Consumer complaint received 2022-01-12
Company: Gatestone & Co. International Inc.
State: MI
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
Sub-issue: Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged

Complaint:
XXXX XXXX  is reducing their risk exposure during the pandemic by targeting and culling cardholders that their system can/could determine were most impacted by the on-going pandemic. As many of those individuals are women with small children, and/or individuals who are XXXX, and/or are from minority backgrounds, XXXX XXXX is now discriminating in their lending and credit practices against those in at least three ( 3 ) protected classes. Such discrimination is patently prohibited under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) and Regulation B, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, respectively. American Express appears to have additional violated several portions of 12 CFR Part 1006 - Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( Regulation F ), 12 CFR Part 1022 - Fair Credit Reporting ( Regulation V ), and 12 CFR Part 1026 - Truth in Lending ( Regulation Z ). 

In XXXX XXXX ' XXXX XXXX response to CFPB complaints XXXX, XXXX & XXXX, XXXX XXXX implied that I had been receiving bills and was able to make payments through their online system between the months of XX/XX/XXXX and Present because " I was able to make a payment on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. '' That is when I was able to regain access to the system after American Express re-enabled access through it's web portal. In that same responseXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXhreatened AND/OR took action by placing my account into an alleged CO status on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. The issue began when XXXX XXXX sent the account for collection to an outside agency alleging it was " seriously delinquent '' in XX/XX/XXXX. Per XXXX XXXX, the instructions were quite clear on how I was to make payment if payments were not automatically set up through the collection agency. In the XX/XX/XXXX e-mail, XXXX XXXX instructed payments to be made on a new site, presumably designed for handling collections, using a five ( 5 ) digit reference code. However, the provided URL provided for the website required a full card number and eand 4-digit card id. The XX/XX/XXXX notification made no mention of my ability to pay by phone, nor mentioned the ability to pay through mail, and provided a limited list of options for paying through XXXX XXXX itsef. I was not able to pay using the new XXXX XXXX system because I no longer had the card information. Moreover, since XXXX XXXX disabled access through their regular web portal between the months of XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I was not able to retrieve statements online. As such, my only recourse was to elect for automatic payments through the outside collection agency. When the collection agency changed, the ability to make automatic payments changed. The bottom line is XXXX XXXX was aware that there had been an issue with me receiving statements since XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, as they were notified in-writing by the collection agency assigned to service that account. Yet, they no actions to investigate the mater beyond having the address information verified by that collection agency. Further, they did not conduct a billing error investigation as required under 12 CFR 1026.13 in response to my billing error notification placed with XXXX XXXX in writing by the collection agency on my behalf. The FCBA requires that XXXX XXXX promptly conduct investigations when a consumer files a billing error complaint/dispute. It is unlawful not to conduct an investigation when a consumer notifies a creditor, in this case XXXX XXXX, in writing or electronically. 

XXXX XXXX knew there was a billing issue ( trouble receiving statements ) because they sent me a " How to Print Statements At Home '' e-mail on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. So, they simply didn't care to address the issue UNTIL such a time as the could place the account in a CO status. 

Section 1036 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) of the CFPA prohibits deceptive acts or practices. 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ). An act or practice is considered deceptive under the CFPA if it ( a ) misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer ; ( b ) the consumers interpretation of the act or practice is reasonable under the circumstances; and ( c ) the misleading act or practice is material. XXXX XXXX acknowledges sending the account for collection to an outside agency on or around XX/XX/XXXX. I received an e-mail from XXXX XXXX on/around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX notifying me of the transfer to an outside collection agency and was specifically instructed to work with that agency to pay the balance on my account. The e-mail provided the url for the collection agency 's payment system where I was to make payments. Although that same e-mail stated I could continue to pay my bill through the XXXX XXXX, I was provided a url to do so that was different than the normal website. To quote, " You may also pay your balance online at [ www.americanexpress.com/waytopay ] using a five ( 5 ) digit reference code XXXXX to access the website. '' This XXXXX number was my ZIP CODE. I was no longer able to retrieve statements nor able to log into the web portal through the mobile phone app or website. I now had to pay through the " new '' url provided -- it required the full account number and the 4-digit card id. I no longer had the physical card because I was told the account was canceled and that upon reinstatement, once the balance was paid-off, I would receive an entirely new card with a different card/account number. The goal of XXXX XXXX was to get the " pay-over-time '' balance paid off on my account as quickly as possible because they were not making enough money on interest payments to keep the account on the books. XXXX XXXX knew my account was canceled. They knew I would be paying through a different/new website, as their e-mail notified/instructed me of the two ( 2 ) applicable ways to pay : through collection agency payment, through the new/alternative XXXX XXXX website. Any company that creates a web-portal creates use-cases for the different types of users that will log into their systems through that portal. A card-member whose account is canceled is unlikely to keep the card, and is likely to destroy the card for security reasons. Such a user is not able to use an old paper statement to retrieve their account number because the full account number is not printed on the statements -- for security reasons. When a card is destroyed the card-member can no longer retrieve the 4-digit card id. Neither the full account number nor 4-digit card id is given out over the phone due to : security reasons. Therefore, in the course of use-cases, XXXX XXXX knew XXXX or should have known, a card-member with a canceled account would likely be unable to log into the " new '' website because they would no longer have access to the full account number, or 4-digit id. The deception then occurs in the e-mail notifying of placement, wherein XXXX XXXX would hold they provided the 'credentials ' necessary to log into the this website via the five ( 5 ) digit reference code, establish the website to require the full card number and 4-digit card id to gain access to it. XXXX XXXX would then only need to wait out the clock to charge-off the account and write the amount off or pursue avenues of legal action to recover the alleged amount due. In the process, XXXX XXXX would be able to have an excuse not to reinstate a cardholder upon recovering the alleged outstanding balance, claiming " Well we even gave the consumer the opportunity to regain card membership AFTER they paid off the remaining balance and they STILL refused to pay. '' Section 1036 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) of the CFPA prohibits unfair acts or practices. 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ). 22. An act or practice is unfair under the CFPA if it : ( a ) causes or is likely to cause consumers substantial injury ; ( b ) such injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers ; and ( c ) such injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( c ). I am in fact entitled to retrieve/receive periodic monthly statements. If an institution is aware that there has been difficulty receiving statements through mail, then it is unlawful not to provide access to those statements on a periodic basis by other means if those other means are available to other consumers ( cardholders ). As I was not getting statements per mail and was not able to retrieve statements through the online portal because it required a full card number, I was deprived of right of notice under Regulation Z pursuant to the FCBA. I notified XXXX XXXX, as I was supposed to, around XXXX XXXX when I stopped receiving statements. XXXX XXXX records receiving payment WHILE automatic payments were enabled through the outside collection agency. The collection agency was changed at the decision of XXXX XXXX on or around XX/XX/XXXX. I had no contact with that collection agency. The payments were no longer automated. I authorized a payment on or around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. I still have not received a XX/XX/XXXX statement. patently unfair to penalize a consumer 's credit file when they have no access to be able to inspect their periodic statements and are having trouble receiving those statements by mail. It is not sufficient under Regulation Z for me to CALL XXXX XXXX so they can " tell '' me what it is I owe. 

Verifying the ability to make a payment at some end-point, in this case XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, says nothing about whether a consumer was able to pay through the website or retrieve statements prior to that date. Verifying an address is not a substitute for conducting an investigation and is unlawful under 12 CFR 1026.13. The collective actions taken by XXXX XXXX are set up specifically to place certain groups of card-members ( consumers ) in a position of being held hostage, where the only relief is to authorize XXXX XXXX unfettered  access to one ( 1 ) or more of the consumer 's bank accounts via automatic ACH withdraws and/or to " trust, '' orally, what an agent of XXXX XXXX says is `` owed '' is indeed accurate without being able to inspect a billing statement. This construction specifically denies a consumer the ability to check a statement itself for errors, overall depriving a consumer the right to dispute the validity of charges, errors, and payment history that is supplied to consumer reporting agencies on a routine basis. The outcome of not " trusting '' what in this case " can not be seen or inspected, '' is injury to a consumer by reporting delinquency statuses to consumer reporting agencies that then damages the credit-worthiness of a consumer with other current or potential creditors. The negative history itself can stay in a consumer file for up to seven ( 7 ) years. None of these processes and procedures were established for the benefit of the consumer, nor do they benefit competition. Rather they were established explicitly for XXXX XXXX to be able to reduce their risk exposures to consumers their analytics system can/could determine were most impacted by the pandemic. As many of those individuals are women with small children, or individuals who are temporarily XXXX, and or, completely XXXX, XXXX XXXX is now discriminating in their lending and credit practices against those in at least two ( 2 ) protected classes. Such discrimination is patently prohibited under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) 12 CFR Part 1002 and Regulation B, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, respectively. 

It is suspect the date the account was allegedly CO by XXXX XXXX was after complaints were filed with the CFPB. That is, complaints were filed within the previous ninety ( 90 ) days preceding the charge-off, making the delay in addressing this matter and subsequent CO appear retaliatory for filing complaints against XXXX XXXX XXXX Such retaliation is unlawful as filing these complaints with a government agency is protected.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation