representative named XXXX assured me the matter would be escalated and that the 30-day late mark would be removed. However, I never received any follow-up as promised. When I called back a few weeks later, I was informed that the account had already been reviewed and closed, and that no further action would be taken. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I sent a formal dispute letter to XXXX credit reporting department via USPS Express. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a response via email from XXXX XXXX reporting team stating that the account had been verified as accurate, and that I could dispute the information with the credit bureauswhich I had already done previously. This email did not include any documentation or explanation of the investigation. I followed up that same day, asking clarifying questions and again expressing my willingness to resolve the issue amicably by correcting the late mark. As of XX/XX/XXXX, this follow-up email to XXXX remains unanswered. \n\nFollowing XXXX direction, I also disputed the tradeline with all three major credit bureausXXXX Equifax, and XXXX. All three investigations were closed within several days, with the account marked as verified as accurate. The 30-day late mark still remains, and no documentation or verification has been provided to support its accuracy. \n\nAs of the drafting of this complaint, I have obtained updated credit reports showing that Equifax now reflects the 30-day delinquency for XX/XX/year>, while XXXX  and XXXX  list it for XX/XX/year>, which Equifax previously had on file for XX/XX/year>. These inconsistencies in reporting not only contradict XXXX claim of accuracy but also raise serious concerns of noncompliance with the FCRA. Furnishers of information have a legal obligation under FCRA 623 to provide complete and accurate information to all credit reporting agencies. The discrepancies, and changes to existing historical reporting of the months, combined with the lack of supporting documentation and the failure to correct or clarify the data after multiple formal disputes, appear to constitute a violation of those statutory obligations. \n\nI have made multiple attempts to resolve this directly with XXXX over the course of several months. Their lack of follow-through, limited communication, and failure to provide any supporting documentation has left me with no choice but to escalate the matter through this formal complaint.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-14T16:33:50.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"80401","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14625826","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-13T23:05:20.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["When I called back a few weeks later, I was informed that the account had already been reviewed and <em>closed</em>, and that no further action would be taken. \n\nOn XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, I sent a formal <em>dispute</em> letter to XXXX credit reporting department via USPS Express. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a <em>response</em> via email from XXXX XXXX reporting team stating that the account had been verified as accurate, and that I could <em>dispute</em> the information with the credit bureauswhich I had already done previously."]},"sort":[15.691097,"14625826"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14859899","_score":14.855348,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX  and Equifax are both reporting a late payment associated with XXXX ( Account XXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ), dated XX/XX/year> * *, despite the fact that this account is clearly marked as Paid & Closed with a XXXX Balance and XXXX Past Due. This is not just a minor reporting errorit is a direct violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and a blatant failure of both credit bureaus to uphold their federally mandated responsibility to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of consumer credit information. \n\nThe XXXX tradeline at issue is not an open, delinquent, or unresolved debt. It has been paid in full. It is closed. There is no balance, no open obligation, and no delinquencyyet both XXXX  and Equifax continue to attach a derogatory late payment notation to it. That late payment is damaging, misleading, and completely unjustifiable in light of the current status of the account. There is no legitimate basis under the law for a consumer to be punished by outdated derogatory data on an account that no longer carries any risk or unpaid liability. \n\nAccording to 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, consumer reporting agencies are required to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information they report. Reporting a late payment on an account that is fully paid, closed, and reflects a XXXX balance is not only inaccurateit is reckless. It reflects either a complete lack of verification with the data furnisher or a negligent internal system that allows outdated derogatory data to persist even after an account has been resolved. Whether due to systemic failure, database mismatch, or reporting latency, the continued presence of a late payment on this closed account violates the fundamental principle of credit reporting : fairness based on factual and current information. \n\nI disputed this late payment directly with both XXXX  and Equifax. I provided a clear explanation that the account was satisfied in full, showed no remaining balance, and should not carry any derogatory remarks. In return, I received an empty, formulaic response stating that the information had been verifiedyet no documentation was provided to support that conclusion. There were no billing statements. No account history logs. No communication from XXXX. Just a hollow one-line verification response, which clearly indicates that no meaningful reinvestigation was conducted. This is a direct violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), which requires both XXXX  and Equifax to conduct a timely and reasonable reinvestigation of any item a consumer disputes. Without documentation or any substantiating data from the original creditor, a mere affirmation of accuracy does not fulfill the legal standard of reasonable. \n\nThe presence of this inaccurate derogatory remark is harming me in very real and ongoing ways. Ive faced multiple credit denials, inflated interest rate offers, and excessive scrutiny from lenders who see this late payment and assume risk that simply does not exist. Ive had to delay financial decisions, miss out on favorable terms, and waste hours trying to explain that this is not an open or unpaid debt. It is deeply frustrating and emotionally draining to be penalized for an account that I responsibly closed and paid off. This is not a reflection of riskthis is a reflection of failure by the very agencies entrusted to protect consumers from misinformation. \n\nThe worst part is that this is not the result of my actions, but the failure of XXXX  and Equifax to cleanse their files of obsolete or unsupported data. This derogatory mark continues to linger not because it is valid, but because both bureaus are content to ignore their duty under the law to verify disputed information before damaging a consumers financial credibility.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-24T17:59:07.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"85027","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14859899","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-24T17:56:29.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Whether due to systemic failure, database mismatch, or reporting latency, the continued presence of a late payment on this <em>closed</em> account violates the fundamental principle of credit reporting : fairness based on factual and current information. \n\nI <em>disputed</em> this late payment directly with both XXXX  and Equifax. I provided a clear <em>explanation</em> that the account was satisfied in full, showed no remaining balance, and should not carry any derogatory remarks."]},"sort":[14.855348,"14859899"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14908797","_score":14.637774,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint because Equifax has violated multiple provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) in connection with my dispute of a fraudulent hard inquiry on my credit report. \n\nI submitted a dispute to Equifax regarding an unauthorized hard inquiry. However, the dispute was closed after just XXXX day, with an automated message stating that factual information must remain on the report for XXXX years. There is no indication that any actual investigation was performed, as required under FCRA 1681i ( a ).\n\nI then contacted the creditor who placed the inquiry. They confirmed that the application was fraudulent, that it had failed their verification process, and that it had expired without ever being fulfilled. I was specifically told by the creditor to dispute the inquiry with Equifax. \n\nI called Equifax on XX/XX/year> at XXXX PM, and remained on the phone for XXXX minutes. During the call : I explained the situation and provided the new evidence I requested that the dispute be reopened or reasserted I formally asked that a consumer statement of dispute be added to my credit file under FCRA 1681i ( b ) I also requested that Equifax provide the documentation or statement that the creditor had supposedly submitted in response to my original dispute Despite these reasonable requests : Equifax refused to reopen or reassert the dispute They failed to add a consumer statement of dispute to my credit file They provided no documentation or confirmation that the creditor was ever contacted, even though I explicitly asked for it A supervisor, after a long silence, intentionally disconnected the call without any explanation, cutting me off while I was still speaking I was not abusive or confrontational I calmly asserted my rights under the FCRA. The supervisors silence and deliberate disconnection of the call is evidence of a willful attempt to end the conversation without addressing my concerns. \n\nAdditionally, the refusal to provide documentation from the creditor suggests that Equifax never contacted them at all, which would be a direct violation of FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ), which requires the credit bureau to forward the dispute to the furnisher and evaluate the response.\n\nIn summary, Equifax violated the following sections of the FCRA : 1681i ( a ) Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) Failure to notify the furnisher and include relevant information 1681i ( b ) Failure to include a consumer statement of dispute upon request 1681c-2 Failure to block or remove fraudulent information 1681n and 1681o Willful and/or negligent noncompliance with the FCRA These actions have caused harm to my credit and denied me my legal rights to correct inaccurate information. I am being held responsible for an inquiry linked to a known fraudulent application, and Equifax is actively obstructing the correction process.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-27T20:22:52.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"06614","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14908797","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-07-27T19:58:30.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I then contacted the creditor <em>who</em> placed the inquiry. They confirmed that the application was fraudulent, that it had failed their verification process, and that it had expired without ever being fulfilled. I was specifically told by the creditor to <em>dispute</em> the inquiry with Equifax. \n\nI called Equifax on XX/XX/<em>year</em>> at XXXX PM, and remained on the phone for XXXX minutes."]},"sort":[14.637774,"14908797"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6263306","_score":14.575182,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I have been fighting this account XXXX XXXX XXXX for almost a year now. Your company is the only company that still has this account up on it collections. I have asked for original documents multiple times and was never sent a validation letter. I requested in writing that they send me the following information concerning the debt, as is my right under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act : The name and address of the original creditor Proof of debt Amount owed and account number. \n\nCopy of your license to collect in my state I also requested that you have this debt removed from Experian until it was verified. Unfortunately, I have has a response and this is what they came up with : XX/XX/2022 : company STATUS Company responded the complaint does not belong to them on XX/XX/2022 The company responded that they are not the appropriate company to address your issue. \n\nXX/XX/2022 : Returned by company STATUS Company responded the complaint does not belong to them on XX/XX/2022 The company responded that they are not the appropriate company to address your issue. \n\nFinally on Company responded on XX/XX/2022 RESPONSE TYPE Closed with explanation Company 's Response Thank you for taking the time to write us. We are a third-party debt collector who collects XXXX  outstanding bills for one or more dates of service. We are not a debt buyer. The services received were XXXX  services and per the XXXX records, these were rendered per your initiation in an urgent or emergent circumstance. Our records show we have sent debt verification to you in the past confirming the dates on which XXXX provided their services. We have updated your address in our system to that listed on your complaint. We have verified that the information being reported is accurate, and have reported the account as in dispute with the credit bureaus. An itemized statement has been requested from our client and will be mailed to you along with verification of debt. After reviewing your previous concerns, it appears that you believe this debt to be fraudulent. If you feel the account ( s ) were opened as the result of fraud or identity theft please file a report at XXXX. Additionally, contact your local law enforcement agency to file an identity theft affidavit. Once obtained, please send us a copy of your FTC ID and claim and/or your signed police affidavit. By email : XXXX By Mail : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, FL XXXX. Thank you. \n\nAs they have failed to respond to my validation request in 30 days, I am requesting that they cease contacting me and Kindly have the item removed from my report till then. \n\nOtherwise, I will be forced to pursue legal action against you, as outlined in the FDCPA. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-11-30T05:28:43.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Medical debt","zip_code":"336XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6263306","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2022-11-30T05:26:15.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Finally on Company responded on XX/XX/2022 <em>RESPONSE</em> TYPE <em>Closed</em> with <em>explanation</em> Company 's <em>Response</em> Thank you for taking the time to write us. We are a third-party debt collector <em>who</em> collects XXXX  outstanding bills for one or more dates of service. We are not a debt buyer. The services received were XXXX  services and per the XXXX records, these were rendered per your initiation in an urgent or emergent circumstance."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[14.575182,"6263306"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6262916","_score":14.575182,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I have been fighting this account XXXX XXXX XXXX for almost a year now. Your company is the only company that still has this account up on it collections. I have asked for original documents multiple times and was never sent a validation letter. I requested in writing that they send me the following information concerning the debt, as is my right under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act : The name and address of the original creditor Proof of debt Amount owed and account number. \n\nCopy of your license to collect in my state I also requested that you have this debt removed from Equifax until it was verified. Unfortunately, I have has a response and this is what they came up with : XX/XX/2022 : company XXXX XXXX responded the complaint does not belong to them on XX/XX/2022 The company responded that they are not the appropriate company to address your issue. \n\nXX/XX/2022 : Returned by company XXXX XXXX responded the complaint does not belong to them on XX/XX/2022 The company responded that they are not the appropriate company to address your issue. \n\nFinally on Company responded on XX/XX/2022 RESPONSE TYPE Closed with explanation Company 's Response Thank you for taking the time to write us. We are a third-party debt collector who collects physicians outstanding bills for one or more dates of service. We are not a debt buyer. The services received were physicians services and per the physicians records, these were rendered per your initiation in an urgent or emergent circumstance. Our records show we have sent debt verification to you in the past confirming the dates on which physicians provided their services. We have updated your address in our system to that listed on your complaint. We have verified that the information being reported is accurate, and have reported the account as in dispute with the credit bureaus. An itemized statement has been requested from our client and will be mailed to you along with verification of debt. After reviewing your previous concerns, it appears that you believe this debt to be fraudulent. If you feel the account ( s ) were opened as the result of fraud or identity theft please file a report at www.consumer.gov/idtheft. Additionally, contact your local law enforcement agency to file an identity theft affidavit. Once obtained, please send us a copy of your FTC ID and claim and/or your signed police affidavit. By email : XXXX By Mail : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, FL XXXX. Thank you. \n\nAs they have failed to respond to my validation request in 30 days, I am requesting that they cease contacting me and Kindly have the item removed from my report till then. \n\nOtherwise, I will be forced to pursue legal action against you, as outlined in the FDCPA. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-11-30T05:25:35.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"336XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6262916","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2022-11-30T04:59:27.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Finally on Company responded on XX/XX/2022 <em>RESPONSE</em> TYPE <em>Closed</em> with <em>explanation</em> Company 's <em>Response</em> Thank you for taking the time to write us. We are a third-party debt collector <em>who</em> collects physicians outstanding bills for one or more dates of service. We are not a debt buyer. The services received were physicians services and per the physicians records, these were rendered per your initiation in an urgent or emergent circumstance."]},"sort":[14.575182,"6262916"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11016862","_score":14.568167,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally report inaccuracies in my credit report as well as unfair practices related to the reporting of my credit information by XXXX, XXXX, Transunion, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Below are the key points highlighting these issues : 1. Incorrect Credit Reporting Under the FCRA, credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) must ensure that all information in consumer credit reports is accurate and up to date ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ). I have identified several entries on my credit report that are either erroneous or misleading : There are inaccuracies, e.g., incorrect account balances, payment histories, hard inquiries or account statuses. For example, XXXX XXXX XXXX admitted to unexplained inquiry and having an account on file for me that has never been opened. I requested them to contact all the credit bureaus to have it removed. This and other hard inquiries remain present on my credit report. XXXX, XXXX and Transunion are showing accounts closed yet not past due amounts are present. In some instances, for the alleged debt owe, all credit bureaus are not showing the amounts and some are just blank. I have several names on my report that are not associated with my one and only name which is : XXXX XXXX. I have addresses that do not belong to me along with my employment status not reflecting my only employment which is XXXX XXXX. XXXX. Unverified Accounts According to the FCRA, if a consumer disputes information in their credit report, the creditor must conduct a reasonable investigation to verify the accuracy of that information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ). In my case : I disputed several accounts on XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, and I have sent my most recent request on XX/XX/year>, but the creditor failed to provide adequate verification of the debts claimed. I have requested deletion based on my findings and according to FCRA and Metro 2 to be deleted both via mail and I have personally called these CRAs and Creditors individually. Specifically I have only received stall letters, no correspondence whatsoever depending on the creditor and incomplete correspondence of debt verification without appropriate documentation based on my initial requests. I have received letters from CRAs claiming that it isn't I who sent these disputes and that they are fraudulent therefore they will not open up an investigation even though I have called all CRAs and informed them via phone and mail that it is I who is sending these disputes. 3. Unfair Practices The FCRA and related regulations prohibit unfair practices in credit reporting. All Creditors and CRAs listed above have engaged in practices that may violate these laws, including : Failure to Correct Errors : After being notified of disputes, the creditor did not update nor correct the inaccuracies in a timely manner. Reporting Unverified Information : Continued reporting of accounts that lack proper verification raises concerns regarding compliance with Metro 2 standards, which require accurate reporting practices. The inaccuracies, unverified accounts, and unfair practices detailed above have had a negative impact on my creditworthiness and overall financial standing. I request that the CFPB investigate these issues and take appropriate action to ensure compliance with FCRA and Metro 2 standards. I have attached all the letters that I have sent to each CRA and Creditor listed within my complaint with explanation of the discrepancies uncovered within my credit report. I have attached the original complaint filed with CFPB on XX/XX/year>. I have attached the FTC report in regards to the fraudulent inquiries found on my credit report. XXXX is still reporting XXXX and it is fraudulent. Transunion, XXXX have both failed to respond within the 30 day mark in regards to my original complaint filed with the CFPB. Transunion and XXXX continue to report these inaccuracies and it is unacceptable. I am seeking legal action unless this is resolved immediately and expeditiously. I spoke to XXXX at Transunion on XX/XX/year> and she claimed that CFPB has blocked their access to the original complaint filed within the CFPB portal on XX/XX/year> and that I, the consumer, need to contact CFPB to find out why they no longer have access to the original complaint. That is unacceptable and against the law. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-03T02:55:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"93534","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11016862","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-12-03T02:01:40.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I spoke to XXXX at Transunion on XX/XX/<em>year</em>> and she claimed that CFPB has blocked their access to the <em>original</em> complaint filed within the CFPB portal on XX/XX/<em>year</em>> and that I, the consumer, need to contact CFPB to find out why they no longer have access to the <em>original</em> complaint. That is unacceptable and against the law. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your <em>response</em>."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[14.568167,"11016862"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11002295","_score":14.568167,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally report inaccuracies in my credit report as well as unfair practices related to the reporting of my credit information by XXXX, Experian, XXXX, 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 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX Below are the key points highlighting these issues : 1. Incorrect Credit Reporting Under the FCRA, credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) must ensure that all information in consumer credit reports is accurate and up to date ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ). I have identified several entries on my credit report that are either erroneous or misleading : There are inaccuracies, e.g., incorrect account balances, payment histories, hard inquiries or account statuses. For example, XXXX XXXX XXXX admitted to unexplained inquiry and having an account on file for me that has never been opened. I requested them to contact all the credit bureaus to have it removed. This and other hard inquiries remain present on my credit report. XXXX, Experian and XXXX are showing accounts closed yet not past due amounts are present. In some instances, for the alleged debt owe, all credit bureaus are not showing the amounts and some are just blank. I have several names on my report that are not associated with my one and only name which is : XXXX XXXX. I have addresses that do not belong to me along with my employment status not reflecting my only employment which is XXXX XXXX. XXXX. Unverified Accounts According to the FCRA, if a consumer disputes information in their credit report, the creditor must conduct a reasonable investigation to verify the accuracy of that information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ). In my case : I disputed several accounts on XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, and I have sent my most recent request on XX/XX/year>, but the creditor failed to provide adequate verification of the debts claimed. I have requested deletion based on my findings and according to FCRA and Metro 2 to be deleted both via mail and I have personally called these CRAs and Creditors individually. Specifically I have only received stall letters, no correspondence whatsoever depending on the creditor and incomplete correspondence of debt verification without appropriate documentation based on my initial requests. I have received letters from CRAs claiming that it isn't I who sent these disputes and that they are fraudulent therefore they will not open up an investigation even though I have called all CRAs and informed them via phone and mail that it is I who is sending these disputes. 3. Unfair Practices The FCRA and related regulations prohibit unfair practices in credit reporting. All Creditors and CRAs listed above have engaged in practices that may violate these laws, including : Failure to Correct Errors : After being notified of disputes, the creditor did not update nor correct the inaccuracies in a timely manner. Reporting Unverified Information : Continued reporting of accounts that lack proper verification raises concerns regarding compliance with Metro 2 standards, which require accurate reporting practices. The inaccuracies, unverified accounts, and unfair practices detailed above have had a negative impact on my creditworthiness and overall financial standing. I request that the CFPB investigate these issues and take appropriate action to ensure compliance with FCRA and Metro 2 standards. I have attached all the letters that I have sent to each CRA and Creditor listed within my complaint with explanation of the discrepancies uncovered within my credit report. I have attached the original complaint filed with CFPB on XX/XX/year>. I have attached the FTC report in regards to the fraudulent inquiries found on my credit report. XXXX is still reporting XXXX and it is fraudulent. XXXX, XXXX have both failed to respond within the 30 day mark in regards to my original complaint filed with the CFPB. XXXX and XXXX continue to report these inaccuracies and it is unacceptable. I am seeking legal action unless this is resolved immediately and expeditiously. I spoke to XXXX at XXXX on XX/XX/year> and she claimed that CFPB has blocked their access to the original complaint filed within the CFPB portal on XX/XX/year> and that I, the consumer, need to contact CFPB to find out why they no longer have access to the original complaint. That is unacceptable and against the law. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-03T02:56:08.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"93534","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11002295","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-12-03T02:56:05.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I spoke to XXXX at XXXX on XX/XX/<em>year</em>> and she claimed that CFPB has blocked their access to the <em>original</em> complaint filed within the CFPB portal on XX/XX/<em>year</em>> and that I, the consumer, need to contact CFPB to find out why they no longer have access to the <em>original</em> complaint. That is unacceptable and against the law. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your <em>response</em>."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[14.568167,"11002295"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10997701","_score":14.568167,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to formally report inaccuracies in my credit report as well as unfair practices related to the reporting of my credit information by Equifax, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Below are the key points highlighting these issues : 1. Incorrect Credit Reporting Under the FCRA, credit reporting agencies ( CRAs ) must ensure that all information in consumer credit reports is accurate and up to date ( 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) ). I have identified several entries on my credit report that are either erroneous or misleading : There are inaccuracies, e.g., incorrect account balances, payment histories, hard inquiries or account statuses. For example, XXXX XXXX XXXX admitted to unexplained inquiry and having an account on file for me that has never been opened. I requested them to contact all the credit bureaus to have it removed. This and other hard inquiries remain present on my credit report. Equifax, XXXX and XXXX are showing accounts closed yet not past due amounts are present. In some instances, for the alleged debt owe, all credit bureaus are not showing the amounts and some are just blank. I have several names on my report that are not associated with my one and only name which is : XXXX XXXX. I have addresses that do not belong to me along with my employment status not reflecting my only employment which is XXXX XXXX. XXXX. Unverified Accounts According to the FCRA, if a consumer disputes information in their credit report, the creditor must conduct a reasonable investigation to verify the accuracy of that information ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ). In my case : I disputed several accounts on XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, XX/XX/year>, and I have sent my most recent request on XX/XX/year>, but the creditor failed to provide adequate verification of the debts claimed. I have requested deletion based on my findings and according to FCRA and Metro 2 to be deleted both via mail and I have personally called these CRAs and Creditors individually. Specifically I have only received stall letters, no correspondence whatsoever depending on the creditor and incomplete correspondence of debt verification without appropriate documentation based on my initial requests. I have received letters from CRAs claiming that it isn't I who sent these disputes and that they are fraudulent therefore they will not open up an investigation even though I have called all CRAs and informed them via phone and mail that it is I who is sending these disputes. 3. Unfair Practices The FCRA and related regulations prohibit unfair practices in credit reporting. All Creditors and CRAs listed above have engaged in practices that may violate these laws, including : Failure to Correct Errors : After being notified of disputes, the creditor did not update nor correct the inaccuracies in a timely manner. Reporting Unverified Information : Continued reporting of accounts that lack proper verification raises concerns regarding compliance with Metro 2 standards, which require accurate reporting practices. The inaccuracies, unverified accounts, and unfair practices detailed above have had a negative impact on my creditworthiness and overall financial standing. I request that the CFPB investigate these issues and take appropriate action to ensure compliance with FCRA and Metro 2 standards. I have attached all the letters that I have sent to each CRA and Creditor listed within my complaint with explanation of the discrepancies uncovered within my credit report. I have attached the original complaint filed with CFPB on XX/XX/year>. I have attached the FTC report in regards to the fraudulent inquiries found on my credit report. Equifax is still reporting XXXX and it is fraudulent. XXXX, Equifax have both failed to respond within the 30 day mark in regards to my original complaint filed with the CFPB. XXXX and Equifax continue to report these inaccuracies and it is unacceptable. I am seeking legal action unless this is resolved immediately and expeditiously. I spoke to XXXX at XXXX on XX/XX/year> and she claimed that CFPB has blocked their access to the original complaint filed within the CFPB portal on XX/XX/year> and that I, the consumer, need to contact CFPB to find out why they no longer have access to the original complaint. That is unacceptable and against the law. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-03T02:56:08.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"93534","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10997701","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-12-03T02:56:05.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Investigation took more than 30 days"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I spoke to XXXX at XXXX on XX/XX/<em>year</em>> and she claimed that CFPB has blocked their access to the <em>original</em> complaint filed within the CFPB portal on XX/XX/<em>year</em>> and that I, the consumer, need to contact CFPB to find out why they no longer have access to the <em>original</em> complaint. That is unacceptable and against the law. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your <em>response</em>."]},"sort":[14.568167,"10997701"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15399822","_score":14.48927,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"PNC Bank False Statements to Federal Regulators and Retaliation proof. \n\nTo : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Re : EMERGENCY - False Statements to CFPB by PNC Bank Related Cases : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( OCC ) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY : PNC Bank made FALSE STATEMENTS to CFPB in their XX/XX/year> response, claiming my account \" remains open '' while planning immediate closure. Account was actually closed XX/XX/year>, proving systematic deception of federal regulators during active investigation. PNC is now using a pretextual automated bill payment failure as justification, when the real reason is continued retaliation for filing CFPB complaints and legitimate fraud disputes. \n\nDETAILED COMPLAINT : PNC 's False Statements to CFPB : In their XX/XX/year> response to CFPB ( attached to previous cases ), PNC explicitly stated : \" PNC is unable to substantiate the Account was ever closed '' \" As of the date of this response, the Account remains open '' \" On XX/XX/year>, PNC completed their review of the Account activity, and the hold was removed '' PROOF OF SYSTEMATIC DECEPTION : On XX/XX/year>, PNC closed my account, proving their XX/XX/XXXX statements to CFPB were deliberately false. Account closure letter received ( reference : [ closure letter details ] ). \n\nTimeline of perjury XX/XX/year> : PNC tells CFPB \" Account remains open '' XX/XX/year> : PNC closes account ( XXXX  days later ) Clear evidence : Statements to CFPB were false when made PNC 's Pretextual Justification : Approximately XXXX weeks before closure, an automated bill payment attempted to withdraw from my restricted account with {$0.00} balance, which PNC had made inaccessible through their systematic restrictions. PNC will likely use this declined payment as justification for closure. \n\nWhy This \" Justification '' is False and Retaliatory : Account restrictions : PNC prevented all account access, making balance management impossible {$0.00} balance : Result of their forced branch-only withdrawals during systematic harassment Automated payment : Oversight due to inability to manage account through normal banking channels Timing : Payment failure occurred during ongoing CFPB investigation Real reason : Continued retaliation for exercising federal rights The Retaliation Timeline : XXXX XXXX  : Legitimate fraud disputes filed with police reports Immediate retaliation : Account restrictions, app disabled, forced branch visits CFPB complaints filed : Additional verification harassment implemented XX/XX/year> : False statements to CFPB claiming account open XX/XX/year> : Automated payment fails due to their restrictions XX/XX/year> : Account closure using payment failure as pretext Federal Violations Committed : 1. False Statements to Federal Regulators : 18 USC 1001 - Knowingly false statements to federal agencies Deliberate deception during active CFPB investigation Material false statements affecting regulatory proceedings 2. Obstruction of Federal Investigation : Misleading CFPB about account status Interfering with regulatory oversight Bad faith response to federal inquiry 3. Systematic Retaliation : Account closure AFTER CFPB complaints Pretextual justification to disguise continued punishment Escalated violations during regulatory investigation Creating conditions for payment failures then using as closure reason Pattern of Institutional Bad Faith : This false statement proves PNC 's systematic approach to deceiving regulators : Evasive responses to legitimate complaints Misleading statements to federal authorities Manufacturing pretexts for retaliatory actions Bad faith institutional response to oversight The Pretextual Nature of Closure : Real reason : Retaliation for CFPB complaints and fraud disputes Pretextual reason : Payment failure they engineered through restrictions Timeline proves : Closure planned while telling CFPB account was open Bad faith : Using consequences of their violations as justification for more violations Why This is Critical : Federal regulators must be able to rely on bank statements Perjury to CFPB undermines entire regulatory system Pretextual closures enable systematic customer abuse Criminal behavior while under federal investigation Impact on Previous Cases : PNC 's false statements invalidate their entire XX/XX/XXXX response and prove : Systematic bad faith in all regulatory responses Unreliable institution requiring enhanced oversight Criminal intent to obstruct federal investigation Pattern of manufacturing justifications for retaliatory actions Immediate Regulatory Action Required : Criminal referral to Department of Justice for false statements Emergency intervention to stop ongoing violations Enhanced penalties for obstruction of federal investigation Investigation of pretextual account closures industry-wide Requested Resolution : Immediate criminal investigation of false statements to CFPB Maximum civil penalties for systematic deception and retaliation Congressional notification of institutional perjury Industry-wide precedent for truthfulness to regulators Investigation of systematic pretextual closure practices Personal accountability for individuals who authorized false statements PNC 's XX/XX/year> CFPB response claiming account \" remains open '' Account closure letter dated XX/XX/year> Timeline proving false statements to federal regulators Documentation of systematic account restrictions preventing normal banking Pattern of systematic deception and retaliatory bad faith CONCLUSION : PNC Bank committed lied XXXX XX/XX/XXXX to federal regulators while under active investigation, then manufactured a pretextual justification for closure through their own systematic restrictions. \n\nI had stated in my original complaint that they are going to close the account as retaliation for filing disputes where my wallet was stolen. They followed up exactly with that and therefore any explanation provided for account closure is pretextual. \n\nThis represents the most serious violation of regulatory trust possible and requires immediate criminal referral and maximum enforcement action. No financial institution should be permitted to systematically lie to federal authorities and use pretextual justifications for continued retaliation. \n\nThis case now involves possible federal crimes committed against CFPB itself and demands the strongest possible regulatory response Case References : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX OCC Reference : XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-20T23:29:06.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"441XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15399822","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PNC Bank N.A.","date_received":"2025-08-20T23:19:52.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["DETAILED COMPLAINT : PNC 's False Statements to CFPB : In their XX/XX/<em>year</em>> <em>response</em> to CFPB ( attached to previous cases ), PNC explicitly stated : \" PNC is unable to substantiate the Account was ever <em>closed</em> '' \" As of the date of this <em>response</em>, the Account remains open '' \" On XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, PNC completed their review of the Account activity, and the hold was removed '' PROOF OF SYSTEMATIC DECEPTION : On XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, PNC <em>closed</em> my account, proving their XX/XX/XXXX statements to CFPB were deliberately"]},"sort":[14.48927,"15399822"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15496127","_score":13.868543,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Complaint Submission Against : Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ) Summary of Complaint : I am filing this complaint because Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ) mishandled a fraudulent charge dispute on my account, improperly charged off my checking account, denied me proper victim protections, and treated me unprofessionally during multiple interactions. Their inconsistent actions caused financial hardship, confusion, and undue stress. \n\nTimeline of Events : Around XX/XX/year>XXXX  : I submitted a fraud claim for a {$15.00} unauthorized transaction. Navy Federal initially denied my claim. Later, the {$15.00} was credited to my savings account, confirming I won the dispute decision. \n\nAccount Closure : Despite winning the dispute, NFCU closed my original checking account, citing charge-off. I was later informed by NFCU employees that the account was only closed after the debt was satisfied, and that reopening or opening a new account was possible only once the charge-off was cleared. This was confirmed by an agent named XXXX from the charge-off department. \n\nConflicting Instructions : Another NFCU agent ( a young lady, prior to XXXX ) specifically advised me to open a new checking account since the charge-off was reported as paid. I successfully did so, which, by Navy Federals own policy, shows that the charge-off had been resolved. \n\nRemoval of {$15.00} Credit : Although the {$15.00} was credited to my savings account, once the new checking account was opened, that amount was removed & despite my repeated requests prior to the XX/XX/year>XXXX  charge-off that this {$15.00} credit be applied to prevent closure. Multiple NFCU employees told me they had the power to apply the funds, but no action was taken. \n\nInteractions on XXXX : I spoke with XXXX ( NFCU employee ), who placed me on hold for a supervisor after I explained my case. \n\nAt exactly XXXX XXXX, I received a written response from Navy Federal to my submitted Request for Review and Correction of Account Handling | Charge-Off and Reversal. \n\nI was transferred to Latara ( NFCU representative ), who rudely hung up on me and told me I was not the victim in the situation even though Navy Federal already honored my {$15.00} dispute decision.\n\nTheres also a claim ( unresolved $ XXXX dispute ) tied to this situation that was never filed by NFCU employees at the time I requested it. \n\nIssues Raised : 1. Mishandling of Fraud Claim I was determined to be the victim and awarded a {$15.00} credit, but my account was still charged off and closed. \n\n2. Inconsistent and Conflicting Information Employees ( XXXX, XXXX, and others ) gave contradictory explanations about whether my charge-off was satisfied and how credits could be applied. \n\n3. Failure to Apply Credit I repeatedly requested that the {$15.00} be applied before closure, and I was told it could be, but NFCU failed to act. \n\n4. Unprofessional Conduct Representative XXXX hung up on me, denied my victim status, and There was a unfiled $ XXXX dispute that NFCU failed to process correctly during time of all this. \n\n5. Hardship Caused The closure and mishandling affected me severely, as many business transactions were linked to my checking account, causing delays and stress.\n\n* Navy Federals handling of my dispute violates 15 U.S. Code 1693f and Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ), which require fair investigation and proper application of credits for fraudulent transactions. Furthermore, their closure of my account despite acknowledging the fraudulent activity constitutes an unfair and abusive practice under 12 U.S.C. 5531. I was treated as if I was not the victim, despite winning the decision, which caused direct financial hardship and business disruption.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-25T20:07:39.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"301XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15496127","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-08-25T19:46:25.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Timeline of Events : Around XX/XX/<em>year</em>>XXXX  : I submitted a fraud claim for a {$15.00} unauthorized transaction. Navy Federal initially denied my claim. Later, the {$15.00} was credited to my savings account, confirming I won the <em>dispute</em> decision. \n\nAccount Closure : Despite winning the <em>dispute</em>, NFCU <em>closed</em> my <em>original</em> checking account, citing charge-off."],"sub_issue":["Company <em>closed</em> your account"]},"sort":[13.868543,"15496127"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13892438","_score":13.763822,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ) Today, Equifax issued a response claiming my disputes were investigated and the accounts were verified. This is absolutely false. Equifax has closed my disputes without correction, ignored all evidence I submitted, and falsely reported a {$780.00} payment that never occurred. This is not just negligentit constitutes fraudulent furnishing and a direct violation of the FCRA, XXXX XXXX standards, and New York General Business Law 349.\n\n1. Mishandled XXXX XXXX Joint Account Equifax verified a XXXX XXXX joint account, despite the fact that I submitted proper identification and supporting documentation during the dispute process. Instead of conducting a lawful reinvestigation, Equifax blindly verified the account without requiring validation from the furnisher. \n\n\n\n2. False Verification of Joint XXXX Account & Re-Aged XXXX Account The XXXX XXXX account is clearly labeled as joint, and thats exactly how I know Equifax never performed a real investigation. If they had, they would have discovered the facts and deleted the account entirely. Instead, they verified it as accurate, which constitutes a direct failure under FCRA 1681i.\n\nEven worseEquifax updated this account in XX/XX/year>, post-dispute, to make it appear recent, as if new activity or payments had occurred. This is a deceptive act meant to keep a disputed account alive on my report. \n\nAt the same time, Equifax allowed XXXX XXXX XXXX to re-age a time-barred debt by updating the tradeline in XXXX XXXX after the original delinquency. XXXX has already confirmed they can not sue, meaning this debt is uncollectible and should not be presented as active. \n\nThese updates show a clear pattern of post-dispute retaliation, re-aging, and bad faith reporting, all in violation of the FCRA, XXXX XXXX standards, and XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Obstruction of My Dispute Rights Equifax has also blocked my access to the online dispute portal, displaying the message : We are temporarily unable to complete this request. This interference violates FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 3 ) ( B ) and shows a broader pattern of retaliation and obstruction.