Complaint sub-issue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report

Our problem stems from a unique XXXX mortgage payment problem -- one that has been amicably resolved with Ameris Bank. 

This resolved issue has somehow morphed into an adverse credit agency ( XXXX ) report of a late XXXX mortgage payment. But there was no late XXXX mortgage payment. 

The original XXXX situation involved an electronic mortgage payment of {$2600.00} ( through XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX autopay in the ordinary manner -- same address, same loan number, and same amount paid -- used since XXXX. In early XXXX, wthout any previous notice, call, email or other indication of a problem from Ameris, XXXX informed us that this mortgage payment was floating around in the matrix. It had neither been accepted nor rejected by Ameris. So XXXX informed us that they would return the money to our checking account. 

XXXX XXXX ( administering the account under an authorization with Ameris ) called Ameris and determined that : i ) the Ameris Loan account number had changed ; ii ) the address for payment had changed ; and that iii ) the required payment had been increased by {$3.00}. 

XXXX and Ameris agreed that as soon as the XXXX payment to Ameris was returned to our checking account by XXXX, that XXXX would sent a replacement payment for XXXX, plus {$3.00}. XXXX confirmed the new address, new account number, and that the amount should be {$3.00} higher. As soon as the initial electronic payment was returned to our account, the new payment ( increased by {$3.00} ) was sent out by XXXX XXXX XXXX. The XXXX payment was electronically transferred to Ameris on XX/XX/XXXX. 

Ameris understood that the XXXX problem was not just a consumer mistake ; and Ameris, therefore, agreed to waive any late fee for XXXX. When a letter arrived from Ameris ( XX/XX/XXXX, letter ) confirming this, the letter had also added an unacceptable new term to the previously agreed resolution ; namely, that the waiver was a one-time courtesy waiver. We objected because the " fault '' behind the XXXX situation was mostly Ameris ; and asked that the one-time courtesy characterization should be removed. Ameris agreed, and subsequently sent another letter ( XX/XX/XXXX, letter ) confirming the resolution without a late fee, and without that " courtesy '' characterization. Situation resolved. 

Meanwhile, XXXX had tried to adjust the XXXX  autopay to change the address, the Loan Number, and the amount before the XXXX payment was electronically sent out by XXXX. But XXXX was unable to stop the prescheduled auto payment. So XXXX had XXXX send a separate payment of {$3.00} to Ameris. When Ameris recieved this {$3.00} electronic payment, it called XXXX to ask what this was for. XXXX explained that the customary amount had also been paid electronically on XX/XX/XXXX, but to the customary address and with the loan account number that had been used since XXXX. XXXX confirmed that unlike the XXXX payment, that Ameris had indeed received the {$2600.00}. 

It took Ameris the rest of XXXX to find this payment. At one point, Ameris passed on a demand from its research department that we prove that Ameris had received this money by providing a copy of the front and back of the mortgage check deposited by Ameris. XXXX explained that this was an electronic payment, with Ameris receipt confirmed by XXXX ; and pleaded that Ameris should look for the money on its side. Eventually, Ameris found and accepted that the full payment for XXXX had been timely received by Ameris Bank. At one point in XXXX, XXXX did send another payment to Ameris ; but this money was returned to us once Ameris found the XX/XX/XXXX payment. 

After finding the money, Ameris never asserted that this payment was late ; and Ameris has never asserted any intent or right to charge us a late fee for XXXX. 

But XXXX, perhaps based on incorrect or incomplete computer information states that our XXXX payment was late. Having learned from hours of phone calls with many Ameris representatives that a systems change was making it difficult for Ameris to get information needed to properly administer loans, we sent a Preservation Letter to XXXX XXXX, Ameris Corporate Executive & Chief Legal Officer. The letter asked Ameris to preserve evidence of the systems changes and problems that had caused our XXXX payment to float around in the matrix for nearly a month, and then, even though the XXXX payment was electronically received by Ameris on XX/XX/XXXX, required almost a month before Ameris could confirm that it had been paid.

The Ameris response to this Preservation Letter was an email providing an apology ; but directing us to contact another company " XXXX XXXX '' that Ameris claimed was servicing our mortgage. This was the first we had heard of XXXX, XXXX XXXX , XXXX. XXXX., Johnson et al v. Transunion LLC et al, Docket No. 1:21-cv-00037 ( M.D. Tenn. Jun 02, 2021 ).

Because we had never received any correspondence from XXXX XXXX, and never spoke to them on the phone, we called Ameris ( consumer representative XXXX ) after receiving the XXXX response to our dispute. We asked how XXXX  could report that our XXXX mortgage payment to Ameris was late. The Ameris representative gave us two responses. The first was that this was not an Ameris problem because the XXXX report was in error. She said that the problem was a XXXX  issue ; because Ameris had reported the problem as resolved. 

When we asked for that in writing, the answer changed. The answer then became that our resolution of the XXXX situation would show up as late on a computer report if that XXXX resolution was seen as a payment for XXXX. We explained that Ameris had already agreed to accept the XX/XX/XXXX payment as resolution of the XXXX situation. We also explained that the XXXX payment had been made on time, even though some systems change or problem resulted in it taking almost a month to find the payment received by Ameris on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX advised us that the only was to resolve the XXXX  credit report was to sue. 

It is possible to imagine a dispute over allocation of fault for the XXXX mortgage payment. But that dispute was resolved. Once we agreed to resend the XXXX mortgage payment, increasing the prior payment amount by {$3.00}, there was no longer any dispute. Ameris understood that because the XXXX payment had been taken out of our account and sent by autopay ( to be received at the normal address and for the normal account number ) that we needed to get the money back into our account before sending it out again by autopay. Ameris considered the issue to be resolved. 

As to our XXXX payment, while some bank system change or problems ( possibly at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ) delayed for nearly one month Ameris ability to find that it had accepted ( on a timely basis ) the electronic XXXX payment, there was no late payment for XXXX. 

Our current hypothesis is that the information in the XXXX  report as to a late XXXX mortgage payment ( see XXXX Investigation Results ) was based on an erroneous computer report provided by someone at Ameris ( or more likely, by XXXX ) who was unaware of the resolution worked out with Ameris. Our complicated XXXX payment issue was ultimately resolved ; and XXXX quick action on information provided by XXXX resulted in a full XXXX payment that was also received by Ameris on time. 

The XXXX report of a late XXXX payment seems to be the result of XXXX not doing its job XXXX  seems to have relied on a computer report ( possibly from XXXX although its investigation refers to a computer report from Grantor ) that did not reflect the actual workout process, agreements and final resolution with Ameris. 

As a consumer reporting agency XXXX  is obligated to look into the resolution pointed out by a consumer. XXXX  breached the duty imposed upon it by 15 U.S.C. section 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) to conduct a reasonable dispute reinvestigation. There can be no doubt but that the Ameris ( possibly XXXX ) computer report on which XXXX relied did not reflect the actual workout process, agreements and final resolution with Ameris Bank.