Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports

Ladies and Gentlemen : I write because Bank of America 's automated systems reported my automobile loan as being 30 days overdue, when in fact I had submitted a timely payment but inadvertently underpaid as a result of information provided to me by the company 's online payment tool. I phoned the bank 's customer service office but was summarily rebuffed. While I would not object to paying a modest late fee over the miscommunication, the bank 's action has damaged my creditworthiness despite my spotless payment record and good-faith attempt to fulfill my obligations under the loan. The details of the incident : 1. I have maintained an impeccable record of monthly payments on this note since the loan was opened. See Exhibit A ( attached ). It underscores my record of regular payments and highlights an unusual quirk of the Bank of America online payment tool : Our country 's second largest bank maintains an online system that does not allow payments to be scheduled or posted on weekend days.
<P/>
2. Since the loan was issued, I frequently have paid more than the minimum required amount ; that is, made additional principal payments. As you will see from the printouts in Exhibit B, the bank does not merely credit the additional payment against the remaining principal amount, it changes the minimum monthly payment from month to month accordingly.
<P/>
3. Late in   XXXX   of this year, I went online to schedule my payment for  XXXX . On my account page, both the payment due date and payment amount fields indicated " N/A. '' I assumed that, because I had been paying rather more than the required minimums, and the minimums varied from month to month, that no payment was required for  XXXX . Nevertheless, I scheduled a payment of {$400.00} anyway.
<P/>
4. A month later, when I went online to make my next payment, my account summary indicated a " late charge '' of {$7.00}, and a total payment due of {$1200.00} ( Exhibit B1 ). I ascribed the late charge to the previous payment 's not having posted until XX/XX/XXXX  and, while a minor annoyance, thought nothing more of it under the circumstances : The previous month, my summary page had indicated " N/A '' for the amount due, and I had nevertheless submitted a {$400.00} payment. When I drilled down on the website, I saw that my previous month 's payment had posted ( even though it was n't reflected on the account summary page ), and proceeded to schedule the next payment to more than cover the difference between the indicated payment due and the {$400.00} payment that I had made the previous month. Subsequent monthly summaries ( again, see Exhibit B ) showed no late fees of any kind and once again reflected varying minimum payment amounts that were in line with the norm. I never received any unusual notification or indication of a problem of any kind from Bank of America.
<P/>
5. I was appalled when, a few weeks later, my credit monitoring service notified me of " potentially derogatory information '' having been posted in my files with the  XXXX  major credit reporting agencies. Upon investigation, I discovered that Bank of America had reported my account as being 30 days past due. I called the customer service phone number provided on the bank 's website, and was connected to a spectacularly unhelpful customer service agent.
<P/>
The young woman with whom I spoke informed me that the late charge was not, in fact, a function of of any payment that did n't post prior to the first of the month, but rather that my account was " delinquent '' because I had not submitted the " full amount due '' prior to the end of the month of  XXXX . She further advised that the bank 's payment processing systems " automatically '' report delinquent accounts to the  XXXX  bureaus, informed me that I should have known from my online statements that I had not made the required payment, and that the bank does not offer " courtesy '' removal of delinquency flags. I pointed out that the statements showed only that a payment had been made, and that the bank 's own website had shown " N/A '' in the payment due field, yet I had acted in good faith and submitted a payment anyway. I also noted that an inadvertent underpayment, made in good faith and based on information that the bank had given me, is a very, very different thing than being 30 days overdue. I stated that I was not seeking " courtesy '' redress, but rather correction of automated reporting that would have a material and deleterious impact on my FICO score, as a result of what the bank 's website had led me to conclude. She, in turn, responded that " there 's no way for our IT department to reconstruct what the site showed on the day you scheduled your payment, '' and therefore I was responsible for the underpayment, and the fact of the total amount actually due was not submitted by the end of the month ( a little over {$100.00}, on a {$25000.00} car loan account with a spotless payment record ) was the same as being 30 days past due. After it became clear that we were talking in circles, I terminated the call.
<P/>
6. I have reported the matter to  XXXX ,  XXXX  and  XXXX , but there are two issue involved here that warrant CFPB 's investigation : a. I am not optimistic that the credit bureaus will look beyond the letter of the law, and it is the essence of a bank 's ability to get away with this sort of behavior that cries out for redress. If it is legal for the bank to behave this way, then I likely will get no relief from the credit monitoring firms.
<P/>
b. This incident speaks to the deliberate ways in which very large financial institutions victimize consumers in order to boost fees and miscellaneous charges ( from which, it is my understanding, these banks reap literally billions of dollars in additional revenue each year ). Specifically, Bank of America 's action did far more than result in my being charged a few extra dollars in fees -- It has had a material and deleterious effect on my credit profile, despite my good faith efforts to fulfill all of may obligations.
<P/>
While the imposition of a late fee is an annoyance, it is n't materially harmful. But in its zeal to harvest such fees, Bank of America acted in bad faith in this case : The bank 's own website provided information that led me to believe that I had no minimum payment due, yet I submitted a timely payment anyway. Had I been informed that there was an underpayment ( beyond merely a statement that showed the amount I already had submitted with no other indication of a problem ), I easily could have made an additional online payment right away ( Here again, we have at issue a pittance -- $ 100-odd, that I easily and happily would have sent as a supplemental payment had I known ).
<P/>
Such an inadvertent underpayment, made in good faith and directly in response to account information shown on the bank 's own website, is a very far cry from being 30 days overdue on a scheduled payment. I am hard pressed to see the reasonableness of the bank 's being able to experience IT failures in its online payment system, then to fail to provide a customer with an appropriate notification ( Every other financial institution with which I work sends an email or text if a payment is not posted by a specific date, yet somehow our country 's second-largest bank does not ), and then to refuse to remove a delinquency flag once the relevant facts have been brought to its attention by a customer with an unblemished payment record.
<P/>
On a macro level, the banks ( including Bank of America ) may be seeking mainly to find ways to generate billions in collective fees and charges. On a micro level, however, the fee is a trivial thing for me compared to the bank 's making it appear to the wider world that I was delinquent or otherwise cavalier regarding the maintenance of my account.
<P/>
By way of redress, I seek no financial adjustment of any kind. I ask only that Bank of America show the same degree of good faith that I have shown throughout the life of this automobile loan, and correct my record with the three leading credit reporting firms. My actions were based on information provided by the bank ; the matter could have been resolved easily within the month of  XXXX  had the bank but notified me ; and the bank representative 's arbitrary and capricious refusal to elevate my complaint to more senior level managers who could have reviewed the facts in evidence smacks of bad faith and a predatory culture on the part of Bank of America. I ask for your assistance in rectifying the situation in accordance with a " common-man '' standard of reasonableness and good faith.
<P/>
Thank you for your attention to my case. Please advise if you require any additional information or documentation.