milesbutler/consumer_complaints huggingface dataset:
Consumer complaint received 09-10-2016 about Mortgage (Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)) with SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. (OH).
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint: Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. continues to evade simple, basic questions I have posed to them regarding the validity of my mortgage debt, and instead, is relying on twisted words, half-truths, incomplete answers and non-answers in a desperate attempt to hide the truth. 

Specifically, I sent via Certified Mail, and SPS rec 'd on XXXX XXXX, a formal 'Dispute of Validation of Debt ' and in short, the reply from SPS was wholly inadequate. 

As XXXX case in point, federal law requires that the debt collector ( SPS ) provide the true identity of the 'creditor ', and yet, all I rec 'd was a jumbled mess of a paragraph that tries to say that XXXX is the 'noteholder ' - a claim that XXXX Bank has formally denied - and that SPS is the 'servicer ', and that my note is 'secured with other notes traded on XXXX XXXX ''. 

Nowhere in that reply is specific information as to who the actual 'creditor ' is as defined by XXXX XXXX. 

Additionally, another requirement in a reply regarding a dispute of debt is for the debt collector to clearly identify who the original creditor is ( or was ). SPS also failed to make clear the simple answer to that question. 

In response to an earlier complaint to XXXX Bank, SPS wrote on XXXX XXXX, XXXX that " the 'owner ', sometimes also referred to as 'investor ', 'creditor ', and/or 'note holder ' '' is in fact XXXX Bank. In their XXXX XXXX, XXXX reply, SPS clearly implies that all of those terms mean the same thing ( see attached ). 

However, in clear contrast to that assertion, XXXX Bank says it in fact is NOT the owner ( which also according to SPS means it is not the 'creditor ' nor the 'note holder ' ), and that instead, some unnamed 'Trust ' is the actual 'owner of the mortgage and note ' ( see attached ). 

Accordingly, I still do n't have a clear answer as to who the actual 'owner/creditor ' is, despite filing a formal dispute of the Validation of Debt with the debt collector. 

In addition, SPS failed to answer the vast majority of the questions I asked relative to the origination of the debt, and who was in fact the actual creditor ( or lender ) to begin with ( see attached list of questions contained in the 'Dispute of Validation of Debt and Qualified Written Request '. 

All I rec 'd was another copy of the Mortgage and Note, which shows XXXX XXXX XXXX as the 'Lender ', but without further detail regarding whose money Encore was actually lending, there is no evidence whatsoever that Encore was actually a 'true creditor ' in the first place. The information is needed to determine if this case fits the same fact pattern as XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX WL XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ), and all indications are that it does.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 12/28/2017 about Student loan (Federal student loan servicing) with Navient Solutions, LLC. (MA).
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Sub-issue: Keep getting calls about your loan

Complaint: Issues : 1. I disputed my debt according to 15 U.S.C. sec. 1692g ( b ). But the servicer ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ignored my dispute letter. They did not verify the debt. Nor did they cease collection of the debt. 

2. I am confused as to who holds the loan and who is servicing the loan. In XXXX XXXX I received letters from both Navient and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( hereafter " XXXX '' ). Both claimed to be servicing the loans. I 'm now receiving calls from General Revenue Corporation. 

3. I 've received conflicting daily interest rates. My rate with Navient is {$8.00}. My rate with XXXX is {$8.00}. 

4. I have not received important information from Navient. I requested a copy of my original agreement with the lender. Navient has sent my XXXX application but it does not show the amount of the loans. I also requested a copy of the final account statement from the original creditor and a breakdown of any collection costs. Navient ignored my requests. 

5. I have requested that the U.S. Department of Education review my account. Nevertheless, XXXX XXXX XXXX continues its collection efforts while the review is pending. 

6. Although I have been communicating with Navient, XXXX XXXX XXXX has called at least two of my acquaintances. XXXX XXXX XXXX knows my address and phone number. Therefore, the calls serve no purpose other than harassment. 

All pertinent documentation is attached.

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
Consumer complaint received 12-12-2017 about Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports (Credit reporting) with Experian Information Solutions Inc. (GA).
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Sub-issue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report

Complaint: I have sent letters of dispute to Experian, for a creditor in my file named XXXX XXXX/acct # XXXX. Experian responded with " account verified ''. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX I sent certified letters to Experian disputing the account and requesting the documentation received verifying the accuracy. I received a response from Experian dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX stating, " Unless you send us additional relevant information to support your claim we will not reinvestigate this information. '' In response to my letter mailed XXXX XXXX, Experian sent me a response dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX parroting the same response that was previously sent to me. 

In both of the letters that I sent to Experian, I requested that they send to me the documents that they have in their file that was used to verify the accuracy of the disputed account. 

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681g, I have the right to demand that Experian disclose to me all of the documents that were recorded and retained in their file at the time of my request concerning the account in dispute. The FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( i ), further states that if the disputed account remains unverified that it must be promptly deleted. Furthermore, the FCRA Section 611 paragraph ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) states, " if requested by the consumer, a description of the  procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness fo the information shall be provided to the consumer by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information ... '' I have not received the requested information after my submission of numerous requests.

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
Consumer complaint received 07-09-2017 about Student loan (Private student loan) with Navient Solutions, LLC. (VA).
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer
Sub-issue: Problem with customer service

Complaint: The Navient co-signer release process is a scam! I graduated three years ago in 2014 and I am still struggling to get the co-signer release approved after submitting a co-signer release request close to a dozen times over the past two years! Every time, it is another ridiculous excuse!
<P/>
I have paid faithfully on the loan for three years with no late payments. I have XXXX jobs and an excellent credit score which is in the high XXXX XXXX. I have less than {$300.00} in credit card debt and I do n't have a car loan payment and I do n't pay rent! I have even paid more ( close to double ) every month than the required minimum payment.
<P/>
Navient has made false statements about how easy it is to have the co-signer released after a year, but fail to mention in the tiny print that apparently, I have to actually be personally approved for the balance on the loan amount? I have heard EVERY excuse as to WHY they wo n't release the co-signer. It has become a financial burden to my family since my parents are paying astronomically high interest rates on their house equity line since they ca n't refinance because of their debt-ratio specifically linked to the Navient loan balance. My parents have paid ridiculous amounts of interest for the past two years because of Navient 's refusal to release my co-signor.
<P/>
This is going on for over two years and has proved to be a serious financial burden to my parents for apparently no other reason than Navient 's unwarranted refusal and untruthful statements about the requirements needed for a co-signer release.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 10/23/2015 about Credit card () with Continental Finance Company, LLC (AL).
Issue: Delinquent account

Complaint: XXXX keeps calling me in reference to a Verve Mastercard financed through Continental Finance. The representative are very rude and demanding. They threatened you with charges if you do n't pay the bill but refuse to send any documentation by mail. They demand that you give them your debit card information over the phone.

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 06-06-2017 about Checking or savings account (Checking account) with REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION (FL).
Issue: Managing an account
Sub-issue: Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed

Complaint: On  XXXX   XXXX   2017  I had a balance of $ {$62.00}. Regions charged me  a OD FEE  of {$180.00} when nothing was ever in the negative.

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 06/20/2016 about Debt collection (Other (i.e. phone, health club, etc.)) with FAIR COLLECTIONS & OUTSOURCING, INC. (NY).
Issue: Cont'd attempts collect debt not owed
Sub-issue: Debt is not mine

Complaint: XXXX accounts for Fair Collections and Outsourcing, # XXXX, and # XXXX, are in error. I have attempted to get these alleged debts removed from my credit reports. XXXX have done so, but XXXX refuses. These alleged debts were purchased by a collection agency from XXXX XXXX Apartments. I have sent documents proving that I do not owe this debt. In a nutshell, I had planned to lease an apartment XXXX Apartments, only to receive military orders to report to duty in New York State. Despite federal law, the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act, which required XXXX XXXX Apartments to rescind the lease once I provided notice, XXXX XXXX Apartments refused to do so, necessitating litigation. When the judge learned that I was under military orders, the judge appointed me a guardian ad litem, who succeeded in getting the malicious lawsuit filed by XXXX XXXX Apartments dismissed. In other words, the court held that I owed nothing. XXXX XXXX nonetheless went and sold a fraudulent alleged debt to a debt collection agency, Fair Collections and Outsourcing. I informed Fair Collections and Outsourcing of the dismissal of XXXX XXXX Apartments ' case and that the debt was invalid. Fair Collections and Outsourcing has chosen to report me to the credit bureaus as a form of extortion in an attempt to get me to pay an amount that the court held I do not owe under federal law. Despite numerous communications with Fair Collections and Outsourcing, this unscrupulous debt collector refuses to inform XXXX that the debt is invalid. Consequently, XXXX will not remove the amount from my credit report. Even worse, XXXX of the alleged " debts ' is in fact a security deposit that XXXX XXXX is obligated to return to me.

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
Consumer complaint received 05-09-2016 about Credit reporting () with EQUIFAX, INC. (TN).
Issue: Incorrect information on credit report
Sub-issue: Account status

Complaint: STILL DO NOT HAVE AN UPDATED-CORRECTED CREDIT REPORT. I have been going online trying to dispute and remove old items ... still a real problem. 
Last Credit Report I received was dated XXXX/XXXX/2014. 
PLEASE CORRECT : 1. XXXX- # XXXX-Old account-was transferred and re financed.-REMOVE 2. XXXX- # XXXX-old 10 years old paid and closed REMOVE 3. XXXX- # XXXX-Over 10 years old-REMOVE 4. XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX-same account as # XXXX above XXXX-REMOVE 5. XXXX Auto-Paid and closed-10 years old OLD REMOVE 6. XXXX- # XXXX-Paid and closed-old 10 years old REMOVE 7. XXXX- # XXXX-paid and closed-old 10 years old-REMOVE 8. XXXX XXXX # XXXX-Paid and closed-Old-10 years old REMOVE 9. XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX-Paid and closed-old 10 years old REMOVE 10. XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX-Paid and closed-10 years old REMOVE

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 05-10-2015 about Payday loan () with CURO Intermediate Holdings (TX).
Issue: Received a loan I didn't apply for

Complaint: this is not my loan I never applied for this loan this was not done in person and my ID and check was stolen around the time this loan was taken out and all the money stolen out of my bank account even my regular pay check money

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 10/19/2017 about Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports (Credit reporting) with TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC. (CA).
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Sub-issue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report

Complaint: I have filled numerous complaints with TransUnion and XXXX. Transunion finally responded by removing the 3 loans that were originaly South Carolina XXXXXXXX XXXX # XXXX which were well over 7 years old. XXXX sold these same loans to XXXX XXXX XXXX. TransUnion only removed just one of the XXXXXXXX XXXX # XXXX and not the other 2 were left on the report and need to be removed as they too have been sold by XXXX.These other 2 loans are both numbered the same which are # XXXX both reported on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX according to theTransunion Resolution Summary. XXXX has all 3 XXXX XXXX XXXX still on my report which XXXX has sold to them and they are the same debt.I have previously asked that they be removed also. We were warned by the refinance agencies that TransUnion would be difficult to deal with and they were right.I am XXXX years old living on a fixed income and need to refinance my house but the the game playing by TransUnion and XXXX still continues. Why did n't they remove the others like XXXX did?

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
Consumer complaint received 02/14/2017 about Mortgage (Conventional adjustable mortgage (ARM)) with OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC (CA).
Issue: Loan modification,collection,foreclosure

Complaint: I purchased my owner occupied home in XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX in XXXX. 
I used 80/20 financing from XXXX Mortgage/Litton. 
I defaulted in XXXX. 
I was negotiating a loan modification with Litton. Later Litton sold the 1st XXXX to Ocwen who modified my loan in XXXX, writing off about {$350000.00} of principal, lowering my loan amount from about {$570000.00} to {$220000.00}. I had to " earn '' this reduction by making timely payments for 3 years, etc. 
Now I have discovered that Ocwen did not eliminate the 2nd ( from the original 80/20 purchase ). 
I believe a case can be made that Ocwen should have eliminated the 2nd at the time of the modification. 
By not doing so, Ocwen effectively transferred the equity/benefit of the Principal Reduction to themselves! I believe it is irrelevant that Ocwen does not own the 2nd : the current holder of my 2nd, XXXX XXXX presumably paid good money to someone for it because they are demanding {$110000.00} from me! So something that had no value was given ( my ) value fraudulently. 
I believe Ocwen was " paid '' by the US Government to provide me with this loan modification because I believe it was the result of a settlement with the US Justice Dept. whereby Ocwen agreed to do penance by offering loan modification to atone for its sins. 
So I believe a case can be made that Ocwen defrauded both me and the US Govt. XXXX/Litton XXXX al is also guilty because someone sold a worthless 2nd that is now worth {$110000.00}. 
The 2nd XXXX had no value before the principal reduction and should have been eliminated if Ocwen had used a modicum of common sense. If they had notified me, I could have negotiated with the 2nd, just as is routinely done in Short Sale transactions were is it almost universally true that XXXX sign off for nothing or close to nothing because if the 1st is underwater and doing a Short Sale, the 2nd is worthless. 
It seems to me that a case can be made that Ocwen had a duty to me because since they were modifying my loan they were in the similar position of a Mortgage Broker or Bank with Superior Knowledge. 
It seems to me this is a possible test case/ class action case. There must be many defective loan modifications out there similar to mine where the banks defrauded the US Justice Dept and the borrower. 
Thanks, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 07-12-2017 about Checking or savings account (Checking account) with WELLS FARGO & COMPANY (CA).
Issue: Closing an account
Sub-issue: Company closed your account

Complaint: Wells Fargo closed a business partnership account without calling me and I had emailed, called and went to the XXXX CA location requesting to close this account and they told me no. Then after I filed 2 police reports that the business partner had stolen from me they continued to allow withdrawals and even allowed the business owner to close the account when the denied me the opportunity. The other business owner was obviously made to send me 1/2 of what little bit was left in the account via a cashiers check. I have yet to cash it because I am not excepting this by no means. I feel like Wells Fargo is fully responsible and they should not only refund me the 1/2 of the cashiers check, but the months of debits made by my business partner because I had reported it to them and they did not allow but allowed her to close it for whatever reason. I have went in and called to complain with numerous emails and not one person has reached back to me with a response.

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
Consumer complaint received 07/28/2017 about Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports (Credit reporting) with EQUIFAX, INC. (UT).
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Sub-issue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report

Complaint: I h ave requested XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX to validate a Bankruptcy record that was found in my credit report under the Public Record section that was reported to me by Equifax inXX/XX/XXXX. According to the FCRA 609 ( A ) ( 1 ) ( A ), they are required by federal law to verify-through the physical verification of the original signed consumer contract- any and all accounts they post on a credit report otherwise, anyone paying for their reporting services could fax, mail or email in a fraudulent account.
Furthermore, after 30 days XXXX responded that they had contacted the Bankruptcy court as if the court is allowed to speak to them directly. I am attaching my correspondence with the XXXX Bankruptcy court 's clerk telling me that they do not send any information to them. That the credit bureaus have to come and get the information themselves. But in XXXX v. Equifax, it says they can not claim a government agency, court or court house to furnish or verify anything. The court does not guarantee the accuracy of their cases so no third party vendor can claim they verified the bankruptcy through court records that are not guranteed to be accurate. Therefore, XXXX has failed to comply with FCRA 607 in not giving maximum accuracy in their investigation instead they grossly lied that they contacted the court to verify the information and worst of all they did not produce the original signed consumer contract. So in all fairness they must comply with FCRA 611 in deleting and unverifiable information because after all the only persons that can legally verify a bankruptcy is the consumer and the trustee as they are the only persons with the first-hand knowledge.
I am attaching the first page of the court docket of the bankruptcy record which does not accurately identify me with just a name, address and last four digits of SSN. This is the same information that XXXX uses and grossly lies to the consumers by stating that have verified the information as true. They did not produce the original signed consumer contract therefore there was no verification.
To compound the subject even more XXXX was requested by me, almost a month prior to my dispute with them, to freeze and opt-out my information and this is how they conduct their investigation by grossly ignoring my request, please see attached letters confirming this.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 11-01-2016 about Mortgage (Conventional fixed mortgage) with WELLS FARGO & COMPANY (NC).
Issue: Loan servicing, payments, escrow account

Complaint: We always carry flood insurance ever since we used to live in XXXX and the entire time that we have lived in XXXX. When we refinanced, at settlement they wrote flood insurance into our loan. The statement " flood for life of the loan '' is included in the settlement and a charge was made to secure this service. We recently found out our flood policy was cancelled for non-payment in 2012. Wells Fargo can find no evidence that they informed us that they would not handle flood through escrow unless required by law, and the company admits that at no point did they inform us that they did not and were not going to secure flood insurance as agreeed to in our settlement. An escrow-related reimbursement was made at XXXX point but it was not indicated that this was because they were not paying for flood insurance, we had no idea we were uninsured until we needed our coverage to help after a " 75 year event '' ( XXXX inches of rain in XXXX hours ) flooded our home. XXXX searched and searched to no avail, we were uninsured and Wells Fargo, despite acknowledgment of fault, will not take responsibility for this breach of contract and expenses we incurred for abatement and repair.

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