Consumer complaint received 2026-05-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt or credit management — Debt settlement
Issue: Didn't provide services promised — 
Company: Consumer Financial Services Solutions, Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I enrolled in Beyond Finances debt settlement program on XX/XX/XXXX with XXXX unsecured debts totaling approximately {$81000.00} and an estimated program term of 54 months. I began making bi-weekly deposits of {$520.00} on XX/XX/XXXX and have continued making those deposits consistently since enrollment. In XX/XX/XXXX, I removed XXXX XXXX Bank debts from the program ( totaling approximately {$7000.00} at enrollment ) because Beyond Finance had failed to initiate contact with XXXX after XXXX years of enrollment, and I successfully negotiated those debts directly with XXXX myself. In addition, I was forced to scramble for and deposit XXXX large lump-sum amounts ( approximately {$6700.00} in XX/XX/XXXX and {$15000.00} in XX/XX/XXXX ) funded entirely through early withdrawals from my XXXX ( k ) retirement account to settle lawsuits brought against me by creditors during the program. I also made a separate voluntary {$3000.00} deposit in XX/XX/XXXX in an attempt to accelerate program completion. Based on my own records and the transaction ledger Beyond Finance has provided me, my total deposits to the program from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX are approximately {$63000.00}. As of today, an additional {$5300.00} in deposits is required before I can graduate the program. Despite this substantial payment history and the significant fees collected by Beyond Finance over nearly XXXX years, I have suffered serious financial harm as a direct result of the companys misrepresentations, bad advice, inaction, and lack of transparency. Misrepresentations and omissions at enrollment : During my enrollment on XX/XX/XXXX, the Beyond Finance representative made the following representations or omissions that turned out to be materially false or misleading : XXXX. I was instructed to stop paying my creditors and was assured Beyond Finance would handle negotiations on my behalf. XXXX. I was told my XXXX XXXX would not take a critical or significant hit. In reality, my XXXX XXXX has dropped from approximately XXXX at enrollment to XXXX a decline of roughly XXXX points that moved me from good credit to poor credit, a different credit tier entirely. XXXX. I was told that legal coverage was included in my program, which implied I would be protected from the financial costs of legal action by creditors. The Beyond Finance representative failed to inform me that this legal coverage was limited to the drafting of court responses, and that I would still be personally responsible for court filing fees, settlement amounts, judgments, and any other costs associated with being sued by creditors. As I later learned when I was sued, the actual legal coverage Beyond Finance provided was the drafting of responses to file in court nothing more. XXXX Finances written credit impact disclosure is materially misleading : XXXX Finances own client-facing materials describe the credit impact of their program as a drop that is temporary and an anticipated part of the debt resolution process, with assurances that the vast majority of clients have reported a full FICO recovery upon graduating. This disclosure fails to warn consumers of the magnitude of the credit damage ( in my case, a XXXX drop from XXXX to XXXX ), the high likelihood of being sued by creditors during the program, and the personal financial liability for settlement amounts, judgments, and court filing fees resulting from those lawsuits. The disclosure characterizes a years-long, tier-changing credit drop and the risk of multiple lawsuits as routine and temporary, which is materially misleading. Lawsuits resulting from Beyond Finances instructions and inaction : Because I followed Beyond Finances direct instruction to stop paying creditors, I have been sued twice during my enrollment. Critically, both lawsuits were a direct result of Beyond Finances refusal to even initiate contact with my creditors to begin settlement negotiations during the early years of my enrollment. When I raised concerns to Beyond Finance about my creditors not being contacted, I was told that they could not call my creditors or begin negotiations because my settlement account did not yet have sufficient funds. This is despite the fact that I was making my required bi-weekly deposits of {$520.00} consistently as agreed, and despite Beyond Finance continuing to collect monthly service fees and other charges from those same deposits throughout that period. The result of this inaction was predictable and avoidable : Bank XXXX XXXX sued me in XX/XX/XXXX approximately 11 months after I enrolled and after I had been instructed to stop paying them because no contact or settlement negotiation had been initiated on my behalf. To resolve this lawsuit, I had to scramble for approximately {$6700.00} on short notice. XXXX Finances program was not funded to cover this amount, and I did not have those funds available in savings. I made the independent decision to take an early withdrawal from my XXXX ( k ) retirement account because it was the only source of funds I had available ; the alternative failing to fund the settlement would have exposed me to a default judgment and likely wage garnishment. Those XXXX ( k ) funds were deposited into my Beyond Finance dedicated account on XX/XX/XXXX as a lump-sum deposit, which Beyond Finance XXXX XXXX to fund the settlement. XXXX sued me in XX/XX/XXXX, again because Beyond Finance had not initiated timely contact or negotiations with this creditor. To resolve this lawsuit, I had to scramble for approximately {$15000.00} on short notice again forced to take an early withdrawal from my XXXX ( k ) for the same reason. Those funds were deposited into my Beyond Finance dedicated account as a lump-sum deposit on XX/XX/XXXX, and Beyond Finance XXXX XXXX them to fund the XXXX settlement. I also paid approximately {$800.00} in court filing fees out of pocket to file the responses Beyond Finance prepared on my behalf. In total, I was forced to make approximately {$22000.00} in emergency lump-sum deposits funded entirely through early XXXX ( k ) withdrawals to settle lawsuits that Beyond Finances refusal to contact my creditors until the account was sufficiently funded made inevitable. These were funds I had not budgeted for and which were over and above the regular bi-weekly deposits I had already committed to the XXXX program. The pattern this reveals : Beyond Finance instructed me to stop paying my creditors, then refused to contact those creditors to negotiate on my behalf until my settlement account had accumulated sufficient funds all while continuing to collect fees from the deposits I was making. The predictable and foreseeable consequence of this pattern was that creditors who were not receiving payments and were not being contacted by Beyond Finance escalated to litigation. This raises serious concerns about whether Beyond Finances fee collection during periods of inaction complies with the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rules prohibition on collecting fees before debts are actually settled, and whether the companys stop paying creditors instruction combined with its refusal to negotiate until funds accumulated constitutes a deceptive or abusive practice under XXXX. Compounded financial harm from forced early retirement withdrawals : The full financial harm caused by Beyond Finances program goes well beyond the {$22000.00} I had to deposit to fund the lawsuit settlements. To be clear, Beyond Finance did not instruct me to withdraw from my XXXX ( k ) retirement account but having been instructed by Beyond Finance to stop paying my creditors, and then facing active lawsuits brought by those creditors with short deadlines to fund settlements and avoid judgments, my XXXX ( k ) was the only source of funds I had available. I made the decision to take early withdrawals because the alternative failing to fund the settlements would have exposed me to further legal action, default judgments, and likely wage garnishment. Because I had to source those funds through early withdrawals from my XXXX ( k ), I incurred significant additional financial penalties that are a direct downstream consequence of Beyond Finances instructions and the lawsuits those instructions produced : XXXX. 10 % IRS early withdrawal penalty on each withdrawal, as I am under retirement age ; XXXX. Federal and state income taxes on the withdrawn amounts, which were treated as ordinary income ; XXXX. Loss of future compound investment growth on the withdrawn retirement funds, which over a working career represents a substantial multiple of the original withdrawal amount ; XXXX. Disruption of long-term retirement planning as a result of liquidating retirement assets to address lawsuits I was assured at enrollment would not occur. To net the approximately {$22000.00} deposited into my Beyond Finance account to settle these lawsuits, I had to withdraw a substantially larger amount from my XXXX ( k ) to cover the early withdrawal penalty and tax withholding. Beyond Finances enrollment representations did not warn me that following their program could put my retirement savings at risk, and their representatives implication that legal coverage was included gave no indication that I might be forced to liquidate retirement funds to settle lawsuits brought by the very creditors Beyond Finance instructed me to stop paying. Beyond Finance is unable or unwilling to provide a fee accounting : After receiving conflicting information about fees and settlements over multiple months, I contacted Beyond Finance on XX/XX/XXXX to request a detailed accounting of how my payments have been allocated specifically, a breakdown of fees charged for each settled debt and how those fees were calculated. A Beyond Finance representative informed me that there is no way for them to send me records of how my payments are being allocated beyond what is visible in my Dedicated Account portal, which only displays generic line items labeled Settlement fee, Monthly Service Fees, and BLP Monthly Fee without identifying which debt the fee applies to, the settled amount, or how the fee was calculated. For example, recent transactions in my account show Settlement fee charges of {$450.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and {$590.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ) with no breakdown of the underlying settlement or fee calculation. Additionally, the transaction ledger Beyond Finance provided to me only covers the period from XX/XX/XXXX onward meaning approximately XXXX months of my deposit and fee history ( from XX/XX/XXXX through early XX/XX/XXXX, representing approximately {$9500.00} in deposits ) is not visible to me in the records Beyond Finance has made available. This is despite my having made bi-weekly deposits of {$520.00} consistently starting XX/XX/XXXX. The companys inability or unwillingness to provide a complete, detailed fee accounting on request and its apparent inability to even produce the first XXXX months of my transaction history prevents me from verifying whether the fees charged comply with the FTCs Telemarketing XXXX XXXX, which requires that fees be proportionally tied to specific settled debts. This lack of transparency is itself a serious concern and supports my request for a full refund of fees paid. Beyond Finance misrepresented how a voluntary additional deposit would be used : On XX/XX/XXXX, I made a voluntary {$3000.00} lump-sum deposit into my Beyond Finance dedicated account, in addition to my regular bi-weekly deposits and the emergency XXXX ( k ) deposit I had made XXXX week earlier to settle the Upstart lawsuit. I made this {$3000.00} deposit specifically because Beyond Finance represented to me that the funds would be used to negotiate my last remaining debt and accelerate completion of the program. I subsequently learned that the {$3000.00} was not used to negotiate or settle my remaining debt as I had been told. Instead, the funds were applied to fees on debts that had already been previously settled. This was a direct misrepresentation about how a specific deposit would be used and a violation of the trust that Beyond Finance solicited from me when asking me to make an additional voluntary payment. This conduct is particularly concerning because it suggests Beyond Finance solicits additional voluntary deposits from clients by representing that those funds will be used for forward-looking settlement activity, while in fact using the funds to back-fill fees on prior settlements. Combined with the companys inability to provide a fee accounting and its refusal to negotiate with creditors until accounts were sufficiently funded, this raises serious concerns about whether Beyond Finance is structuring fee collection in a manner that complies with the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rules requirement that fees be proportionally tied to specific settled debts, and whether the companys representations to consumers about the use of their deposits constitute deceptive practices under UDAAP. I successfully self-negotiated debts Beyond Finance XXXX XXXX to contact, demonstrating that Beyond Finances fees are not tied to value delivered : Of the XXXX debts I originally enrolled with Beyond Finance in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX were debts owed to XXXX Bank XXXX By XX/XX/XXXX approximately XXXX years into my enrollment Beyond Finance had not initiated contact with XXXX regarding either debt. After being sued by Upstart in XX/XX/XXXX ( also a debt Beyond Finance had failed to negotiate timely ), I became concerned that I would face additional lawsuits from Chase if the inaction continued. On approximately XX/XX/XXXX, I called Beyond Finance and removed both XXXX debts from their program so I could negotiate them directly with the creditor. The results speak for themselves : XXXX XXXX # XXXX : Originally enrolled at approximately {$5000.00}. By the time I negotiated directly with XXXX ( after XXXX years of Beyond Finance inaction ), the balance had grown to approximately {$6000.00} due to interest and fees during the delay. I settled this debt directly with XXXX for {$3200.00} less than the original enrolled amount and approximately 54 % of the grown balance. XXXX XXXX # XXXX : Originally enrolled at approximately {$2000.00}. By the time I negotiated directly with XXXX, the balance had grown to approximately {$3000.00}. I settled this debt directly with XXXX for {$1400.00} also less than the original enrolled amount and approximately 49 % of the grown balance. Both XXXX debts were settled easily once I contacted XXXX directly. This directly contradicts Beyond Finances stated rationale for not contacting my creditors ( the settlement account did not yet have sufficient funds ) XXXX was clearly willing to negotiate favorable settlements with minimal effort. To fund these settlements, I again took early withdrawals from my XXXX ( k ) retirement account, incurring the same 10 % early withdrawal penalty, federal and state income taxes, and loss of future compound growth described above. However, by negotiating directly with XXXX rather than through Beyond Finance, I avoided what would otherwise have been approximately {$1700.00} in Beyond Finance fees on these XXXX debts ( calculated at 25 % of the {$7000.00} originally enrolled amount see fee structure concerns below ). Fee structure concerns and misunderstanding : In a call with Beyond Finance on XX/XX/XXXX, when I requested a detailed XXXX XXXX of how my fees have been assessed and how my payments have been allocated, the representative confirmed that Beyond Finances fee structure is 25 % of the originally enrolled amount of each debt. This is materially different from my understanding at enrollment, which was that the fee would be 25 % of the negotiated/settled amount. These XXXX fee structures produce significantly different outcomes : If fees were 25 % of negotiated amounts : a {$10000.00} enrolled debt settled for {$5000.00} would generate a {$1200.00} fee. Under XXXX Finances actual practice of 25 % of enrolled amounts : the same debt would generate a {$2500.00} fee twice as much. Across my {$81000.00} in enrolled debt, this difference in fee structure represents thousands of dollars in fees beyond what I understood I was agreeing to at enrollment. This concern is amplified by XXXX Finances failure to provide a detailed fee accounting that would allow me to verify exactly how fees have been assessed. I am also concerned that charging fees based on enrolled ( rather than settled ) amounts XXXX not satisfy the FTC XXXX XXXX XXXX requirement that fees be proportionally tied to specific settled debts, particularly given that XXXX Finances program structure can result in debts growing significantly during periods of inaction, meaning the fee base ( enrolled amount ) becomes increasingly disconnected from the actual settled amount over time. The cancellation of my XXXX debts also reveals another concern. When I called Beyond Finance to remove the XXXX Chase debts on approximately XX/XX/XXXX, I was not informed of any fees that had already been assessed against those debts ( despite Beyond Finances fee structure being 25 % of enrolled amount ). It is unclear whether fees had been charged on the XXXX debts during the XXXX years they sat in the program unaddressed, whether those fees were refunded upon cancellation, or whether they were quietly retained or applied to fees on other debts. This is precisely the kind of question that a complete fee accounting which Beyond Finance has been unable to provide would resolve. XXXX Finances default practices around payoff and continued withdrawals raise serious consumer protection concerns : In conversations with Beyond Finance about final payoff and program completion, the company disclosed XXXX default practices that I believe warrant the CFPBs attention : XXXX. Refusal to accelerate settlements without explicit instruction, even when funds are available. I was informed that even after I have deposited sufficient funds to settle my remaining debts, Beyond Finance will not accelerate the disbursement of those settlements unless I specifically instruct them to do so. Their default behavior is to disburse settlements slowly over the originally scheduled program timeline through XXXX, regardless of whether the funds in my dedicated account are sufficient to settle the remaining debts immediately. Because Beyond Finance continues to collect monthly service fees ( {$10.00} ) and other recurring fees ( BLP Monthly Fee {$14.00} ) for the entire duration that debts remain in Payments In Progress status, this default practice has the effect of maximizing the fees Beyond Finance can collect at the consumers direct expense. A consumer who is not aware that they must affirmatively request acceleration will pay months or years of additional fees that could otherwise be avoided. XXXX. Continued bi-weekly withdrawals beyond what is needed to complete the program, with refund at end as the default remedy. Beyond Finance also informed me that the bi-weekly {$520.00} XXXX withdrawals from my bank account will continue uninterrupted until the end of the originally scheduled program in XXXX, unless I specifically instruct them to stop. They explained that at the end of the scheduled program, their system performs an audit and refunds any overpayments. This means XXXX XXXX default practice is to continue withdrawing money from a consumers checking account even after the program is fully funded, hold those overpaid funds without interest, and only return them at the end of the original scheduled term placing the burden entirely on the consumer to know to instruct them otherwise. Together, these XXXX default practices appear designed to extend the duration of consumers enrollment, maximize fee collection, and float consumer funds for extended periods. A consumer who is not financially sophisticated, who does not know to ask the specific questions I asked, or who simply trusts Beyond Finance to act in their best interest, will be financially harmed by these defaults. These practices raise serious concerns under the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices ( XXXX ) specifically, the prohibition on practices that take unreasonable advantage of the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service, and the prohibition on practices that take unreasonable advantage of the reasonable reliance by the consumer on a covered person to act in the interests of the consumer. Beyond Finances in-app representations of program progress are misleading : The Beyond Finance XXXX app displays an Enrolled Debt screen that prominently features XXXX figures : Total Enrolled Debt : {$81000.00} and Estimated Debt Reduction : {$40000.00}. This {$40000.00} figure is displayed as a benefit of the program, suggesting savings of approximately 50 % of my enrolled debt. The actual financial reality is very different. As of XX/XX/XXXX, I have : Deposited approximately {$63000.00} into Beyond Finances program since XX/XX/XXXX, including approximately {$22000.00} in emergency lump-sum deposits funded by XXXX ( k ) withdrawals to settle lawsuits, and a separate voluntary {$3000.00} deposit made in an attempt to accelerate program completion ; Paid approximately {$800.00} in court filing fees out of pocket as a direct result of lawsuits the program made highly likely ; XXXX accounts Synchrony Bank XXXX {$2400.00} ), Bank of XXXX XXXX {$7500.00} ), and Upstart ( {$14000.00} ) still showing as Payments In Progress rather than settled, totaling {$24000.00} in unresolved debt ; An additional {$5300.00} remaining to deposit before graduating from the program. By the time I complete the program, I will have paid approximately {$69000.00} in deposits to Beyond Finance ( {$63000.00} already deposited plus the {$5300.00} remaining ), plus approximately {$800.00} in out-of-pocket court costs, plus the substantial additional cost of XXXX ( k ) early withdrawal penalties, taxes, and lost compound growth against {$81000.00} in original debt. The program will have inflicted a XXXX credit drop, XXXX creditor lawsuits, and depletion of retirement savings along the way. The apps prominent display of a {$40000.00} Estimated Debt Reduction does not reflect XXXX XXXX fees, does not reflect the costs of lawsuits the program made highly likely by instructing me to stop paying creditors, does not reflect the retirement losses I was forced into to fund those settlements, and is materially misleading as a representation of the programs actual financial impact on my situation. Concerns regarding compliance with federal law : The FTCs Telemarketing XXXX XXXX ( XXXX CFR XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ) prohibits debt relief companies from charging fees before settling a consumers debt, and requires that fees be proportionally tied to specific settled debts. XXXX Finances inability to produce a fee-by-fee accounting raises serious questions about whether the fees collected from me comply with this rule. XXXX Finances practice of continuing to collect fees during the lengthy periods in which it refused to contact my creditors citing insufficient settlement account funds raises additional questions about compliance with this rule. XXXX Finances fee structure of 25 % of originally enrolled amounts ( as opposed to negotiated/settled amounts ), particularly in combination with its practice of allowing debts to grow during periods of inaction, further raises questions about whether the fees are proportionally tied to specific settled debts as the XXXX requires. The companys specific misrepresentation that my {$3000.00} voluntary deposit would be used to negotiate my final remaining debt, when it was in fact applied to fees on previously settled debts, raises further serious concerns about both XXXX XXXX XXXX compliance and the truthfulness of representations made to solicit voluntary additional payments. I am further concerned that the representations made at enrollment regarding credit impact and legal coverage, combined with the companys materially misleading written disclosures, in-app representations of program savings, and default practices that maximize fee collection and float consumer funds without consumer benefit, XXXX constitute deceptive or abusive practices under the XXXX Acts prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices ( XXXX ). XXXX requested : I am requesting a full refund of all fees collected by Beyond Finance from my account since enrollment on XX/XX/XXXX. The companys misrepresentations, instructions, and inaction led directly to XXXX lawsuits, the forced liquidation of retirement savings ( including the associated 10 % early withdrawal penalties, federal and state income taxes on the withdrawn amounts, and loss of future compound growth ) to fund settlements totaling approximately {$22000.00} ( plus additional XXXX ( k ) withdrawals to settle the XXXX XXXX debts I had to negotiate directly ), approximately {$800.00} in out-of-pocket court costs, a XXXX drop in my XXXX XXXX, and a program that when complete will have cost me approximately the same amount as the original {$81000.00} in enrolled debt while leaving me with severely damaged credit and depleted retirement savings. These outcomes are the opposite of what I was promised when I enrolled in this XXXX program. I am additionally requesting that the CFPB investigate XXXX Finances default practices of ( a ) refusing to accelerate settlements when funds are available without explicit consumer instruction, and ( b ) continuing bi-weekly bank withdrawals beyond what is needed to complete the program until the end of the originally scheduled program term, with refund of overpayments only at audit. These defaults appear designed to maximize fee collection and float consumer funds at consumer expense, and I believe they warrant investigation regardless of the outcome of my individual refund request. I am also requesting that the CFPB investigate XXXX Finances fee structure of 25 % of originally enrolled debt amounts particularly in light of its practice of allowing debts to grow during extended periods of inaction. I request investigation of whether this fee structure complies with the FTC XXXX XXXX XXXX requirement that fees be proportionally tied to specific settled debts, and whether XXXX Finances representations at enrollment about the fee structure were materially clear regarding whether fees would be based on enrolled or negotiated amounts. Given Beyond Finances inability to provide a complete and detailed fee accounting on request, I am also requesting that the CFPB direct the company to produce : ( XXXX ) a complete, itemized accounting of every fee charged to my account from XX/XX/XXXX forward ; ( XXXX ) the specific debt each fee was associated with ; ( XXXX ) how each fee was calculated ; ( XXXX ) whether any fees were assessed on the XXXX Chase debts during the XXXX years they sat in the program before I removed them, and if so, whether those fees were refunded ; and ( XXXX ) the missing transaction records from XX/XX/XXXX through early XX/XX/XXXX that are not reflected in the ledger I was provided.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation