Consumer complaint received 2020-11-06
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Investigation took more than 30 days
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY (MI)

Around XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I submitted a dispute regarding payment information Wells Fargo supplied to the three ( 3 ) major CRAs ( see CFPB XXXX and XXXX ). XXXX  responded on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX acknowledging receipt of my CFPB complaints and that I'd disputed direct with XXXX ( see XXXX ). In XXXX I explained the ways in which Wells Fargo was non compliant with the the CFPB consent order from XXXX of XXXX. I supplied a copy of the consent order. I supplied my WF statements. I supplied the CFPB news release regarding the consent order. 

XXXX allegedly conducted an investigation under report number XXXX with investigation id XXXX. Experian delivered the results to me with " updated information ''. The comments state that " Completed investigation of FCRA dispute - consumer disagrees. '' The remarks state " This item was updated from our processing of your dispute in XX/XX/XXXX. '' XXXX  has been notified per my documents that the information received with from Wells Fargo is illegal. XXXX  received and processed a copy of the CFPB consent order against Wells Fargo. XXXX received a copy of my written statement to the CFPB regarding what Wells Fargo was doing that was illegal. In that statement I additionally reference 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. Experian received a copy of my account statements from WF. Experian has processed the documents I supplied, and thus is aware that they are reporting information that both violates the CFPB consent order against WF and that violates 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ) 1026.2 Definitions and rules of construction. 

It is my understanding that the FCRA requires that all documents submitted with a dispute must be transmitted to the supplier of the disputed information and that the supplier of the information is required to review the documents as part of the dispute process. It is clear from the turnaround time of less than four ( 4 ) days that no investigation was conducted and that the supplier of the information, Wells Fargo utilized the automated faculties of the e-OSCAR system to return the same illegal information to Experian. 

To be clear, 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 XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and the next subsequent statement generated on XXXX 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 XXXX XX/XX/XXXX constitutes a statement that is offset from the XXXX 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 Wells Fargo supplies to the CRAs is incomplete and/or incorrect and must be immediately removed from all credit files for which WF has supplied the information to a CRA. 

Overall, XXXX  is complicit with the actions of Wells Fargo and needs to be held accountable as such.