Consumer complaint received 2025-10-23 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: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, I made continuous monthly payments through a supervised debt-management program administered by XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and XXXX XXXX  XXXX. Wells Fargo Bank , N.A . and its compliance affiliates participated in this program and represented, through written correspondence, that accounts settled under it would be settled and updated accordingly. 

Relying on this written representation, I completed all required payments, culminating in Wells Fargos XX/XX/XXXX Final Payment Received letter confirming satisfaction in full. However, Wells Fargo failed to perform as represented. Instead, it furnished data to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX  showing Charge-Off / Collection status and omitted my verified two-year payment history. 

This constitutes a deceptive act or practice under CFPA 1031 ( a ) and 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) because it materially misled consumers regarding post-settlement reporting outcomes. It also violates FCRA 607 ( b ) and 623 ( a ) ( 2 ) by furnishing incomplete and misleading information that suppresses credit performance data.

After submitting certified disputes to Wells Fargos Credit Bureau Department and each CRA, the inaccurate information was verified no change, confirming that Wells Fargo never transmitted corrected data. The Bureau has already recognized this conduct as unlawful in CFPB Supervisory Highlights, Issue 32 ( Spring XXXX ), where examiners found furnishers omitted positive information on restructured or settled accounts. 

This pattern is systemic. XXXX XXXX / XXXX issued identical letters to numerous clients, all promising updated tradelines. Wells Fargos corporate compliance division allowed this misrepresentation to persist, producing a pattern of dual representation and consumer deception. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX should compare this case with similar reports nationwide. 

Legal and Judicial Parallels Kamal v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., XXXX. XXXX Bank continued to report a charged-off account while consumer made active DMP payments; settled for {$120000.00} and deletion of tradeline. 

Younger v. Experian Information Solutions , Inc., D. Minn. 2023 18 months of inaccurate reporting post-dispute ; judgment of {$240000.00} ( {$40.00} XXXX actual + {$200.00} XXXX punitive ). 
My case spans over 30 months of verified payment activity with suppressed data and greater harm. 

Evidence Provided : Exhibit A : XXXX XXXX / XXXX correspondence promising settled and updated accordingly. 
Exhibit B : Wells Fargo Final Payment Received letter ( XXXX ). 
Exhibit C : XXXX XXXX, and XXXX  credit reports ( XX/XX/XXXX ). 
Exhibit D : CFPB Supervisory Highlights Issue 32 ( Spring XXXX ). 
Exhibit E : Legal Addendum Active Payment Verification and Ongoing Misreporting ( Exh Q ). 
Exhibit F : Damages Valuation Sheet ( Exh R ). 
Exhibit G : Dual-Track Valuation Summary ( Exh R-Addendum ). 
Exhibit H : Veteran & Medical Impact Statement ( Exh S ). 
Exhibit I : Comparative Case Outcomes Demonstrating Valuation Reasonableness.

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