vivekkopthsd/cfpb-consumer-complaints huggingface dataset:
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — Applying for or obtaining a modification, forbearance plan, short sale, or deed-in-lieu
Company: PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
Pennymac has engaged in severe, systemic administrative processing failures that have directly compromised the oversight, compliance, and legal management of my account. Based on these compounding failures, I have already initiated formal administrative grievances with federal regulatory bodies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ). Beyond mere administrative incompetence, Pennymac is actively engaging in predatory, discriminatory, and bad-faith practices by intentionally exploiting a vulnerable household. In XX/XX/year>, Pennymac assessed illegal, unauthorized administrative fees against my account funds that have been unlawfully withheld and never returned. Furthermore, the lender is operating under a posture of deliberate willful blindness, entirely freezing out and ignoring a lawful, timely home loan modification application submitted on my behalf through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Because my previous federal complaints to the CFPB have met with absolute administrative silence from the lender, Pennymac continues to operate with total impunity. They are weaponizing this silence to financially exploit and destabilize an autistic man and his autistic son, demanding immediate enforcement intervention from the CFPB.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account — 
Company: ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC.
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting a complaint regarding Robinhood 's decision to permanently restrict cryptocurrency wallet transfers on my account without providing a specific explanation or a meaningful path for review. Robinhood informed me that wallet transfer functionality on my account was restricted based on an internal determination that I XXXX have been the victim of a scam. I do not agree with this conclusion and have repeatedly explained that the transactions in question were authorized and initiated by me. I appealed the decision through Robinhood 's support process and requested additional information regarding the basis for the restriction. Robinhood denied my appeal and stated that the decision was final. I then requested escalation to a supervisor or specialized review team and was informed that I had already reached the highest level of support available. Robinhood further stated that there are no additional review options and that the restriction will remain permanent. Throughout this process, Robinhood has declined to provide any meaningful explanation regarding the specific account activity that led to the restriction. While I understand that financial institutions may have risk-management policies, I believe consumers should be provided with a reasonable explanation for permanent account restrictions and a meaningful opportunity to address any concerns. I have been a Robinhood customer for several years and have conducted significant activity on the platform. Robinhood continues to allow me to buy and sell cryptocurrency, but permanently prohibits wallet transfers, which significantly limits the utility and ownership rights associated with cryptocurrency holdings. I am requesting that Robinhood provide a substantive explanation for the restriction, conduct an independent review of the decision, and clarify whether there are any conditions under which wallet transfer functionality XXXX be restored. XXXX ID : XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Citibank regarding a closed dispute investigation where the bank incorrectly found me responsible for a clear duplicate billing and unreturned security deposit error. On XX/XX/year>, the merchant XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX processed XXXX separate {$200.00} charges to my account. XXXX line item was titled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and the other was titled XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Because the word 'REVERSE ' was in the text description, I initially believed a refund had been processed or attempted, so I originally submitted a dispute for only a single {$200.00} charge. However, a review of my XX/XX/year> statement ( attached ) proves that BOTH of these {$200.00} line items were processed as positive charges that added to my balance. There is no minus sign or credit formatting on either item. The merchant actually deducted a total of {$400.00} from my account on that day. Citibank 's dispute department closed the case and held me responsible because the hotel provided a dispute packet claiming the charge was valid and that they reversed it. However, the merchant 's own internal XXXX XXXX XXXX ( PMS ) logs included in that packet ( attached as Hotel.pdf, Page XXXX ) explicitly contradict their defense. At XXXX AM on XX/XX/year>, the hotel staff explicitly logged this transaction as a XXXX preauth ' and categorized the line item as a XXXX XXXX '. Page XXXX of the merchant 's own packet outlines their policy that security deposits are returned to the guest 's bank account after check-out. The merchant has provided XXXX evidence of property damage to justify withholding this deposit. Instead, they ran a temporary authorization deposit as a permanent double charge, and Citibank blindly accepted the merchant 's cover letter while ignoring both their own statement data and the merchant 's internal logs proving the funds belong to me. Citibank is in violation of the XXXX XXXX Billing Act by closing this dispute. I request that Citibank reopen this case and credit my account for the full {$400.00} that was wrongfully taken.

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 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: LoanCare, LLC
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
I am disputing the accuracy of the XXXX late payment reported by LoanCare on my mortgage account ending in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/year>. I previously disputed this reported delinquency directly with LoanCare and also submitted disputes through the consumer reporting agencies. Despite receiving notice of my disputes, LoanCare continues to report the XX/XX/year> late payment. To date, LoanCare has not provided sufficient documentation demonstrating how it determined that the XX/XX/year> payment was 30 days delinquent. Specifically, I have not received records showing the contractual due date, the date the payment was received, the date the payment was credited, the complete payment history, or other business records supporting the reported delinquency. Because the disputed information continues to be reported without adequate substantiation, I am concerned that LoanCare failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and continues to furnish information that has not been properly verified. This conduct may violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), including 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), which requires furnishers to conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving notice of a dispute. It may also constitute a servicing error under RESPA and Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. 1024.35.

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 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Telecommunications debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Kriya Capital, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Credence Resource Management , LLC for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). On XX/XX/year>, I sent Credence Resource Management a formal written dispute and debt validation demand via mail. The letter demanded the following documentation : Original signed agreement bearing my signature Complete account-level payment history Documentation of lawful assignment and chain of title Full accounting of the alleged balance Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) Identification of all data sources used in furnishing Credence Resource Management has failed to respond with any validation whatsoever. Despite this failure, they have continued to furnish this account to consumer reporting agencies. Specifically : 1. They updated this account on TransUnion on or around XX/XX/year> after receiving my dispute 2. They added this account to my Experian credit report after receiving my dispute This constitutes willful continued reporting of an unverified debt in violation of FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), which prohibits furnishers from reporting information they have reason to know is inaccurate, and FCRA 611, which requires proper investigation upon dispute. The account details are as follows : Creditor : Credence Resource Management , LLC Account Number : XXXX Balance : {$940.00} Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Cellular ) Date Opened : XX/XX/year> Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, TX XXXX I am requesting immediate deletion of this account from all consumer reporting agencies and full compliance with all applicable federal laws.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Struggling to pay your loan — Denied request to lower payments
Company: SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.
State: NV

Complaint narrative:
am writing to file a formal complaint regarding my auto loan and the lack of assistance provided by your customer service team. I am XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fixed income protected under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. The co-borrower on my auto loan, XXXX XXXX, absconded and abandoned the debt in XX/XX/year>. I have single-handedly made all payments since that date in good faith. However, due to an income change from when the contract was executed, the current {$1100.00} payment is unsustainable. Front-line customer service refuses to escalate my file to a hardship department, states they can not modify the loan, and dropped my calls multiple times today. I am requesting a formal XXXX review for an affordable loan modification or a deficiency-free release of the vehicle. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
This debt collector has engaged in conduct that violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). They are reporting an account that I did not authorize, and no signed agreement exists bearing my signature to validate any obligation. A legally binding contract requires clear consent from all parties, which is absent in this case. Additionally, the collector has failed to provide proper validation of the alleged debt as required under the FDCPA. Without sufficient documentation verifying the debts legitimacy, their continued reporting and collection efforts are unlawful. These actions constitute violations of my consumer rights. As a result, I demand the immediate deletion of this account from all reporting agencies. Failure to comply may result in further legal action, including claims for damages.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Savings account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: WI

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint because Fifth Third Bank has been holding my funds since XX/XX/year>. XXXX XX/XX/XXXXsubmitted a recall request for the funds, but Fifth Third Bank declined the recall request. Despite this, Fifth Third Bank continues to respond to my complaints by stating that they are still awaiting a recall request from XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. This information is inaccurate because XXXX XX/XX/XXXXhas already confirmed that the recall request was submitted. Fifth Third Banks responses contradict the information provided by XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and my complaints are repeatedly being closed without a proper investigation or resolution. I am requesting that CFPB investigate this matter and require Fifth Third Bank to provide a truthful explanation regarding the status of the recall request, the reason it was declined, and the current status of my funds. I also request that Fifth Third Bank stop closing my complaints without addressing the evidence that XXXX XX/XX/XXXXalready submitted the recall request. I have records and communications showing that XXXX XX/XX/XXXXsubmitted the recall request and that Fifth Third Bank declined it.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: SinglePoint GI
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX is falsely reporting on my credit. I have never had any accounts with them. Per my research XXXX XXXX is a debt collector. They are falsely reporting on my credit!! Account number is XXXX is falsely reporting to my credit file and is against my rights and fair credit act. Under U.S Code 1618d - Disclosure of investigation consumer report ; you are in violation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Collection Management Holdings, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX RE : CEASE AND DESIST COMMUNICATION PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) To Whom It May Concern : This letter serves as formal notice that, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ), I hereby demand that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX immediately cease and desist all communication with me regarding the alleged debt referenced in your records. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ), when a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or wishes the debt collector to cease further communication, the debt collector must cease communication except for the limited purposes specifically permitted by law. Accordingly, you are hereby instructed to : 1. Immediately cease all telephone calls, text messages, emails, letters, voicemails, and any other direct or indirect communications with me regarding this alleged debt. 2. Refrain from contacting any third parties concerning this alleged debt except as expressly permitted by law. 3. Preserve all records, recordings, account notes, correspondence, and communications relating to this account. 4. Provide written confirmation that you have received and complied with this cease-and-desist request. Be advised that any communication made after your receipt of this notice, other than communications expressly permitted under 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ), may constitute a violation of federal law and may subject your organization to liability under the FDCPA, including statutory damages, actual damages, costs, and attorneys fees. Nothing in this correspondence shall be construed as an acknowledgment of liability for the alleged debt, a waiver of any rights, or an admission regarding the validity, amount, or enforceability of the alleged obligation. All rights, claims, defenses, and remedies are expressly reserved. Govern yourselves accordingly. Account Number : XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
I am disputing the accuracy of the reporting by Citibank on account number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Specifically, Citibank reports a 30-day late payment for XX/XX/XXXX. I previously disputed this reporting through the consumer reporting agencies. After receiving notice of my disputes, Citibank was required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) to conduct a reasonable investigation and review all relevant information concerning the disputed reporting. Despite the disputes submitted, the XX/XX/XXXXXXXX delinquency continues to be reported. To date, Citibank has not provided documentation demonstrating the contractual due date, the date my payment was received, the date it was credited, or the calculation used to determine that I was 30 days delinquent. Because Citibank continues to report the disputed delinquency without providing documentation sufficient to substantiate its accuracy, I am concerned that the company failed to conduct a reasonable investigation as required by 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). Federal courts have recognized that furnishers must conduct reasonable investigations and may not rely on superficial or automated review processes when responding to consumer disputes. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ).

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 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem — 
Company: Paypal Holdings, Inc
State: ID

Complaint narrative:
I made a one-time purchase with the merchant XXXX ( {$88.00} ) using PayPal. The merchant then enrolled me in a subscription service that I did not authorize. The merchant 's phone number on PayPal is nonfunctioning. I emailed the merchant directly with no success. I then filed a dispute with PayPal for the {$110.00} they charged my credit card. They closed my dispute saying I didn't cancel the subscription in time. I kept receiving more orders. I contacted the post master and they advised me to write on the package " Refused. '' I filed an appeal with PayPal and was denied. Their resolution center states a written request may be made to : PayPal , Inc . ATTN : Billing Error Dispute Documentation Request XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX I sent such a request on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX priority mail. Tracking shows it was received XXXXXX/XX/XXXX. I have yet to receive the requested documentation. I then filed a dispute with XXXX XXXX from which my debit card was used for this transaction. My card was cancelled and I was issued a new card. They contacted PayPal and were told the case was closed and they closed my claim. I spoke with them directly and told them even AI knows about this merchant ( XXXX ) fraudulently using people 's credit cards, after receiving a one-time purchase, to enroll them in unauthorized subscriptions. They reopened by case. It all comes down to principles and what is right and wrong. Consumers need to be protected. I am not disputing a cancellation issue. I am disputing an authorized charge because I never knowingly enrolled in a subscription to begin with - this is fraud and PayPal has failed protecting the buyer.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: National Credit Systems,Inc.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
This debt collector has engaged in conduct that violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). They are reporting an account that I did not authorize, and no signed agreement exists bearing my signature to validate any obligation. A legally binding contract requires clear consent from all parties, which is absent in this case. Additionally, the collector has failed to provide proper validation of the alleged debt as required under the FDCPA. Without sufficient documentation verifying the debts legitimacy, their continued reporting and collection efforts are unlawful. These actions constitute violations of my consumer rights. As a result, I demand the immediate deletion of this account from all reporting agencies. Failure to comply may result in further legal action, including claims for damages.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint against Capital One regarding a hold that was placed on a settlement check that I deposited into my account. On XX/XX/year>, I deposited a check in the amount of {$79.00}. The check was issued as part of a settlement related to my former employment with XXXX XXXX XXXX Capital One subsequently placed a two-day hold on the check and informed me that the funds were being delayed because the check might be returned. I believe this action was unreasonable and lacked sufficient justification. Capital One has access to my banking history and can verify that I was previously employed by XXXX XXXX XXXX. My account records contain deposits and transactions associated with that employment relationship, making it possible to confirm that the settlement payment came from a legitimate source connected to my former employer. What is particularly concerning is that the check was for only {$79.00}, yet Capital One delayed access to the funds based on a generalized statement that the check " might be returned. '' Virtually any deposited check could theoretically be returned, and Capital One did not provide any specific reason to believe that this particular settlement check was invalid, fraudulent, or otherwise problematic. As a customer, I expect clear and reasonable explanations when my funds are restricted. In this case, I was not provided with a meaningful justification for why this check required a hold despite the bank 's ability to review my account history and verify my prior employment relationship with the issuer. I am requesting that Capital One explain the specific basis for placing the hold, identify any facts that caused concern about this particular check, and review whether its handling of this deposit was consistent with its policies and obligations to customers. I ask that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate this matter and require Capital One to provide a clear explanation for its actions and review whether the hold was reasonably applied under the circumstances.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation