Consumer complaint received 2020-10-30
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: MI
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:
XXXX XXXX reports the status for XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX " pays as agreed. '' However, WF annotates the account past-due by thirty ( 30 ) or more days past due or sixty ( 60 ) days or more past due for XX/XX/XXXX, and sixty ( 60 ) or more days past due for XX/XX/XXXX. The billing practices of XXXX XXXX is employing with my accounts, and the information they are supplying to the CRAs is illegal under Under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) and the consent order issued by the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX. 

To be clear, the first statement was generated XX/XX/XXXX. No statement is generated with a statement date of XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX. The next Statement is generated on XX/XX/XXXX with a due date of XX/XX/XXXX. Now, per the XX/XX/XXXX repayment notification, the loan would exit in-school forbearance on XX/XX/XXXX, making the first payment allegedly due around XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX thus establishes that statements will be generated around the twenty-seventh ( XXXX ) day of each month. 

Under 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction, while there is a permissible variance to account for weekends, holidays, and differences in the number of days in months, billing cycles MUST BE EQUAL. In this context equal requires that the actual date of EACH statement not vary by more than four ( 4 ) days from a fixed day or date. The interval between the statement with date XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XX/XX/XXXX clearly falls outside the statutory definition of equal as applied to billing cycles for my student loans. That is, each statement generated after XX/XX/XXXX constitutes a statement that is offset from the XX/XX/XXXX statement outside of the prescribed interval as established from the date of the first statement. The payment history and information for my student loans that XXXX XXXX supplies to the CRAs is incomplete and/or incorrect and must be immediately removed from all credit files for which XXXX has supplied the information to a CRA. 

The CFPB has issued consent orders in the past for this same behavior from Wells Fargo, specifically citing the following violations : ( 1 ) unfair and deceptive practices related to payment allocation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 2 ) unfair practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ; ( 3 ) unlawful practices related to payment aggregation in violation of Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 2 ), and Section 1022.42 of Regulation V, 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 ( a ) ; and ( 4 ) unfair practices related to the assessment of late fees in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536. 

Per the CFPB consent order announced on XX/XX/XXXX, the negative account information that XXXX XXXX is submitting to the CRAs is incorrect and must be immediately removed. 

Based upon the information I've provided to the Attorney General for my state, the Attorney General 's office for my state has referred this matter to the state regulatory agency for financial affairs for concerns over state violations. 

Despite these clear law violations, Ms. XXXX XXXX claimed that Wells Fargo was in compliance with the FCRA around XX/XX/XXXX in her statement to the CFPB -- she makes no mention of consent order compliance. This means that Wells Fargo has no intention to supply information to the CRAs that is both factually accurate and that additionally reflects billing practices that are legal under Federal Law. Whether the billing practices are by error or with intent is immaterial because : a ) it harms the consumer ; b ) because Wells Fargo now seems intent on concealing the inexcusable behavior.

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