\n\n( See Exhibit B Screenshot of Dispute Blocked ) 4. Fabricated {$780.00} Payment Equifax falsely reported a {$780.00} payment that I never made. There is no bank account, no transaction record, and no authorization under my name tied to this phantom payment. This appears to be either a completely fabricated entry or an illegal post-dispute manipulation meant to validate a collection account. \n\nI demand an explanation : What financial institution was this payment tied to? \nWhat name was on the payment? \nWho auth","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-04T16:52:57.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"128XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13892438","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-04T16:02:40.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Who</em> auth"]},"sort":[13.763822,"13892438"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16599246","_score":13.5773535,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am writing to formally file a complaint regarding the handling of my personal account with Wells Fargo Bank. On Saturday, XX/XX/year>, at XXXX AM, I received an email from Wells Fargo stating that my account was set to be closed on XX/XX/XXXX due to \" XXXX or more money transfers to your account reported as unauthorized. '' At no point did Wells Fargo contact me to request clarification or information about these transactions. I was not given any opportunity to dispute the reported transfers. Despite contacting the bank multiple times by phone, I was not provided with any details regarding which transactions were under review. I was denied access to my account, funds, and supporting documents needed to defend myself. During these interactions, I was consistently met with rude customer service and conflicting information from different Wells Fargo representatives. \n\nSince XX/XX/year>, I have had no access to my funds or account information. On XX/XX/year>, I spoke with a representative from the XXXX XXXX, who informed me that a cashiers check in the amount of {$150.00} had been issued and that it would take up to XXXX additional days to reach me. This resolution is both unreasonable and unacceptable. I requested to visit a local Wells Fargo branch to retrieve the funds in person and was denied multiple times. \n\nI have also formally requested all information and data associated with my account and my Social Security number. I was repeatedly told that this information could not be provided. I was not allowed to represent myself during the banks investigation. When I inquired about submitting documentation to prove the legitimacy of the transfers, I was misinformed and told I was not allowed to do so. \n\nIt took multiple calls and managerial escalations for me to obtain the name of my case XXXX. However, the assigned case XXXX for the XXXX XXXX investigation failed to contact me or provide updates regarding the case. I have documentation and recordings that verify the transfer reported as fraudulent was, in fact, legitimate and authorized. \n\nI sent an email to the Wells Fargo XXXX Department on Wednesday, XX/XX/year>, at XXXX PM, after finally being advised that I could submit evidence for review. After receiving no response, I followed up again on Tuesday, XX/XX/year>, at XXXX PM. At that time, I was informed that my original email had not been received. Furthermore, I had not been provided with a relevant case number that was necessary for proper submission. \n\nI believe XXXX XXXX actions constitute unethical and potentially unlawful behavior. Denying a customer access to funds without transparency, due process, or XXXX XXXX for recourse is not only unjustit XXXX violate consumer protection laws. I am requesting a thorough review of my case, a full explanation of the actions taken by Wells Fargo, immediate access to my remaining funds, and a complete release of all records and documentation associated with my account. \n\nPlease confirm receipt of this complaint and provide details on how it will be escalated and reviewed.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-15T20:05:28.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20008","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16599246","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-10-15T19:14:21.000Z","state":"DC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I sent an email to the Wells Fargo XXXX Department on Wednesday, XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, at XXXX PM, after finally being advised that I could submit evidence for review. After receiving no <em>response</em>, I followed up again on Tuesday, XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, at XXXX PM. At that time, I was informed that my <em>original</em> email had not been received. Furthermore, I had not been provided with a relevant case number that was necessary for proper submission."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"],"sub_issue":["Company <em>closed</em> your account"]},"sort":[13.5773535,"16599246"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11030402","_score":13.555342,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I made three loan payments online to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ) to meet the due date of XX/XX/year>, for my three loans. These payments were made in good faith, using my debit card to ensure the funds were immediately withdrawn from my account. The payment details are as follows : 1. Loan 1 Payment : {$180.00} ( includes {$5.00} convenience fee ) Transaction Time : XXXX XXXX  Tracking Number : XXXX XXXX Loan 2 Payment : {$200.00} ( includes {$5.00} convenience fee ) Transaction Time : XXXX XXXX  Tracking Number : XXXX XXXX. Loan 3 Payment : {$610.00} ( includes {$5.00} convenience fee ) Transaction Time : XXXX XXXX  Tracking Number : XXXX  Total Paid : {$1000.00} These payments were made prior to the original due date of XX/XX/year>. Additionally, according to Louisiana Revised Statutes XXXX, when a due date falls on a weekend or holiday, the due date is automatically extended to the next business day. In this case, the due date should have been extended to Monday, XX/XX/year>. Despite making my payments well before both the original and extended due dates, XXXX reported all three loans as 30 days late to the credit bureaus. \n\n\n**Details of the Circumstances** 1. Notification and Immediate Action On XX/XX/year>, I received a notification from FICO that three of my accounts had been reported as 30 days late. \nI immediately contacted XXXX on XX/XX/year>, providing the transaction details for each payment and demonstrating that they were made on XX/XX/year>, prior to the due date. Despite my prompt action, XXXX refused to correct the reporting. \n\n2. Timing of Paycheck and Payment My paycheck was deposited late on XXXX evening ( XX/XX/year> ), which left me unable to make the payments earlier in the week. \nWith XXXX branches closed for both XXXX and the following Friday, the only option available to me was to use their online payment system on Friday, XX/XX/year>, which I did to ensure my payments were made promptly. \n\n3. No Other Options Provided In her email response on XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX stated : If the payments were made with a teller at a shared branch, everything would have posted for the month of XXXX and the loans would not have been reported to the credit bureau. \n\nThis statement is both unfair and misleading because : 1. XXXX  branches were closed to the public on XX/XX/XXXX, leaving me with no way to pay in person. \n2. Suggesting that in-person payment could have resolved the issue disregards the fact that this option was not available. \n\n4. Holiday Timing and Inconsistent Policies The holiday timing further highlights inconsistencies and misleading communication about XXXX  payment policies : 1. Policy in the XXXX  ( Provided on XX/XX/year>XXXX  ) : States : Payments made after the cutoff time will post the following business day. \nThe cutoff time is not explicitly defined for online payments. \n2. Terms Agreed to During Payment : State : Payments submitted after XXXX XXXX  Central Time will be processed within 3-5 business days. \nMy payments were submitted well before XXXX XXXX, so they should have been processed and dated as XX/XX/year>. \n3. XXXX XXXX Verbal Explanation : She stated in multiple emails that : Online payments can take one business day to post to the loan. \n\nThese discrepancies, combined with the timing of the holiday closures, created an unfair situation where I was penalized despite acting in good faith. \n\n5. Payment History While I have occasionally been behind by up to two weeks on payments due to returning to school, I have always ensured that payments were made before reaching 30 days late to avoid negative reporting. My commitment to maintaining good standing with my loans reflects my responsibility and effort to rebuild my financial stability. \n\n**Personal Experiences with XXXX** 1. Car Loan Denial In the past, despite being initially approved for a car loan, XXXX XXXX unexpectedly denied my application without providing a valid reason after I had finalized arrangements for the car. \nI was only able to secure the loan after escalating the matter to the CEO of the credit union, who overrode XXXX XXXX decision. \n\n2. Consistent Unreasonable Treatment XXXX XXXX has consistently imposed arbitrary and unreasonable requirements when I applied for loans or sought assistance, despite my proven track record of making payments responsibly. \nThese past interactions, coupled with this current issue, demonstrate a pattern of bias and lack of fairness in my dealings with XXXX. \n\n3. Lack of Leadership Response I contacted the CEO of XXXX about this issue but have not received a response. The lack of engagement from leadership only adds to my frustration and disappointment. \n\n**Acting in Good Faith** I did everything within my power to ensure these payments were made responsibly : 1. I used the only payment option available ( online ) after receiving my paycheck late on XXXX evening. \n2. I made all payments early on XX/XX/year>, ensuring they were completed well before the cutoff time of XXXX XXXX. \n3. I contacted XXXX immediately upon receiving the late payment notification, providing detailed proof of my timely payments and requesting a resolution. \n\nDespite these good-faith efforts, XXXX not only reported the payments as late but refused to correct the reporting, citing inconsistent and misleading policies. \n\n*****Laws Violated and Explanations***** 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Law : Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2, creditors must ensure the accuracy of information furnished to credit bureaus. \nViolation : Reporting my payments as late despite documentation showing they were made on XX/XX/year>, violates the FCRAs accuracy requirements. \nExplanation : Creditors are required to investigate disputes and correct inaccuracies. XXXX  refusal to correct their error violates my rights under the FCRA. \n\n2. Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) Law : Under 12 CFR 1005.10, the date of payment is considered the date the payment is made, not the date it is processed. \nViolation : My payments, made on XX/XX/year>, should have been credited as of that date. XXXX  failure to apply this standard violates federal law. \nExplanation : The EFTA protects consumers from arbitrary processing delays, particularly when funds have already been withdrawn. \n\n3. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:3518.1 Law : When a due date falls on a weekend or holiday, it is automatically extended to the next business day. \nViolation : XXXX failed to honor the extended due date of XX/XX/year>, instead treating payments made on XX/XX/XXXX as late. \nExplanation : This statute ensures consumers are not penalized for due dates coinciding with weekends or holidays. \n\n4. Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act ) Law : Under 15 U.S.C. 45, it is unlawful for businesses to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. \nViolation : Misleading terms, inconsistent policies, and refusal to correct false credit reporting constitute unfair and deceptive practices. \nExplanation : Consumers have the right to clear and truthful terms. XXXX  actions violate this principle. \n\nThe Harm 1. Credit Score Damage : My credit score has dropped substantially, undermining years of effort to rebuild my financial stability. \n2. Financial Stress : This situation has caused unnecessary stress, as I acted responsibly to meet my obligations and relied on XXXX to accurately report my payment history. \n3. Loss of Trust : XXXX  refusal to correct their error, coupled with misleading policies and past treatment, has eroded my trust in their institution.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-04T21:22:13.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"70461","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11030402","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-12-04T21:21:54.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["With XXXX branches <em>closed</em> for both XXXX and the following Friday, the only option available to me was to use their online payment system on Friday, XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, which I did to ensure my payments were made promptly. \n\n3. No Other Options Provided In her email <em>response</em> on XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, XXXX XXXX stated : If the payments were made with a teller at a shared branch, everything would have posted for the month of XXXX and the loans would not have been reported to the credit bureau."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[13.555342,"11030402"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11031018","_score":13.55109,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I made three loan payments online to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) to meet the due date of XX/XX/year>, for my three loans. These payments were made in good faith, using my debit card to ensure the funds were immediately withdrawn from my account. The payment details are as follows : 1. Loan 1 Payment : {$180.00} ( includes {$5.00} convenience fee ) Transaction Time : XXXX XXXX  Tracking Number : XXXX 2. Loan 2 Payment : {$200.00} ( includes {$5.00} convenience fee ) Transaction Time : XXXX XXXX  Tracking Number XXXX XXXX 3. Loan 3 Payment : {$610.00} ( includes {$5.00} convenience fee ) Transaction Time : XXXX XXXX  Tracking Number : XXXX Total Paid : {$1000.00} These payments were made prior to the original due date of XX/XX/year>. Additionally, according to Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:3518.1, when a due date falls on a weekend or holiday, the due date is automatically extended to the next business day. In this case, the due date should have been extended to Monday, XX/XX/year>. Despite making my payments well before both the original and extended due dates, XXXX reported all three loans as 30 days late to the credit bureaus. \n\n\n**Details of the Circumstances** 1. Notification and Immediate Action On XX/XX/year>, I received a notification from FICO that three of my accounts had been reported as 30 days late. \nI immediately contacted XXXX on XX/XX/year>, providing the transaction details for each payment and demonstrating that they were made on XX/XX/year>, prior to the due date. Despite my prompt action, XXXX refused to correct the reporting. \n\n2. Timing of Paycheck and Payment My paycheck was deposited late on XXXX evening ( XX/XX/year> ), which left me unable to make the payments earlier in the week. \nWith XXXX branches closed for both XXXX and the following Friday, the only option available to me was to use their online payment system on Friday, XX/XX/year>, which I did to ensure my payments were made promptly. \n\n3. No Other Options Provided In her email response on XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX stated : If the payments were made with a teller at a shared branch, everything would have posted for the month of XXXX and the loans would not have been reported to the credit bureau. \n\nThis statement is both unfair and misleading because : 1. XXXX  branches were closed to the public on XX/XX/XXXX, leaving me with no way to pay in person. \n2. Suggesting that in-person payment could have resolved the issue disregards the fact that this option was not available. \n\n4. Holiday Timing and Inconsistent Policies The holiday timing further highlights inconsistencies and misleading communication about XXXX  payment policies : 1. Policy in the PDF ( Provided on XX/XX/year> ) : States : Payments made after the cutoff time will post the following business day. \nThe cutoff time is not explicitly defined for online payments. \n2. Terms Agreed to During Payment : State : Payments submitted after XXXX XXXX  Central Time will be processed within 3-5 business days. \nMy payments were submitted well before XXXX XXXX, so they should have been processed and dated as XX/XX/year>. \n3. XXXX XXXX Verbal Explanation : She stated in multiple emails that : Online payments can take one business day to post to the loan. \n\nThese discrepancies, combined with the timing of the holiday closures, created an unfair situation where I was penalized despite acting in good faith. \n\n5. Payment History While I have occasionally been behind by up to two weeks on payments due to returning to school, I have always ensured that payments were made before reaching 30 days late to avoid negative reporting. My commitment to maintaining good standing with my loans reflects my responsibility and effort to rebuild my financial stability. \n\n**Personal Experiences with XXXXXXXX  1. Car Loan Denial In the past, despite being initially approved for a car loan, XXXX XXXX unexpectedly denied my application without providing a valid reason after I had finalized arrangements for the car. \nI was only able to secure the loan after escalating the matter to the CEO of the credit union, who overrode XXXX XXXX decision. \n\n2. Consistent Unreasonable Treatment XXXX XXXX has consistently imposed arbitrary and unreasonable requirements when I applied for loans or sought assistance, despite my proven track record of making payments responsibly. \nThese past interactions, coupled with this current issue, demonstrate a pattern of bias and lack of fairness in my dealings with XXXX. \n\n3. Lack of Leadership Response I contacted the CEO of XXXX about this issue but have not received a response. The lack of engagement from leadership only adds to my frustration and disappointment. \n\n**Acting in Good Faith** I did everything within my power to ensure these payments were made responsibly : 1. I used the only payment option available ( online ) after receiving my paycheck late on XXXX evening. \n2. I made all payments early on XX/XX/year>, ensuring they were completed well before the cutoff time of XXXX XXXX. \n3. I contacted XXXX immediately upon receiving the late payment notification, providing detailed proof of my timely payments and requesting a resolution. \n\nDespite these good-faith efforts, XXXX not only reported the payments as late but refused to correct the reporting, citing inconsistent and misleading policies. \n\n*****Laws Violated and Explanations***** 1. Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Law : Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2, creditors must ensure the accuracy of information furnished to credit bureaus. \nViolation : Reporting my payments as late despite documentation showing they were made on XX/XX/year>, violates the FCRAs accuracy requirements. \nExplanation : Creditors are required to investigate disputes and correct inaccuracies. XXXX  refusal to correct their error violates my rights under the FCRA. \n\n2. Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) Law : Under 12 CFR 1005.10, the date of payment is considered the date the payment is made, not the date it is processed. \nViolation : My payments, made on XX/XX/year>, should have been credited as of that date. XXXX failure to apply this standard violates federal law. \nExplanation : The EFTA protects consumers from arbitrary processing delays, particularly when funds have already been withdrawn. \n\n3. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:3518.1 Law : When a due date falls on a weekend or holiday, it is automatically extended to the next business day. \nViolation : XXXX failed to honor the extended due date of XX/XX/year>, instead treating payments made on XX/XX/XXXX as late. \nExplanation : This statute ensures consumers are not penalized for due dates coinciding with weekends or holidays. \n\n4. Federal Trade Commission Act ( FTC Act ) Law : Under 15 U.S.C. 45, it is unlawful for businesses to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. \nViolation : Misleading terms, inconsistent policies, and refusal to correct false credit reporting constitute unfair and deceptive practices. \nExplanation : Consumers have the right to clear and truthful terms. XXXX actions violate this principle. \n\nThe Harm 1. Credit Score Damage : My credit score has dropped substantially, undermining years of effort to rebuild my financial stability. \n2. Financial Stress : This situation has caused unnecessary stress, as I acted responsibly to meet my obligations and relied on XXXX to accurately report my payment history. \n3. Loss of Trust : XXXX  refusal to correct their error, coupled with misleading policies and past treatment, has eroded my trust in their institution.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-04T21:22:13.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"70461","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11031018","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-12-04T21:21:54.000Z","state":"LA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["With XXXX branches <em>closed</em> for both XXXX and the following Friday, the only option available to me was to use their online payment system on Friday, XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, which I did to ensure my payments were made promptly. \n\n3. No Other Options Provided In her email <em>response</em> on XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, XXXX XXXX stated : If the payments were made with a teller at a shared branch, everything would have posted for the month of XXXX and the loans would not have been reported to the credit bureau."]},"sort":[13.55109,"11031018"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2049795","_score":13.423761,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"I have a fixed-rate mortgage loan that is fraudulently being serviced by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. \nThe bank blatantly provides generic responses to specific answers and abuses the loopholes within the CFPB review process. \n\nFor instance, this very complaint has a high percentage of being labeled as a \" Duplicate '' case because Wells Fargo can provide a boilerplate initial response, and indicate that any subsequent inquires are settled or \" Duplicate '' in nature. However, nothing is further from the truth. Wells Fargo should be penalized for the maximum penalty possible for my case alone. \nFortunately, the CFPB rules that were just published yesterday might help a few homeowners, but, the rules extend one year to sort things out will give banks too much time to figure out other angles to generate profits at the expense of homeowners and taxpayers. \nThe \" Duplicate '' response rule is among the most abusive ways that Wells Fargo uses the weakness within the CFPB regulations to avoid answering direct questions. The bank flat out lies and uses industry-recognized jargon to appear as if everything else falls into place. \nFor instance, I have asked the bank for a chain of title for more than 3 years to help provide greater clarity as to whom the legal owner of my mortgage note is. The bank has refused to provide this information to me. Even after I sent a \" Qualified Written Request '' this past spring, Wells Fargo refused to provide the documentation. The bank continuously sends me a copy of the original mortgage that I already have. I want every regulator to understand that I know who was responsible for fraudulently originating my mortgage -- Wells Fargo! My concern from the outset and to this very day has nothing to do with the \" Note '' that Wells Fargo originated because the bank did not retain the \" Note and the Servicing Rights. '' Since the \" Note '' that Wells Fargo keeps highlighting was \" Sold '', I am demanding the \" Chain of Title '' because after Wells Fargo sold the \" Note '' -- Wells Fargo had the audacity to \" Assign ' the \" Mortgage Note '' to XXXX XXXX more than 5 years later. After Wells Fargo \" Sold '' the \" Original '' \" Note '' via a securitized transaction to XXXX XXXX, nearly a year later, I receive a Foreclosure notice from XXXX XXXX. There was n't a \" Note '' when I requested it. So, Wells Fargo and XXXX XXXX fabricated multiple \" Mortgage Assignments. '' Wells Fargo is among the best banks if not the very best at using smoke and mirrors to hide variations of their fraudulent practices. \n\nFor instance, the case that Wells Fargo closed on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX states the following : Response disputed Wells Fargo Home Mortgage said : Explanation of closure \" We received the inquiry from XXXX XXXX in regards to foreclosure and chain of title. We have provided information in regards to foreclosure action and correct chain of title. '' Once again Wells Fargo has lied to the CFPB, me and other banking regulators. Enough is enough, how much abuse must my family endure. As recent as this past spring and for more than 3 years, Wells Fargo has said that it would not provide me with the chain of title to the property. Throughout this extensive case, it is highly documented that I have demanded certain items, and Wells Fargo has said that it would not provide the requested items, hence the need for me to send the \" Qualified Written Request '' XX/XX/XXXX. The last entry on the XXXX/XXXX/XXXX shows that I immediately \" Disputed '' Wells Fargo 's response because I never received the chain of title that Wells Fargo lied about providing on that date, or at any time. However, no further research or details were forthcoming from regulators or from Wells Fargo. This glitch in the system requires a repair so that Wells Fargo will be held accountable versus leaving me and millions of other homeowners with unsettled cases.","date_sent_to_company":"2016-08-08T10:52:45.000Z","issue":"Loan modification,collection,foreclosure","sub_product":"Conventional fixed mortgage","zip_code":"173XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2049795","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2016-08-06T06:08:21.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["For instance, the case that Wells Fargo <em>closed</em> on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX states the following : <em>Response</em> <em>disputed</em> Wells Fargo Home Mortgage said : <em>Explanation</em> of closure \" We received the inquiry from XXXX XXXX in regards to foreclosure and chain of title. We have provided information in regards to foreclosure action and correct chain of title. '' Once again Wells Fargo has lied to the CFPB, me and other banking regulators. Enough is enough, how much abuse must my family endure."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[13.423761,"2049795"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14352945","_score":13.233444,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Disclosure : As a consumer fully exercising my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, I am documenting each step in preparation for formal legal escalation, if necessary. \n\nClarification : This complaint is separate and distinct from any previously filed complaints against TransUnion. It addresses new violations and failures, specifically TransUnions refusal to provide verification documentation in response to a formal and lawful request under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). It is not duplicative in subject matter or legal basis.\n\nSubject : Complaint against TransUnion for Improper Handling of Spring Oaks Capital Dispute FCRA Violations 611, 623 and Refusal to Submit Verification Documentation Despite My Formal and Lawful Request Under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Narrative : I am filing this complaint against TransUnion for its improper reinvestigation and continued reporting of a disputed account furnished by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( account ending in XXXX ). Despite submitting evidence that clearly disqualifies this account from consumer credit reporting, TransUnion marked the account as verified as accurate without providing any documentation or explanation.\n\nTimeline & Evidence : On XX/XX/year>, I sent a certified dispute directly to XXXX XXXX XXXX, which remains unanswered a violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 8 ). \nIn my dispute letter to TransUnion dated XX/XX/year>, I specifically requested verification of the original signed agreement. TransUnion failed to obtain or acknowledge this critical document, which as I now provide clearly states the funds were not for personal, family, or household use. \nThis proves the debt is commercial in nature and therefore not subject to consumer credit reporting under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. \nOn XX/XX/year>, I filed a CFPB complaint ( ID # XXXX ) against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which remains unresolved. \nOn XX/XX/year>, TransUnion closed its reinvestigation and issued results stating the account was verified as accurate and updated, yet provided no documentation or acknowledgment of the commercial-use clause in the loan agreement. \nDue to TransUnions non-compliance with my documentation request, I sent a formal verification demand letter, citing violations of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), and 616 & 617. I explicitly requested the documentation used to verify the account, the method of verification, and the name of the party who confirmed the information.\n\nTransUnion has refused to provide any of this information, despite my formal and lawful request under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ).\n\nAny attestation that this information was verified as accurate or updated without substantiating records may constitute false testimony, constructive fraud, or deceptive business practices. This is particularly concerning given that XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed to respond to both my direct dispute and my prior CFPB complaint. This suggests that TransUnions verification process was not only inadequate but potentially misleading. \n\nI am not seeking unnecessary conflict I am requesting only the lawful correction of inaccurate and unverified information. If TransUnion deletes the account in full and in good faith, I will consider the matter fully resolved and take no further action regarding this issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-28T17:47:01.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11214","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14352945","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-28T17:35:05.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite submitting evidence that clearly disqualifies this account from consumer credit reporting, TransUnion marked the account as verified as accurate without providing any documentation or <em>explanation</em>.\n\nTimeline & Evidence : On XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, I sent a certified <em>dispute</em> directly to XXXX XXXX XXXX, which remains unanswered a violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 8 ). \nIn my <em>dispute</em> letter to TransUnion dated XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, I specifically requested verification of the <em>original</em> signed agreement."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[13.233444,"14352945"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14344391","_score":12.853742,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Disclosure : As a consumer fully exercising my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), I am documenting each step in preparation for formal legal escalation, if necessary.\n\nClarification : This complaint is separate and distinct from any previously filed complaints against Equifax. It addresses new violations and failures, specifically Equifaxs refusal to provide verification documentation in response to a formal and lawful request under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). It is not duplicative in subject matter or legal basis.\n\nSubject : Complaint against Equifax for Improper Handling of Spring Oaks Capital Dispute FCRA Violations 611, 623, and Refusal to Submit Verification Documentation Despite My Formal and Lawful Request Under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Narrative : I am filing this complaint against Equifax for its improper reinvestigation and continued reporting of a disputed account furnished by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( account ending in XXXX ). Despite submitting evidence that clearly disqualifies this account from consumer credit reporting, Equifax marked the account as verified as accurate without providing any documentation or explanation. \n\nTimeline & Evidence : On XX/XX/year>, I sent a certified dispute directly to XXXX XXXX XXXX, which remains unanswered a violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 8 ).\n\nIn my dispute letter to Equifax ( dated the same day ), I specifically requested verification of the original signed agreement. Equifax failed to obtain or acknowledge this critical document, which as I now provide clearly states the funds were not for personal, family, or household use.\n\nThis proves the debt is commercial in nature and therefore not subject to consumer credit reporting under the FCRA. \nOn XX/XX/year>, I filed a CFPB complaint ( ID # XXXX ) against XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX which remains unresolved. \nOn XX/XX/year>, Equifax closed its reinvestigation and issued results stating the account was verified as accurate and updated, yet provided no documentation or acknowledgment of the commercial-use clause in the loan agreement. \nDue to Equifaxs non-compliance with my documentation request, I sent a formal verification demand letter, citing violations of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), and 616 & 617. I explicitly requested the documentation used to verify the account, the method of verification, and the name of the party who confirmed the information.\n\nEquifax has refused to provide any of this information, despite my formal and lawful request under FCRA 1681g and 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ).\n\nAny attestation that this information was verified as accurate or updated without substantiating records may constitute false testimony, constructive fraud, or deceptive business practices. This is especially concerning given that XXXX XXXX XXXX has failed to respond to both my direct dispute and my prior CFPB complaint. This suggests that Equifaxs verification process was not only inadequate but potentially misleading.\n\nI am not seeking unnecessary conflict I am requesting only the lawful correction of inaccurate and unverified information. If Equifax deletes the account in full and in good faith, I will consider the matter resolved and take no further action regarding this issue.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-28T19:18:04.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11214","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14344391","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-28T19:01:34.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account information incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Despite submitting evidence that clearly disqualifies this account from consumer credit reporting, Equifax marked the account as verified as accurate without providing any documentation or <em>explanation</em>. \n\nTimeline & Evidence : On XX/XX/<em>year</em>>, I sent a certified <em>dispute</em> directly to XXXX XXXX XXXX, which remains unanswered a violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 8 ).\n\nIn my <em>dispute</em> letter to Equifax ( dated the same day ), I specifically requested verification of the <em>original</em> signed agreement."]},"sort":[12.853742,"14344391"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21865923","_score":12.302926,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This is the story to the issue at hand. Unauthorized charge made to our debit card for subscription services to our current vendor for web services. Payment method of XXXX was not removed as told by customer service that would resulting in payment method left in their database, and therefore was charged the amount below. Merchant was contacted of their mistake. Bank was contacted. Bank did chargeback and issued temporary credit. Merchant responded. Denied unauthorized charge by their offshore call center representative. Sent refund policy to bank. Bank returned money to merchant again. Our account debited. Beside this issue, bank is having claims representatives to use FAKE names to address customers, admitted to us by one of their people. All of this information is supported by bank 's recording system. All calls recorded. Very disappointed with their poor customer service. Please read the below letter sent to them on XX/XX/year>. They reopened the claim again. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. \n\nNOTE : This claim is from both my wife and I. XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. \n__________________________________________ Re : Unauthorized/Fraudulent Transaction Account ending XXXX Claim : # XXXX | Merchant : XXXX | Amount : {$500.00} To Whom It May Concern : Purpose of This Letter Report and dispute an unauthorized debit-card charge from XXXX for {$500.00} on account ending XXXX ( Claim # XXXX ). \nRequest reimbursement by crediting bank account ending XXXX for {$500.00}, and confirm the result in writing.\n\nRequest clarification on the conflicting claim updates and the representative name/ID issues described below.\n\nBackground This dispute is not about XXXX service quality, terms, or a refund policy. It is about a charge that was not authorized.\n\nThe debit card ending XXXX ( cardholder : XXXX XXXX ) was charged for a renewal without authorization.\n\nThe card had been used once the prior year and was supposed to be removed from the XXXX payment methods but was not removed by customer service which allowed the renewal to charge the card.\n\nTo prevent another charge, the card was removed ending XXXX from XXXX, the subscription was cancelled, and a new subscription was purchased using a different card ending XXXX ( including a discount of {$250.00} ).\n\nTimeline ( Calls, References, and Employee IDs ) XX/XX/year> ( approx. ) Dispute started ; stop-payment request recorded ( Ref # XXXX ). \nXX/XX/year> Follow-up call ( s ) ; additional reference recorded ( Ref # XXXX ) ; claim also referenced as # XXXX. \nSame day as posting We contacted XXXX Customer Service and filed an unauthorized-charge report.\n\nSubsequent call Representative XXXX issued a temporary credit after finding the dispute had merit ( claim also referenced as # XXXX ). \nXXXX XXXX, 2026 Follow-up referencing claim # XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX, 2026 Spoke with XXXX ( Emp ID # XXXX ), who said the claim was closed on XXXX XXXX, 2026. That same day, at the request of XXXX ( Claims Customer Service, Emp ID XXXX ), we emailed supporting documents ( including evidence of cancellation and a sworn statement ), without being told the claim had already been closed. \nXXXX XXXX, 2026 Spoke with XXXX ( employee ID not obtained ) about reopening/resolution. XXXX said the name XXXX could not be verified and confirmed the name provided to us was not the representatives actual name ( a false name/alias ). We were later told the person existed under a different name, which raised concerns about being able to track prior conversations. \nXXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX escalation; spoke with supervisor XXXX after attempted supervisor contacts ( including XXXX ) . We discussed the basis for the denial and how the claim was originally entered. \nXXXX XXXX, 2026 Status update : XXXX ( Emp ID XXXX ) and supervisor XXXX ( Emp ID XXXX ) said the matter was reopened and notes were added for investigator review.\n\nIssues We Noticed How the claim was entered : we were told the original claim was entered as ( i ) not unauthorized/fraud, ( ii ) a dispute about services provided, and ( iii ) paid by other means. That does not match what we reported.\n\nConflicting status updates : we were told the claim was closed ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX  ) and later told it was reopened, without a clear explanation.\n\nName/ID concerns : at least one representative ( XXXX ) would not provide an employee ID, and we were told the name XXXX could not be verified as given.\n\nDocument access : we were told the emailed documents could not be viewed during reopening attempt ( s ).\n\nWhat We Need Wells Fargo to Do Credit {$500.00} back to bank account ending XXXX for the unauthorized XXXX charge and confirm in writing when that credit is completed. \nReview this as an unauthorized transaction ( not a service dispute ) and complete the investigation under the correct category. \nSend a written status update confirming whether the claim is open or closed, who is handling it ( if available ), and the expected timeline for a decision for Claim # XXXX. \nExplain in writing why we were told the claim closed on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, why documents were requested on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and not when the claim was reported and filed, and why we received conflicting information about reopening. \nClarify representative identification : confirm the policy on providing employee IDs and how customers can reliably reference prior calls. \nExplain the use of an alias/false name ( as confirmed by XXXX ) and how customers can verify who they spoke with if a different name is used.\n\nCFPB Complaint ( For Your Awareness ) We submitted a complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) due to the conflicting information we received and the concerns noted above.\n\nDocuments Included Copies of the documents we emailed on XXXX XXXX, XXXX  ( requested by XXXX, Emp ID XXXX ) show cancellation/termination of the XXXX service. \nSworn statement stating the XXXX charge was not authorized by the cardholder. \nPlease review this dispute as soon as possible and send a written response confirming the outcome. Please contact us at XXXX if you have any questions.\n\nNote : Some dates, times, and call details above are based on our best recollection and may be approximate. The information herewithin may be updated at a later date.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-04T20:56:55.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"77024","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21865923","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-05-04T20:27:35.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Issues We Noticed How the claim was entered : we were told the <em>original</em> claim was entered as ( i ) not unauthorized/fraud, ( ii ) a <em>dispute</em> about services provided, and ( iii ) paid by other means. That does not match what we reported.\n\nConflicting status updates : we were told the claim was <em>closed</em> ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX  ) and later told it was reopened, without a clear <em>explanation</em>."],"company_public_response":["Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public <em>response</em>"]},"sort":[12.302926,"21865923"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":97,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":97}]}},"product":{"doc_count":97,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":38,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":38}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":15,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":14},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":14,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":7},{"key":"Private student loan debt","doc_count":2},{"key":"Federal student loan debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Medical debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rental debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":7},{"key":"Credit repair services","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":4},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Conventional fixed mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2},{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":3},{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt or credit management","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Student loan debt relief","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":97,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":23,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":9},{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":9},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":3},{"key":"Public record information inaccurate","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":15,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":11},{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":3},{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":11,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":10},{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":9,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":4},{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":2},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem accessing account","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":2},{"key":"Funds not received from closed account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closing disclosure or other related disclosures","doc_count":1},{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue with the loan closing","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":2},{"key":"Can't close your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":2},{"key":"Money was taken from your account on the wrong day or for the wrong amount","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":2},{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Received bad information about your loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Loan modification,collection,foreclosure","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with additional add-on products or services","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with customer service","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fees charged","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":97,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":96},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":97,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":69},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":23},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":5}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":97,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":97}]}},"company":{"doc_count":97,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":16},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":14},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":12},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":9},{"key":"Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.","doc_count":4},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":3},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":3},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":2},{"key":"AES/PHEAA","doc_count":1},{"key":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Bounce AI, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CBC Companies, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"E*TRADE BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FNIS)","doc_count":1},{"key":"Guild Holdings Company","doc_count":1},{"key":"HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"Maximus Federal Services, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"SACOR FINANCIAL, INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Sezzle Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Time Investment Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"WOLFE FINANCIAL, INC.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":97,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":20},{"key":"TX","doc_count":15},{"key":"NY","doc_count":10},{"key":"GA","doc_count":6},{"key":"NC","doc_count":6},{"key":"FL","doc_count":5},{"key":"CO","doc_count":3},{"key":"DC","doc_count":3},{"key":"IL","doc_count":3},{"key":"MO","doc_count":3},{"key":"OH","doc_count":3},{"key":"TN","doc_count":3},{"key":"LA","doc_count":2},{"key":"MI","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA","doc_count":2},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"KS","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"ME","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"NM","doc_count":1},{"key":"OR","doc_count":1},{"key":"PA","doc_count":1},{"key":"WI","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":97,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":45},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":2},{"key":"Company believes complaint is the result of an isolated error","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":97,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":6},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":5},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":4}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[12.302198,"21865923"],"3":[9.843578,"14469336"],"4":[6.6728916,"4180143"]}}}