Consumer complaint received 2021-03-06
Company: FIRSTBANK PUERTO RICO
State: PR
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Sub-issue: Account status incorrect

Complaint:
Because First Bank wants to be responsible for this Santander Bank horror, is not just an error, because of the unfair and against the Law consequences on the clients credit report, that no matter Santander sold their Puerto Rico division to First Bank, they still exist and operate in many countries, including the U, S, A. and their original XXXX. 
I have to submit a complaint against First Bank, against my own will, because is ridiculous, because of the following : 1. Santander Bank reported my Certified Payment Agreement for my XXXX XXXX Master Card with them, Santander, as paid to a collection agency, but that was not true, not even 1 single payment was paid to a real collection agency at all ; all the 48 payments of this optional payment agreement were paid directly to Santander Bank at their own Santander Bank branches here in Puerto Rico, and by the time the last required payment was made, which was last XXXX XXXX XXXX, Santander Bank branches were still operating independently, like when Santander Bank was active in Puerto Rico. Even as I type this, the Santander XXXX XXXX XXXX branch, is still operating even with the Santander sign at its entrance ; 2. Mrs. XXXX XXXX XXXX, who identified as an Esq., or Lawyer, wrote a letter but on behave on First Bank, not Santander Bank, because I never complained against First Bank about this because is totally against the evidence which anyone can verify in a simple manner, that I still owe the amount of {$220.00} dollars with XXXX cents, as of XXXX XXXX XXXX? 
BUT THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE : THE LAST PAYMENT OF THE OPTIONAL CERTIFIED PAYMENT AGREEMENT WAS MADE ON XXXX XXXX XXXX, 1 MONTH BEFORE REQUIRED, AND IN FACT, IT INCLUDED THE LAST 2 PAYMENTS IN JUST ONE, AND LAST XX/XX/XXXX MRS XXXX XXXX, FROM SANTANDER, THE SAME MANAGER WHO SIGNED THE OFFICIAL SANTANDER LETTER CERTIFIYING THIS AGREEMENT BACK IN XXXX XXXX XXXX MADE THE ARRANGEMENTS SO I WAS ABLE TO RECEIVE ANOTHJER OFFICIAL SANTANDER LETTER CERTIFYNG THIS MASTER CARD CREDIT CARD HAS A XXXX BALANCE, AND THE LETTER CLEARLY SHOWS THE LAST DIGITS OF THE CREDIT CARD, THE DATE, THE SANTANDER LOGO, AND WAS SIGNED BY SANTANDER DEPARTMENT OF INVESTIGATIONS, SEE THE LETTER INCLUDED.

3. WHY FIRST BANK ACCEPTS TO BE IMPLIED IN AN INVESTIGATION THAT REACHED THE WHITE COLLAR DIVISION OF THE FBI LAST XX/XX/XXXX, WHEN THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SANTANDER BANK ACTIONS BEFORE THEY BOUGHT THE PUERTO RICO DIVISION LIKE IN THIS CASE? 

4. IS IT BECAUSE, SANTANDER ADDED THIS AS A CONDITION FOR SELLING THEIR PUERTO RICO DIVISION OR BECAUSE THE CASE WOULD BE DISMISSED AND THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE WE COULD DO, NO MATTER CORRUPTION FROM JUDGES IS INVESTIGATED, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO SPONSOR IT?

5. MY PERSONAL LOAN WITH SANTANDER ; WAS ALSO FULLY UPDATED AT SANTANDER BANK, NEVER PAID TO A COLLECTION AGENCY, WHY ANYONE CAN'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG AND STRANGE WHEN THE SAME BANK WHICH GRANTED THIS LOAN, GRANTED PAYMENT EXTENSIONS, RE-STARTED TO RECEIVE THE REGULAR MONTHLY PAYMENT BACK IN XX/XX/XXXX, AFTER LATE CHARGES WERE PAID ALSO, AND THEN THE REGULAR MONTHLY PAYMENT CONTINUED AT THE SAME BANK! FOR SEVERAL MONTHS UNTIL THIS SAME LOAN WAS FULLY UPDATED LAST XX/XX/XXXX, BUT THEN SANTANDER BANK DECIDED TO FORBID ME TO CONTINUE PAYING IT? 
OF COURSE SOMETHING IS WRONG, BUT NOBODY CARES, WHY? 

6. AGAIN, FIRST BANK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, THEIR XXXX XXXX XXXX RESPONSE, CLEARLY SHOWS THEIR OPERATION WITH SANTANDER IS STILL IN THEORY, THEY WERE AND STILL ARE, INDEPENDENT BANKS FROM EACH OTHER, AND THE OTHER STILL HAS NO IDEA OF WHAT THE OTHER ONE DID IN THIS CASE, AS THE LETTER INCLUDED SHOWS ; BUT WHY ALL THIS? BECAUSE SANTANDER ACCEPTED THE SALE AND THIS WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE TERMS OF THEIR AGREEMENT?

7. NOBODY CAN ACCEPT THAT TGHE PAYMENTS WE MADE ARE REPORTED AS PAID TO A COLLECTION AGENCY WHEN NONE OF THOSE PAYMENTS WERE PAID TO ANY COLLECTION AGENCY AT ALL, MUCH LESS CAN WE ACCEPT THAT BOTH ACCOUNTS WERRE NEVER UPDATED AS REQUIRED BY THE LAWS WHEN THEY WERE UPDATED THERE ARE NO 50 LATE PAYMENTS TO THE CREDIT CARD, IT WAS THAT THE 48 PAYMENTS WERE REPORTED AS PAID TO A COLLECTION AGENCY BUT THAT WAS NEVER THE CASE ; 8. THE LETTER FROM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COLLECTION AGENCY, INCLUDED HERE, CLEARLY SAYS SANTANDER WAS GOING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM BY BUYING BACK THE CREDIT CARD FROM THE COLLECTION AGENCY XXXX XXXX, BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZED THIS CREDIT CARD WAS PAID DIRECTLY TO THE BANK UNDER AN AGREEMENT, BUT, SANTANDER, BOUGHT BACK THIS CREDIT CARD TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM? ALL THE EVDIENCE SAYS THAT NEVER TOOK PLACE, AND THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE 90 DAYS DELAY IN REPORTING AND HAVING A LETTER CERTIFYING MY CREDIT CARD BALANCE IS XXXX SINCE XXXX XXXX XXXX ; see 3 page 3 of document called Merge Result to see XXXX XXXX sign on XXXX XXXX XXXX letter, as well as others documents already received by Santander and the Courts.

9. FIRST BANK AS WELL AS AXXXX XXXX, KNOWS THE DAMAGE IT CREATES ON OUR CREDIT REPORTS WHEN THIS IS UNFAIRLY ALLOWED, BUT WHY IS HAPPENING, AND A LAWYER PUTS THEIR LICENSE ON THE LINE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS? FOR MONEY? 

HOW MUCH MONEY IS WORTH TO BE INCLUDED IN A WHITE COLLAR INVESTIGATION, WHEN YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IT?

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