vivekkopthsd/cfpb-consumer-complaints huggingface dataset:
Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Personal information incorrect
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
Name and addresses should be updated and reflecting proper information

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 non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
I was reported 90 days delinquent on my XXXX student loan, which caused my credit score to drop from around XXXX to the XXXX. This delinquency was not due to missed payments on my part but because XXXX autopay system failed without notifying me. I paid month by month until XX/XX/XXXX, where I elected auto-pay. 

I was enrolled in autopay the entire time, and each month my payment initially showed as processed, then was later reversed. I never received any message or alert in my XXXX inbox about failed payments or delinquency. The first time I learned of an issue was when my school contacted me asking if I needed help with a late payment. Additionally, when I logged in it said in green " Auto-pay is scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX for [ amount due ] '' with no indication that the autopay had an issue. 

As soon as I became aware, I immediately made the past-due payment and confirmed that my account was current. I also verified that autopay was set up correctly going forward, but have not full relied back on auto pay in concern that the same reversal would happen without my knowledge. 

I contacted XXXX to explain that the missed payments were the result of an autopay malfunction and lack of communication on their end. I believe I have valid reasoning to get this deragatory mark off of my credit. I requested removal of the late marks, but the delinquency remains on my credit report. 

I am asking that XXXX correct this reporting and remove the XXXX delinquency from my credit reports with all three credit bureaus, as the error was caused by system and communication failures, not negligence on my part. I have shown perfect history of payment until I enabled auto-pay, and I again was not notified of it's failure for 90+ days.

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 non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: MOHELA
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
I was reported 90 days delinquent on my Mohela student loan, which caused my credit score to drop from around XXXX to the XXXX. This delinquency was not due to missed payments on my part but because Mohelas autopay system failed without notifying me. I paid month by month until XX/XX/XXXX, where I elected auto-pay. 

I was enrolled in autopay the entire time, and each month my payment initially showed as processed, then was later reversed. I never received any message or alert in my Mohela inbox about failed payments or delinquency. The first time I learned of an issue was when my school contacted me asking if I needed help with a late payment. Additionally, when I logged in it said in green " Auto-pay is scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX for [ amount due ] '' with no indication that the autopay had an issue. 

As soon as I became aware, I immediately made the past-due payment and confirmed that my account was current. I also verified that autopay was set up correctly going forward, but have not full relied back on auto pay in concern that the same reversal would happen without my knowledge. 

I contacted Mohela to explain that the missed payments were the result of an autopay malfunction and lack of communication on their end. I believe I have valid reasoning to get this deragatory mark off of my credit. I requested removal of the late marks, but the delinquency remains on my credit report. 

I am asking that Mohela correct this reporting and remove the 90-day delinquency from my credit reports with all three credit bureaus, as the error was caused by system and communication failures, not negligence on my part. I have shown perfect history of payment until I enabled auto-pay, and I again was not notified of it's failure for 90+ days.

Company response to consumer: Untimely response
Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: WI

Complaint narrative:
I am sending this complaint because my XXXX XXXX ( Acct. No. XXXX ) XXXX XXXX account is being reported inaccurately and inconsistently across the credit bureaus, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). According to my credit reports, TransUnion lists the Date of Last Activity as XX/XX/year>, while Equifax lists the same account with a Date of Last Activity of XX/XX/year>. Experian has already deleted this account entirely. These discrepancies can not all be accurate. The same account can not have different dates of last activity or appear deleted on one report while still being reported as a charge-off on others. Under FCRA 607 ( b ), credit bureaus are required to maintain the maximum possible accuracy of all reported information. These inconsistencies demonstrate a failure to uphold that obligation. Under FCRA 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ), I have the right to dispute inaccurate or unverifiable information and to have a reasonable reinvestigation conducted by each bureau. I have exercised that right and am requesting verification of this account and documentation supporting the reported data. Additionally, the furnisher, XXXX XXXX, is required under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) to report only accurate information, and under 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) to provide the correct Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) so that the reporting period is calculated properly under 605 ( c ). The inconsistent dates and deletion from one bureau suggest that the DOFD is either incorrect or not being reported consistently.

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 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Complaint filed by XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as authorized representative of XXXX XXXX under attached assignment/authorizationagreement. 

This is a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX a data furnisher to the national credit reporting agencies, for their violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically 1681s-2 ( b ) .I previously submitted a dispute challenging the accuracy and completeness of the tradeline they reported. Despite being notified through the credit reporting agency, the furnisher failed to : Conduct a proper reinvestigation, Review documentation I provided, Correct or delete inaccurate or unverifiable information, And provide a clear method of verification or result of reinvestigation. Instead, they verified the data as accurate without providing any proof or validation, a clear violation of their duties under the FCRA. Key Violations : 1.15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( D ) : Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation and correct information when notified of a dispute. 2.15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) : Failure to provide me with the name and contact information of the party who verified the information. 3.15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) : Reporting inaccurate information without maintaining procedures for accuracy. 

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem — 
Company: Block, Inc.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I mistakenly sent {$800.00} to an inactive Cash App account belonging to my sister. The account became inactive due to it being hacked four years ago, resulting in my sister creating a new and active Cash App account. We both contacted Cash App support after she was unable to approve the refund request for the inactive account due to that account being overdrawn. I submitted a dispute for the {$800.00} to be refunded to my account due to the error ; however, Cash App denied both the dispute and the appeal. I provided them with evidence that both accounts belonged to her and explained the error ; however they are failing to conduct a proper investigation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Other banking product or service
Issue: Managing an account — Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed
Company: GENWORTH FINANCIAL INC.
State: LA

Complaint narrative:
Genworth mishandled my federal structured-settlement funds by continuing to send payments to a savings account ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) that was originally opened under my fathers tutorship in the XXXX and never properly updated when I reached adulthood. I had no awareness or access to these transactions for over 28 years. 

I discovered the issue in XXXX after learning that Genworth had continued disbursing funds to that same account and corresponding only with my parents. When I requested full contract documentation, Genworth claimed ownership remained with the United States. That claim is falseunder the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States was the temporary owner for benefit of the XXXX  and was required to transfer ownership to me when I turned XXXX in XXXX. By still invoking United States ownership, Genworth is attempting to avoid disclosure and accountability for its failure to update ownership and terminate parental control nearly three decades ago. 

Despite being XXXX and legally entitled to ADA-compliant written communication, Genworth assigned an email address ( XXXX ) and then ignored all follow-ups. Genworth also implied that authorization from my parents was still required to release recordseven though tutorship legally ended at XXXX. They ignored my proof of identity, failed to confirm the new routing information I submitted in XXXX, and continue to obstruct my right to manage and protect my own settlement.

These actions have caused significant emotional distress and financial harm and continue to place my funds at risk. Although some of my documentation was lost due to a broken phone, all original files, correspondence, and supporting evidence remain on record with the CFPB from my previous complaints.

All supporting evidence, including my 74-page document request, ADA accommodation letters, notarized XXXX routing update, and prior correspondence with Genworths representative ( XXXX XXXX ) , were already submitted in my previous CFPB complaints related to this case. Those records remain on file. I am resubmitting because Genworth continues to withhold records, deny XXXX access, and reference outdated ownership authority under United States. Please connect this complaint to my existing CFPB case history for full review. 

To publish- I believe it is critical that this be made public to protect other disabled adults and former XXXX  who may be facing the same injustice. Genworths actions show how easy it is for financial institutions to hide behind federal ownership language and outdated guardianships to withhold rightful control from the true beneficiary. No personespecially one living with a disabilityshould ever have to fight decades to reclaim what is lawfully theirs.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
My name is XXXX XXXX there is no third party involved in the filing of this complaint and this complaint has not been made in error.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Communication tactics — Frequent or repeated calls
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
Citi bank via XXXX XXXX credit card has been calling me nonstop everyday for weeks from multiple numbers. I tried explaining i got hurt at work and cant pay it and they get very aggressive and rude

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 non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: Monterey Financial Services LLC
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
I am a victim of identity theft on XX/XX/XXXX i sent this furnisher a complete identity theft package under FCRA 623 including my ftc identity theft report government id proof of address and a highlighted credit report showing the fraudulent account they are reporting This furnisher is in violation of FCRA 623 because they failed to delete the fraudulent account and continued to furnish inaccurate information to the credit report agencies they either ignored my request or verified the account without providing any proof that i opened or authorized it.

under FCRA 623 furnishers must investigate and remove fraudulent information cease reporting to CRAS and notify each CRA to remove it

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
State: WI

Complaint narrative:
Reported {$3000.00} in fraud, SoFi bank denied claim when I had clear evidence of fraud

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : This debt collector has done unjustifiable practices of the FDCPA which it prohibits. They furnished this account that we didn't agree upon and I didn't sign an agreement on. A legal contract is signed by two parties and I did not participate in any of it. they didn't follow the proper 5-step validation procedure. According to the FDCPA, I'm entitled to compensation for these violations and clearly, they violated my rights and abused my privileges. I demand this account be taken off 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
Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint regarding a valid fraud claim ( Claim ID # XXXX ) that Bank of America has incorrectly denied twice. The bank is refusing to reverse {$4000.00} in fraudulent charges ( out of a {$4000.00} total ), claiming I authorized them.

This is factually impossible, as I had already reported the card lost before the fraudulent transactions occurred.

Here is the precise timeline of events : Card Issued ( Approx. XX/XX/XXXX ) : A new credit card was issued for my account. I never received this physical card. 

Card Reported Lost ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Realizing the card had not arrived, I called Bank of America to report it as lost or stolen. A replacement card was ordered by the representative. At this moment, the original, lost card should have been permanently deactivated by the bank. 

Fraudulent Charges Occur ( XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX ) : A series of fraudulent transactions totaling {$4000.00} began after I had already reported the card lost. ( This includes a charge from " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' for {$1800.00}, which posted later on XX/XX/XXXX ). 

Replacement Card Received ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : I received the new replacement card in the mail. This was after all the fraudulent activity had already taken place on the card I never received. 

Fraud Reported ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Before I even activated the new replacement card, I checked my account online, discovered the unauthorized charges, and immediately called Bank of America to report the fraud.

Bank of America 's investigation ignored this timeline. My initial claim was denied. I escalated the claim, and it was investigated again. This second investigation was also denied.

The reason provided by Bank of America for the final denial was : " The charge was authorized by you or made by someone who has permission to use the card or account. '' This conclusion is completely incorrect and unacceptable. It was physically impossible for me to make these charges, as I did not have possession of any card. The bank 's core failure was not properly deactivating the original card when I reported it lost on XX/XX/XXXX. I am a long-term customer and the victim of fraud, yet the bank is holding me responsible for their security failure.

I am requesting the CFPB to intervene and compel Bank of America to reverse the remaining {$4000.00} in fraudulent charges as required by federal law ( Fair Credit Billing Act ), which stipulates {$0.00} liability for a card reported lost before fraudulent use occurs.

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 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: AL

Complaint narrative:
ALL REPORTED DATA MUST BE COMPLETE, CORRECT, AND PROVEN IF CHALLENGED. I DO NOT GRANT YOUR AUTHORITY TO REPORT VERSUS ME WITHOUT ADEQUATE COMPLIANCE OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS BEING APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT. AS SUCH I DEMAND DELETION IMMEDIATELY OF YOUR DECLARED CLAIMS AGAINST ME. PER COMMON LAW, YOU ARE DEMANDED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU CAN AND HAVE WILLINGNESS TO ABSOLUTELY VERIFY AND VALIDATE ( OR JUST SAY " CERTIFICATE '' EVERY AND ONE EVEN EACH ANY AND OR ALL ALLEGATIONS YET PHYSICALLY DEFICIENT OR ALL ALLEGATIONS YET PHYSICALLY DEFICIENT OR UNPROVEN MINE, CHALLENGED OR NOT.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2025-11-10 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: WI

Complaint narrative:
I am sending this complaint because multiple furnishers and credit reporting agencies are reporting inaccurate, inconsistent, and unverifiable information about my accounts with XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) billing error provisions. Across all three major credit bureaus TransUnion, Experian, and Equifax the same accounts are being reported with conflicting dates of last activity and inconsistent late payment histories. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Acct. No. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) shows multiple different dates of last activity and inconsistent late payments between bureaus. XXXX XXXX ( Acct. No. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX ( Acct. No. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) show similar contradictions, with each bureau displaying different dates and varying numbers of late payments. These discrepancies can not all be accurate and clearly demonstrate a lack of proper data verification and quality control. Under FCRA 602, Congress established that credit reporting must be fair and accurate. However, the repeated inconsistencies in my file show that both the credit bureaus and furnishers have failed to meet their obligations under FCRA 607 ( b ) ( duty to ensure maximum possible accuracy ). The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX are also in violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) and 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) for failing to report accurate and updated information and of 623 ( b ) for failing to properly investigate disputed information. Additionally, under FCRA 611 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681i ), I have the right to a reasonable reinvestigation of any disputed item, but these accounts remain uncorrected despite clear evidence of inconsistency. Under 609 ( 15 U.S.C. 1681g ), I have the right to full disclosure of verification records, which I have not received. Furthermore, 15 U.S.C. 1666 and 1666a prohibit creditors from continuing to report or act on disputed billing information while an investigation is pending. Despite my disputes, these accounts continue to show up with conflicting information across the credit bureaus.

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