BEE-spoke-data/consumer-finance-complaints huggingface dataset:
Consumer complaint received 2019-12-18
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: MA
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Sub-issue: Account information incorrect

Complaint:
XXXX is still reporting information that they themselves told me they removed as fraud from my report on XX/XX/XXXX based on the dispute I opened and the FTC affidavit, Police report, and proof of identity I submitted. They state that since collection agencies purchased this information and opened these entries as new accounts - they are showing them. Even though they have retained the information that the Original Creditors and related accounts were deleted due to fraud. I submitted the exact same information to XXXX and they reinvestigated and immediately delete the information ( see attached ) I submitted my original dispute on XX/XX/XXXX and subsequent dispute on XX/XX/XXXX which I am attaching which has my detailed complaint. I also opened a complaint with you and you just closed it because they did a system review. This is wrong, they legal need to show proof that these accounts are mine and neither they nor the collection agency can show that proof - that is why XXXX had to delete the accounts in the first place. Please read my complete complaint attached and also review the documentation from XXXX that they deleted the collection agency 's information from my report. I also just received the same deletion information from XXXX as a result of Credit Dispute # XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2017-04-14
Company: Navient Solutions, LLC.
State: PA
Product: Student loan
Sub-product: Non-federal student loan
Issue: Can't repay my loan
Sub-issue: Can't decrease my monthly payments

Complaint:
I told navient I could not afford my current repayment plan. I have not been making payments that I can not afford it they have been calling the co-borrower and myself at least XXXX times a day. Today two family members called and stated that a credit collector attempting to collect a debt was trying to reach me. His name was XXXX and he left a phone number. these family members were not listed on any of my contact forms. He called me first and was able to contact me at my number. He had no reason to call them.I sent an email to Navient asking them to send me in writing what they were saying over the phone and I would comply. I do not trust anything they say over the phone they are very deceitful in practice. they told me over the phone that if I pay one month current they will forgive my prior past due balance. If I give them my account information I do not trust they will only take the agreed upon amount out of my account. I also want proof that they will forgive the past debt.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2017-04-17
Company: CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.
State: CT
Product: Bank account or service
Sub-product: Checking account
Issue: Deposits and withdrawals

Complaint:
On XX/XX/XXXX 2016 an employee had did a mobile app deposit of {$470.00} and cashed the check and withdrew it immediately. On XX/XX/XXXX 2016 the same employee took the physical check down to the check cashing place and cashed its again. As a employer we re held responsible for the check and had to pay the money back to the check cashing place. However, by law ( UCC/Holder in Due Course and Check 21 ), the Holder in Due Course who cashed the actual physical check is the one who is entitled to payment by the account holder. I have every legal right to demand that your bank recall the funds that were paid on the electronic presentment of your check to reclaim your lost funds. However, you are required by law to pay the Holder in Due Course for the physical check they cashed. Also under The key provision of the Check 21 Act is that it imposes a warranty and indemnity obligations upon a bank issuing a substitute check. A bank creating a substitute check assumes the risk that arises from the creation of multiple legally enforceable copies of the same item. The employee 's bank in the scenario above is deemed to have warranted to each subsequent handler of the check that it will not receive multiple presentments of the check such that it will be asked to make a payment based on a check that is already paid. The Check 21 Act specifically states : ... no depositary bank, drawee, drawer, or endorser will receive presentment or return of, or otherwise be charged for, the substitute check, the original check, or a paper or electronic version of the substitute check or original check such that the bank, drawee, or endorser has already paid. 12 U.S.C. 504 ... 
As an employer we were obligated to pay the money back plus fees, We want the bank to pay us back in full or we will file civil suit and file a complaint with the state attorney general.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2019-12-18
Company: DISCOVER BANK
State: OH
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Getting a credit card
Sub-issue: Application denied

Complaint:
I became a Discover It Chrome card member XX/XX/XXXX. I paid my balance in full every month with no late payments. I was approved for a Discover Miles credit card XX/XX/XXXX and the card was mailed to me. I was informed on XX/XX/XXXX that I was required to complete a tax transcript request form 4506-T and that both of my accounts would be frozen pending account review. I completed the 4506-T form XX/XX/XXXX via XXXX as requested. I closed my Chrome account because I became irritated that my account was frozen after a year of on-time payments made in full. I was informed on XX/XX/XXXX that my new Discover Miles card was closed due to a business decision after review of my income. I believe that Discover has violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act because I have been discriminated against based on my marital status. When I completed my application, I was told to include all of my household income, which includes the income of my domestic partner. Discover 's website states, " Credit card issuers will ask you to supply your total gross annual income, which helps them decide if you qualify for a line of credit, and for how much. Current regulations allow you to include your total household income, so long as you have a reasonable expectation of having access to it to repay a loan. This is designed to make it easier for non-working spouses or domestic partners to qualify for credit cards. '' I included my own income of {$47000.00} annually and my domestic partner 's income of {$41000.00} for a total income of {$88000.00}. Discover did not give me an opportunity to prove my domestic partner 's income when evaluating my tax transcripts for income verification which discriminates against me based on my marital status. I contacted Discover customer service and was informed that they would not accept my domestic partner 's tax returns to prove my total household income.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2017-04-14
Company: SLM CORPORATION
State: RI
Product: Student loan
Sub-product: Non-federal student loan
Issue: Dealing with my lender or servicer
Sub-issue: Received bad information about my loan

Complaint:
A Sallie Mae private loan came up in June 2016 with me as the borrower and my late father as the cosigner. I had no prior knowledge of this loan so I tried to gain as much information about it as I could. I contacted Sallie Mae about three times, trying to get a copy of the promissory note ( with signature ), but I was either ignored or sent the wrong information. Eventually they sent the correct documentation and the information under my name was horribly incorrect. My martial status, place of work, source of income, and homeownership was a copy of my fathers information. It stated that while attending college, I worked full time for 5 years at a XXXX XXXX, made {$100000.00} with additional income from a spouse of {$100000.00} ( which is inaccurate ). It stated that I was also married and owned a home. The only thing else on the loan was an electronic signature, I asked for a copy of a written signature or a signature written with a track pad, but they did n't respond. I was told by my step-mother to see her lawyer ( an elder and estate law firm ) for help and they advised me to continue to pay the loan while they sent a letter. The response from the letter was that because I took advantage of the loan and that they have an electronic signature I was still responsible for the loan. I found out by looking at the paperwork that my father took out this loan in XX/XX/XXXX while being treated for XXXX and died on XX/XX/XXXX. My father listed that I worked at XXXX XXXX in XXXX and that he worked for XXXX XXXX. I was never notified of the existence of this loan and have met my responsibilities with all the student I was obligated to pay. I was never told about the existence of this loan there I am not responsible. As a side note my mother and I called the US Department of Education and was advised to call XXXX to see if the loan was federal or private and it was private loan from Sallie Mae. When we call Sallie Mae and attempted to speak to a representative on this matter, the representative put on hold then came back and abruptly informed us that she could not speak to us any further and to have our lawyer call this number XXXX. When we called it was not in service and referred us to the original Sallie May number.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2019-12-18
Company: SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.
State: AR
Product: Mortgage
Sub-product: Other type of mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage

Complaint:
A Written Appeal to the SPS ( Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc ), Trial Mod offered to Acc # XXXX was submitted and received several times by SPS on the following dates : XX/XX/2019, XX/XX/2019, XX/XX/2019, XX/XX/2019, and finally XX/XX/2019. 
Included in this document is the Right to Appeal, in which an error by SPS on the Comps of the  XXXX XXXX Subdivision versus the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Subdivision. There is a {$700.00} per month to {$800.00} per month increase difference in property value. That is a 45K-100K upgrade property difference between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Sub division and XXXX XXXX XXXX Sub division. SPS Hardships forms were submitted on XX/XX/2019. The Trial Modification Plan amount was XXXX. The currents payment was XXXX. That was a Payment increase of {$190.00} per Month on the Loan Modification amount. The Modification is intended to help American but the payment increased. Corrected Comps and a Right to Appeal in The XXXX XXXX Subdivision and Arkansas XXXX County City Property Card for Parcel XXXX Loan # XXXX were submitted again on XX/XX/2019. The Error is Comps on a higher price Subdivision like XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Subdivision versus the XXXX XXXX Subdivision in which SPS took. Also enclosed is the State of Arkansas property value of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Ar XXXX in the XXXX XXXX Subdivision and Comp for the  Subdivision. Consider this Right to Appeal document submitted on the XX/XX/2019. Finally income change state of Arkansas Garnishment XX/XX/2019 ( See addition forms enclosed in this Right to Appeal Document ). Also, Information concerning my mortgage insurance was submitted to you, as well as the bankruptcy Court but SPS continued to charge for Escrow ( Taxes and Insurance ) {$400.00} and now {$1100.00}. You have yet to respond in writing to our documents. This information and all documents are being forwarded to CFPB, XXXX, Ark State Regulatory Board, XXXX XXXX Ark Attorney General, HUD, and  the Federal Reserve, and Legal action pending the outcome.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2017-04-19
Company: Navient Solutions, LLC.
State: DC
Product: Student loan
Sub-product: Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Can't repay my loan
Sub-issue: Can't get flexible payment options

Complaint:
Navient  automatically un-enrolls borrowers from their " autopay program '' if the borrower attends school again. The autopay program is beneficial because it gives the borrower a lower interest rate and automatically deducts payments monthly. The catch here is that, when the borrower calls to request being re-enrolled into the autopay program, they are told by customer service that they will be enrolled the following month. Then, they are never enrolled, interest continues to accrue, and payments never made. This allows  Navient to siphon money out of these accounts in two forms : 1 ) by not allowing current students to be enrolled in autopay while still enrolled in school, or 2 ) actually lying to students, telling them they will be re-enrolled, and then no action takes place. Meaning higher interest rates are applied to the loans during these " periods of confusion ''. If you graduate with student debt and return to school ( grad school ), you will be removed from autopay without warning, your interest rate will increase and no payments will made. Untill the borrower notices this, and contacts Navient, interest accrues while the borrower is under the impression that they are still making monthly payments. Upon contacting Navient, customer service representatives falsley confirm re-enrollment into autopay for the borrower, which never takes place, again allowing time for interest to accure at a higher rate while the borrower is under the impression that the issue has been resolved.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2020-04-22
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: TX
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Sub-issue: Account information incorrect

Complaint:
Equifax recently had my XXXX credit card balance listed at {$8.00}, which was correct. It is now at a XXXX  balance. Today, I get a credit alert showing the balance is back to {$290.00}. This is incorrect. I have not made any charges on the card and Ive worked hard to pay off all my credit cards. This will cause my credit score to drop. What are they doing?

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2022-10-17
Company: WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
State: TN
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report
Sub-issue: Reporting company used your report improperly

Complaint:
Wakefield & Associates is reporting Account # XXXX to my consumer report which is FALSE & MISLEADING because I have no legal obligation or contract of any sort with Wakefield & Associates XXXX This is a violation according to CFR 1006.18 ( FALSE, DECEPTIVE, OR MISLEADING REPRESENTATIONS OR MEANS. I demand for Wakefield & Associates to DELETE the negative item from my credit file, immediately I demand for Wakefield & Associates to DELETE the negative item from my credit file, immediately. I requested for Wakefield & Associates to abide by the law and send the required disclosures. I am only exercising my rights as a consumer by demanding Wakefield & Associates to abide by the law

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2021-03-03
Company: Io, Inc.
State: PA
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Medical debt
Issue: Written notification about debt
Sub-issue: Didn't receive enough information to verify debt

Complaint:
Received a notice from debt collection agency on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX which was dated XX/XX/2020. I immediately responded to the notice requesting validation of the debt, for which I have documentation they received on XX/XX/2020. I did not receive a response and on XX/XX/2020 I ran my credit report and discovered that on XX/XX/2020 the debt collector had reported this item on my credit report ( s ) although they had received a letter to validate the debt prior to this reporting which they had failed to respond too. i disputed this with the credit bureaus for which they had reported explaining the no response to the validation of debt letter. XXXX immediately removed this account from my report. At this point XXXX had not yet received their dispute in the mail. In XXXX, I received a letter from the collection agency dated XX/XX/2020 stating that although they had no obligation to do so that they were providing the validation of the debt. Which was not a complete method od verification. They provided a typed letter of the amount they claimed to be owed by the dispute supervisor, as well as a bill ledger, They did not provide a document bearing my signature, the contract between them and the original creditor, their license to do business in my state, or proof the debt owed is within statue of limitations for my state. At this point XXXX states that the account was verified by the collection to be correct and has it to remain on my credit report. This should have never been placed on my credit report as I made contact with this agency prior to and they did not provide validation of this debt,

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2022-04-30
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: MD
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Sub-issue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement

Complaint:
My virtual card number from Citi credit card was stolen and been used on fraudulent online purchase. The fraudulent purchase happened on XX/XX/2021 for the amount of {$95.00}. I filed dispute to Citi Cards on phone and told the CSR that it is fraudulent purchase. However Citi Cards still categorized the dispute as " Canceled service / goods '' instead of internet fraud. After reviewed the information provided by the merchant, Citi Cards made the decision that I am responsible for the fraudulent charge, even the information on the merchant receipt does match my personal information. 
In the process, I have never received any mail from Citi Cards regarding this dispute. I had to login to my online account to follow the dispute status. 
I should not be responsible for any internet fraud according to federal regulations. The practice of Citi Cards on this dispute is clearly against federal regulations.

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 monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2017-11-19
Company: NAM National Arbitration and Mediation
State: PA
Product: Payday loan, title loan, or personal loan
Sub-product: Payday loan
Issue: Charged fees or interest you didn't expect

Complaint:
I received a call from a company name XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX stating that they was going to file a lawsuit against me from a company Name XXXX XXXX who they said that i owe a payday loan too.The first price she quoted to me was XXXX. Then she stated that they will settle for XXXX. The person name was XXXX XXXX XXXX. I then Called the company name XXXX XXXX and they stated that they do not have any records on me owing them any payday loan. I gave them all of my information to check the database and nothing came up in my name. So i was told that they do not have any owed payday loan in my name. That when i contacted your company. I also sent you the Settlement Letter they emailes to me. I never responded to there letter and never gave them any money or my account number to withdraw cash. Their email address is as follow : XXXXXXXXXXXX. Address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. # XXXX, XXXX, Ca. XXXX. Phone number XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Untimely response
Consumer complaint received 2021-12-14
Company: Receivables Management Corporation
State: SC
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Sub-issue: Debt was result of identity theft

Complaint:
I disputed the account and ask that they validate this account, and they fail to respond to the action. The law states they have 30 days to do so if not or over the 30 days this account must be removed from the credit file and in this case, they fail to respond to the matter. It has been over 30 days with no response, and I did not open or authorize this account, and I therefore request that it be closed immediately. By the federal law requirement this account must be removed because you do not have proof or any evidence to support this matter and fail to respond. I request that you take all appropriate steps to remove the information about this account from my credit files. My credit report showing the fraudulent items related to your company that are the result of identity theft.

Company public response: Company disputes the facts presented in the complaint
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2021-12-14
Company: ProCollect, Inc.
State: GA
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Other debt
Issue: Written notification about debt
Sub-issue: Didn't receive enough information to verify debt

Complaint:
Ive made multiple attempts to contact this company, which is ProCollect, to get this inaccurate issue resolved. I have been reaching out to them almost 2 years now. When I call, they will not allow me to speak to the person that has the account which is XXXX XXXX. When I did speak with XXXX XXXX 
XXXX, he was intimidating and verbally abusive to me when I tried to explain that the balance was incorrect. When I asked him to verify the debt, he refused to do so. He stated that he had already done so. And I need to just pay my bills. I explained to him once again that the balance was incorrect and I needed to resolve it quickly to acquire credit. I even offered to pay a portion of it so that it could be removed. 
I told him that the balance was incorrect and its keeping me and my children from getting housing. As a result, my children and I are unable to find adequate housing right before the holidays. We are being denied only because of this. 
I told him that I wanted to dispute this item and Only pay what I owed.He refused to do so. He has refused to properly acknowledge this account and he has blatantly ignored my requests and phone calls and emails. This incorrect account is causing me to not be able to acquire housing and is causing me XXXX XXXX XXXX. Please help me resolve this issue immediately.

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