Consumer complaint received 2021-06-03
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: SC
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Sub-issue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report

Complaint:
Chase now asserts that the account defaulted under the " Cardmember Agreement '' when the cardholder filed bankruptcy. Chase gave the impression that the bankruptcy alone automatically " charged off '' the account. ( Note : XXXX of the Executive Office asserted on XX/XX/XXXX that the account " Systematically '' charged off 60 days of Bankruptcy Coding. XXXX gave the impression that the account was charged off due to Chase " Policy. '' However, XXXX 's assertions pertain to FDIC, Law, Regulations, Related Acts, 5000-Statements of Policy ). However, the " Cardmember Agreement '' does not state anything regarding " charge off '' as it pertains to bankruptcy. The " Agreement '' stipulates, Your account will be in default if : 1 ) You do not pay at least the minimum payment when due ; 2 ) You fail to comply with this or other agreements with us or one of our related banks ; or 3 ) We believe you may be unwilling or unable to pay your debts on time ; you file bankruptcy ; or you become incapacitated or die. If your account is in default, we " MAY '' close it without notice and require you to pay your unpaid balance immediately. We can also begin collection activities. To the extent permitted by law, if you are in default because you have failed to pay us, we require you to pay our collection costs, attorney fees, court costs, and all other expenses of enforcing our rights under this agreement. As to ground ( 1 ), The Cardholder asserts that she was current and paid well above the 'minimum payment ' before and after filing bankruptcy on XX/XX/XXXX. As to ground ( XXXX ), The XXXX asserts that she complied with the " XXXX '' before and after filing bankruptcy by making timely and well above the 'minimum payments ' and paying the card in full on XX/XX/XXXX. As to ground XXXX 3 ), The Cardholder demonstrated both willingness and ability to pay when she continued to make 'timely ' and well above 'minimum payments ' after notice of bankruptcy. Also, as to ground ( 3 ), The Cardholder noted that filing bankruptcy also falls under the default criterion, " We believe you may be unwilling or unable to pay your debts on time. '' Therefore default due to filing " bankruptcy '' required the Cardholder to be delinquent on making payments to Chase. Thus, the filing of bankruptcy per se would not trigger default. Typically, when one files bankruptcy one is also delinquent on credit card payments and other financial obligations. However, this situation did not apply to the cardholder since she was current on payments to Chase and other creditors. Filing Bankruptcy plus Delinquency are the prerequisites for default. Loans that are in default are loans for which the borrower have failed to make payments for an extended period of time. A loan becomes " Charged off '' when there is no longer a reasonable expectation of further payments. A credit card is typically 'charged off ' when an account is in default, which usually results when the credit card company hasn't received at least the minimum payment in over " 180 '' days. Also, under the Default terms of the " Agreement, '' Chase asserted that it " MAY '' close it without notice and require you to pay your unpaid balance immediately. The Accountholder asserts there is an important distinction between " shall '' and " may. '' " Shall '' is a command ; whatever follows after " shall '' is mandatory. It is required ; it must be done. Conversely, " May '' is optional ; it is at the discretion of the person making the decisions. So, under the terms of default, Chase had the discretion to close the account without notice and require the Cardholder to pay the unpaid balance immediately. But instead, Chase chose to unjustifiably " charge off '' the account. Notably, Chase exercised its discretion to close the account without notice to the cardholder. However, notably, Chase did not exercise its discretion to require the cardholder to pay the unpaid balance immediately. The Cardholder strenuously asserts that if the account was in default, why didn't Chase require the cardholder to pay the unpaid balance immediately? The Consumer asserts that if she had been required to pay off the card immediately to avoid a " Charge Off '' she would have complied. But Chase in its wanton disregard for its So-called XXXX Consumers failed to provide this opportunity to the Cardholder. Chase showed no regard for the credit wellness of its So-called XXXX Cardholders. The Cardholder opines that Chase did not require the cardholder pay the unpaid balance immediately because the account was current and the cardholder demonstrated the willingness and ability to pay what was owed to Chase. Also, the Cardholder asserts that there is a distinction between " Close '' and " Charge Off. '' Closing a revolving line of credit simply terminates the consumer 's ability to access credit, thus, increasing the revolving debt. It is done to reduce further risk on the part of the creditor. Notably, delinquent accounts are routinely closed by the creditor. On the other hand, a " Charge Off '' is the most extreme reporting of delinquency, as it both states the account was delinquent and unlikely to be repaid. Also, significantly, often when an account is written off or charged off, the creditor will sell the debt to a collection agency and the balance on the " original '' account will be updated to zero. If so, you no longer owe the balance to the original creditor. Instead, the collection agency becomes the legal owner of the debt. Any payments should be sent to the collection agency. Once paid in full, the entry for the collection account will be updated to " Paid Collection. '' If the creditor has not sold or transferred the debt to a collection agency, the charged off account still will report the balance owed. Notably, on the Credit Report dated XX/XX/XXXX, Chase reported that account closed and {$1000.00} written or charged off. The Cardholder asserts that a " Charge Off '' was indefensible since the account was never late before and after filing notice of bankruptcy on XX/XX/XXXX, and the account was paid in full on XX/XX/XXXX. Also, its noteworthy, there was no collection activity on the account and this account was paid timely, well above the " minimum payments '' and final payment made on XX/XX/XXXX. However, Chase continues to unjustifiably and maliciously report this account as a " Charge Off '' to the CRA 's. Also, the account governed by federal law. And under 5000-Statements of Policy : Uniform Retail Credit Classification and Account Management Policy, " Loans in bankruptcy should be classified Loss and Charged Off within 60 days of receipt of notification of filing from the bankruptcy court or within the time frames specified in this classification policy, whichever is shorter, UNLESS the institution can clearly demonstrate and document that repayment is LIKELY TO OCCUR. Any balance not charged off should be classified Substandard until the borrower re-establishes the ability and willingness to repay for a period of at least six months. Notably, Chase 's recent response contradicted the Executive Office 's ( XXXX XXXX ) earlier response that " Bankruptcy '' fell under the " Accelerated Charge Off '' criteria, and " Systematically '' charges off 60 days of Bankruptcy coding and must report account accurately. Remarkably, XXXX failed to provide written documentation to support this alleged " Policy. '' Moreover, more importantly, XXXX did not mention or assert the " Cardmember Agreement '' to justify or support that the " Charge Off '' is valid per " Agreement. '' I spoke with the Executive Office ( XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX. Ms. XXXX said that she sent an additional letter regarding my inquiry on XX/XX/XXXX. I stated that the recent response contradicted what Chase ( XXXX XXXX said on XX/XX/XXXX. She said that they did confirm that the charge off was valid. I said that the " Agreement '' does not state filing bankruptcy automatically triggers default, resulting in " Charge Off. '' I said that in addition to filing bankruptcy, I must be at least " 180 '' days late in order to default on the account. After I further pressed her on the matter, XXXX said that her hands are tied. XXXX admitted that she could not see anything on the account because it was closed a while ago. Further, said that I would have to contact their " Collections '' division, because technically she couldn't see anything to go over the account with me. She said that I would need to speak with collections regarding any 'defaults ' they claimed I had. Also, said that she did not have access to my account because it is too old and has been closed too long. I asked why Chase would give my concern to her to investigate if she doesn't have access to the records? She said that's why she went to the " Collections '' division and this is what they sent her. Further, said that she could only go by what they had advised her. She admitted that she was conveying information that they provided to her because she can't see anything. I called Collections to inquire about collection activity on the account. I was told that the account was paid in full on XX/XX/XXXX. Also, " collections '' said there is no balance on the account. Notably, the Collections Agent assumed that the account was delinquent since it was charged off. I said that the account was never delinquent, which caused confusion for the agent. I said that I'm trying to get a charge off removed and this account should have never been charged off. The Agent transferred the call to the Bankruptcy division. I said this account was " charged off '' but was never delinquent. And wanted to know why this account was charged off? She asked if it was showing up on my credit report as charged off? She said that the charge off was due to the bankruptcy. Also, said that she was not able to check the status of the account. She then transferred me to " Credit Reporting. '' He said that the account showed a zero balance across the board. I said the account was never delinquent. He retorted that it was but it isn't anymore. I asked him to explain how the account was delinquent? He said that it went from XXXX to XXXX without a payment for XXXX. I said that is totally false and that I never missed a payment to Chase. He said that it reflects paid off as well. It was charged off on XX/XX/XXXX, and paid off in XX/XX/XXXX, the report reflects that exactly. It actually doesn't show a delinquency on the credit report ; it simply shows that it was charged off. So, XXXX XXXX claimed the reason for the " charge off '' was due to the cardholder 's failure to pay on the account for 8 months. However, notably, there is no " collection activity '' on the account. Also, the " Charge Off '' occurred on XX/XX/XXXX. But Chase used the alleged delinquent payments from XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX, to justify the " Charge Off '' dated XX/XX/XXXX? Notably, I was on the phone with Chase for almost an hour and a half, which is par for the course when dealing with Chase. Again, I want this " Charge Off '' removed ; information reported accurately to the Credit Reporting Agencies ; and Compensation for the false reporting, malicious aggravation and time wasted trying to compel Chase Card Services ( Bank ) to comport with FDIC regulations and act responsibly. I have been going back and forth with Chase about this matter for almost five ( 5 ) years now. Clearly, this matter has XXXX  overtones. And I am certain that Chase Bank without more than sufficient justification to do so would not have arbitrarily " charged off '' nondelinquent accounts of its So-called white cardholders. The Cardholder strenuously asserts this is an unequivocal case of credit racism. But be assured that the consumer will go to whatever legal extent necessary to resolve this matter. Relentless,

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation