Consumer complaint received 2026-04-09 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: Security Credit Services, LLC
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this escalation complaint against Security Credit Services regarding their response to my previous CFPB complaint. Their response contains material misrepresentations, relies on documentation that does not meet legal standards, and reveals multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). SECTION 1 : THE E-SIGNATURE IS NOT VERIFIABLE In their response, Security Credit Services directed me to refer to the e-signature documentation contained within the loan file. Upon thorough review of that file, no actual electronic signature exists. The file contains only metadata about a signing event specifically a timestamp, an IP address, a digital fingerprint hash, and personal identifiers. There is no electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to the record demonstrating intent to sign, which is the legal standard required under the Electronic Signatu res in Global and National Commerce Act ( E-Sign Act ), 15 U.S.C. 700 1 et seq. XXXX alone does not constitute a legally executed electronic signature. Security Credit Services has therefore failed to produce a valid, verifiable signature and can not substantiate that I am legally bound to the terms of this agreement under the E-Sign Act standard. SECTION 2 : SECURITY CREDIT SERVICES MISCOUNTED COMPLETED PAYMENTS IN THEIR OWN RECORDS In their CFPB response, Security Credit Services stated that " XXXX out of XXXX payments were completed. ' However, the payment history contained within their own loan file directly contradicts this claim. The following completed payments are documented : XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX {$140.00} Completed XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX {$140.00} Completed XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX {$140.00} Completed XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX {$71.00} Completed XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX {$71.00} Completed This is XXXX completed payments totaling {$570.00} not 4 as they claimed. A furnisher that can not accurately count completed payments from their own records can not be considered a reliable reporter of account information under FCRA Section 623. SECTION 3 : THE REPORTED BALANCE OF {$860.00} IS MATHEMATICALLY UNVERIFIABLE The lease agreement states the total of all 11 payments would equal {$1500.00}. With 5 completed payments totaling {$570.00}, the remaining contractual balance should be approximately {$990.00}. Security Credit Services is reporting a balance of {$860.00} with no mathematical basis derivable from the contract terms. They have provided no itemized accounting of how this figure was calculated, and it does not reconcile with the original agreement. Reporting an unverifiable balance is a direct violation of FCRA Section 623 ( a ) ( 1 ). SECTION 4 : PREDATORY AND POTENTIALLY UNLAWFUL REBILLING PRACTICES A review of the payment history in their own loan file reveals that SmartPay Leasing whose records Security Credit Services claims to rely upon was attempting to charge the same debit card multiple times per day, sometimes 3 to 5 times on a single calendar date, for the same scheduled payment. This pattern of repeated failed charge attempts on a single monthly obligation artificially inflated the appearance of delinquency in the payment history and may constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5531. SECTION 5 : SECURITY CREDIT SERVICES ADMITTED THEY LACK FULL PAYMENT HISTORY In their response, Security Credit Services explicitly stated that payment activity was handled by XXXX XXXX and that XXXX is not on SCS XXXX report that payment information. ' This is a direct admission that Security Credit Services does not possess complete payment records for this account. A furnisher that lacks full account history can not accurately verify and report the information they are furnishing to the credit bureaus. Reporting account information that can not be fully verified from the furnisher 's own records is a violation of FCRA Section 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) and ( b ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation