Consumer complaint received 2023-01-12
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: VA
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: VA mortgage
Issue: Improper use of your report
Sub-issue: Reporting company used your report improperly

Complaint:
YOUR COMPLAINT WELLS FARGO XXXX MORTGAGE, hereinafter called alleged lender claims that they lent their money ( Account Number XXXX ) to XXXX XXXX, hereinafter called the affiant and have filed a delinquent credit report to XXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXX and XXXX XX/XX/2022, and also with XXXX ON XXXX XX/XX/2022, without consent of XXXX XXXX, the affiant. Alleged lender claimed to affiant that the alleged lender would charge interest as compensation for lending affiant the alleged lenders money. Financial institutions CPA audit opinions claim that financial institutions involved in issuing alleged loans or loans follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, XXXX. There is a dispute regarding who loaned what to whom regarding the alleged loan. The alleged lender claims that they lent affiant their money. The alleged lender claims that the alleged lender has loan papers with the affiants name on it as evidence of a debt. The bookkeeping entries show the opposite and that the affiant was the lender and that the alleged lender was the borrower : According to XXXX, this is what happened : the alleged lender and financial institution involved in the alleged loan never lent one cent to the affiant as adequate consideration to purchase the affiants promissory note. The affiant first became the lender to the alleged lender and the alleged lender was the borrower. According to XXXX, the bank recorded the promissory note as a bank asset offset by a bank liability. The promissory note was recorded as a bank asset in exchange for credits in the affiants transaction account or to give value to a check or similar instrument. The matching principle in XXXX requires that there be a matching liability offsetting the promissory note recorded as an asset and that the liability shows that the bank/alleged lender owes the alleged borrower money for the promissory note that was lent to the bank or alleged lender. The promissory note was deposited in a similar manner as cash is deposited into a checking account. Depositing cash or a promissory note into a checking account or a transaction account is the same or similar to loaning the alleged lender the cash or promissory note. According to XXXX, the promissory note was deposited as a bank asset offset by a bank liability with the bank liability showing that the alleged lender owed the affiant money for the promissory note that was received from the affiant and deposited. When the bank deposited the promissory note and credited the affiants transaction account, the alleged lender, the one who claims they own the promissory note, recorded a loan from the affiant to the alleged lender, making the affiant the lender and the alleged lender the borrower. The alleged lender returned the equivalent in equal value of the loan to the affiant, XXXX XXXX, the lender per XXXX. When the money was repaid to XXXX XXXX, the true lender per XXXX, the alleged lender claimed that the repaid money was a loan to a borrower named I, XXXX XXXX and ignored the bookkeeping entries which proved the XXXX XXXX of who lent what to whom. The alleged lender claims to be the lender using a promissory note to claim they lent money to the affiant but XXXX shows that the opposite happened. The alleged lender did the opposite of what the affiant, XXXX XXXX understood and believed was to happen, creating an economic effect similar to stealing, counterfeiting and swindling against the affiant, XXXX XXXX.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation