vivekkopthsd/cfpb-consumer-complaints huggingface dataset:
Consumer complaint received 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Struggling to pay your loan — Denied request to lower payments
Company: TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
Hello I requested a 2 month extension 12 months ago ( XXXX ) and was told I can request again this year. I told after XXXX XXXX XXXX payment posted I could request 2 month extension. On the call I told representative that I need it for repayment of state taxes. I was told the manager will only approved 1 month. I was told that taxes doesnt qualify, but was what I advised them same issue last year when requested 2 month extension XXXX. I asked for supervisor XXXX told me there policy never changed its one for natural disasters to get the extension. The supervisor said she was the manager when I asked for a manager. Also stated also was no manager on the floor, but she was the manager. I asked her to review last year call and she refused said can not speak for the other representative but she is supervisor and manager. she told me taxes doesnt qualify because we all pay taxes. I feel was treated unfairly and believe that are offering or giving extensions bae on their own personal decisions. I did get 1 month extension only. I was piput back on phone with XXXX the original rep what told me u can only pay with debit card, when last year I paid online with check. I believe they are participating unfair workflow. 



I understand extensions are a courtesy but they need to be consistent on their policies. I would like my account to be reviewed from last year extension and this year. Also should be reviewed.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: HW Holding, Inc
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
The company called me the around XXXX threating me and was very rude refuse d to get me an manger stated my credit will be damage. I advice to do verification he refused and cussed me out ND HUNNGUP IN MY FACE THE LANGUAGE HE USED MADE WE FEEL UNEASY SINCE THEY IN FLORIDA TOO name of company is Hunter Warfield

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: PNC Bank N.A.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
My account was fraudulently charged multiple times for months by non-existent foreign companies. I unfortunately didn't pay close enough attention and it took me a while to realize how much. Some transactions were months old but some had just occurred. Because I didn't report it when it first started happening they refuse to help me. The charges are several per day and in some instances there were as many as 5 in a day for the exact same amount to 5 different companies. It was obviously fraud but PNC Bank won't help me and in fact have charged me over {$1000.00} in fees this year. They are profiting of their inability to keep my funds safe and there seems to be nothing I can do about it.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX, OH XXXX ACCOUNT # XXXX This account never went to a charge off status, which for unsecured credit is 180-days late. This is the law that pertains to the FDIC Act, Code 5000. It takes 180-days late, or a total of 210 days from last payment before an unsecure credit trade line can be values as sub-standard. Accordingly, even though XXXX XXXX was satisfied in full, there is no exception on a charge off tradeline unless the 180-day late timeline has materialized. Therefore, the Charge-Off status is outside the legal guidelines, and must be deleted permanently. 

THIS CHARGE OFF TRADELINE MUST BE DELETED PERMANENTLY!!!

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — 
Company: AMERIS BANCORP
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
The loan officer with XXXX XXXX took the application with buyers who were not qualified with income and credit even after the buyers met the first lender recommending FHA mortgage by adding one of family member ( Son ). 

XXXX Loan officer promised the buyers to get conventional mortgage with 3 % down payment without adding applicants. The first lender explained that there is no way to get conventional or FHA mortgage without adding more applicant 's income. 

XXXX ordered the appraisal inspection out of time scope, and the report delivered two days after due diligent period AND the valuation was {$20000.00} less than contracted price. Maybe XXXX loan officer realized that no possibility to obtain conventional mortgage and explained not to get conventional mortgage due to lack of valuation. 

Even though we knew no possibility of getting a conventional mortgage, the loan officer in XXXX processed the application for conventional mortgage. The loan officer urged the loan application was approved with 3 % down thru conventional mortgage. However, the loan officer didn't provide the approval sheet nor loan estimate to buyers in time manner. " No issue on loan approval but valuation '' urged after getting the appraisal report. However, the officer recognized that income and credit didn't meet XXXX XXXX ' guideline at all. And tried to avoid the responsibility by using less valuation report. 

The loan application couldn't be qualified with conventional mortgage under buyer 's income and credit in the first step. The loan officer was misleading a client to lose a chance to get back earnest money and time to apply correct mortgage program. 
Furthermore, the loan officer resigned XXXX and moved to another mortgage lender before the case ends up. 

Lost {$520.00} appraisal fee, {$370.00} property inspection and {$2000.00} earnest money from loan officer 's negligent and unprofessional business affairs. Total amount was {$2800.00} Last, please ban the loan officer do mortgage business to protect more victims. 

please see attached file for details in time frame.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
THE DISPUTED ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN HINDERING MY CREDIT AND HAS BEEN AFFECTING MY CHANCES OF ACQUIRING NEW CREDIT. PLEASE HAVE THESE ACCOUNTS REMOVE OFF MY CREDIT FILE. THOSE ACCOUNTS ARE CLOSED ACCOUNT THAT ARE REPORTING AS DEROGATORY AND DELINQUENT, PLEASE CONDUCT A REINVESTIGATION INTO THIS MATTER AND HAVE MY CREDIT REPORT UPDATED WITH THE APPROPRIATE ACCOUNT ACCURACIES.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account information incorrect
Company: FC HoldCo LLC
State: ID

Complaint narrative:
Due to the vehicle 's continued safety risks with turning off while driving which locks steering wheel we attempted from XX/XX/XXXX ( 35 days post purchase ) till XX/XX/XXXX to have it fixed through the extended warrenty purchased through the dealership. Every month it was in for the same issue with no remedy found or even the issue. We worked with the lender to voluntarily surrender the vehicle due to safety risk, but were unable to have it deemed. Lemon due to it being a used vehicle at time of purchase. The creditor stated it would show as a voluntary surrender " showing better than a reposession ''. The vehicle was sold at auction and we were informed we had a balance remaining to the lender. 3 debt collectors immediately reached out for payment, none of which had my name as a loan holder so they would not speak with me. XX/XX/XXXX I recieved a call stating I had a court summons due to the outstanding balance. I paid the amount due that day as they called to speak with me. I recieved a notice that the debt was paid in full which was shared with the 3 main credit bureaus. XX/XX/XXXX the account showed paid in full with a zero balance on all 3 major reports. XX/XX/XXXX flagship credit acceptance ( the original loan holder ) reinstated the account details to show the full balance still outstanding. I contacted the representative that I paid the balance through who assured me the account was closed with a paid in full balance and offered to resend the paid off status of the account again to the major bureaus. No chance has been made, I contacted XXXX today who informed me that the dispute on the account balance has been denied as Flagship says that I owe them so case closed. There is no consumer protection in this fashion if they simply take the word of the creditor and not accept the pay off notices that they had already accepted this year.

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 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Trouble with how payments are being handled
Company: AES/PHEAA
State: OR

Complaint narrative:
I have been on an income driven repayment plan for the past 5 years and was recently told that the last 2 years of payments have not counted towards the 120 payments required for public service loan forgiveness plan which I am also enrolled in. There has been no adequate explanation for this. I was initially told that the payments were not for the complete amount charged, however I'm on an auto payment program with no notification of any late payments or inadequate payments. The listed amount has been withdrawn from my account monthly and automatically. In the same conversation with a representative on XX/XX/19 I was then told that there is a " paid in advanced status '' listed on my account which precludes the automatic payments from being counted. Again, I am on an auto pay plan and have not paid anything additionally or in advance. Each time I call the customer representatives are not able to provide any detailed information and tell me that they will submit my account for review by the Treasury Department. This takes months at a time and nothing I receive back has any explanation, just the same " qualifying payment counts. '' I have not ever been able to speak to anyone who has any power to help me with my problem. I have made several requests over the past few months related to this problem. Answers I receive are always different. I feel totally helpless without recourse. Also my loans are broken into 19 distinct loans and I was given a total combined monthly payment which again is on autopay. I have paid the allotted amount given to me ; however some loans are being considered to have fewer payments counted than others. If I was in repayment for all of the loans, which I have always assumed I was because I receive one bill and not 19 separate bills, then why are some loans being counted and not others? No one at Fed Loan has been able to answer this question. Again, I get the same answer that my account will be sent " for detailed review '' but then nothing happens. Please please please help, I feel like I am screaming into a XXXX void, I have not idea what is going on with my loans and am totally at the mercy of this servicer who provides me no documentation of anything.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
THE DISPUTED ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HINDERING MY CREDIT AND HAS BEEN AFFECTING MY CHANCES OF ACQUIRING NEW CREDIT. PLEASE HAVE THIS ACCOUNT REMOVE OFF MY CREDIT FILE. THIS ACCOUNT IS A CLOSED ACCOUNT THAT IS REPORTING AS DEROGATORY AND DELINQUENT, PLEASE CONDUCT A REINVESTIGATION INTO THIS MATTER AND HAVE MY CREDIT REPORT UPDATED WITH THE APPROPRIATE ACCOUNT ACCURACIES.

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 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX, OH XXXX ACCOUNT # XXXX This account never went to a charge off status, which for unsecured credit is 180-days late. This is the law that pertains to the FDIC Act, Code 5000. It takes 180-days late, or a total of 210 days from last payment before an unsecure credit trade line can be values as sub-standard. Accordingly, even though XXXX XXXX was satisfied in full, there is no exception on a charge off tradeline unless the 180-day late timeline has materialized. Therefore, the Charge-Off status is outside the legal guidelines, and must be deleted permanently. 

THIS CHARGE OFF TRADELINE MUST BE DELETED PERMANENTLY!!!

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 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: STERLING JEWELERS, INC.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
KAY JEWELERS XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX, OH XXXX ACCOUNT # XXXX This account never went to a charge off status, which for unsecured credit is 180-days late. This is the law that pertains to the FDIC Act, Code 5000. It takes 180-days late, or a total of 210 days from last payment before an unsecure credit trade line can be values as sub-standard. Accordingly, even though Kay Jewelers was satisfied in full, there is no exception on a charge off tradeline unless the 180-day late timeline has materialized. Therefore, the Charge-Off status is outside the legal guidelines, and must be deleted permanently. 

THIS CHARGE OFF TRADELINE MUST BE DELETED PERMANENTLY!!!

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
State: UT

Complaint narrative:
I.Q. Data International Inc is reporting a debt I do not owe. I made my last payment in XX/XX/2015 and gave a 30 day notice to indicate I was leaving. They are trying to charge me for the entire time that the apartment was vacant before new renters. This debt should be past the statute in California as the date of last activity they have is inaccurate.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Debt settlement
Issue: Unexpected or other fees — 
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I recently turned in a check for {$1100.00} to Wells Fargo on XX/XX/XXXX and was told I wouldnt be able to access the funds until XX/XX/XXXX. The reason being is because Im overdrafted, which doesnt make sense because the amount I deposited was more than enough to make my balance positive. This is highly inconvenient as I have bills and other expenses that are now going to be late because of this absurd policy.

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 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: NM

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/2019 I sent a dispute to equifax stating a violation of my HIPPA rights by XXXX XXXX of which I asked for validation of debt of which they return with statements showing the procedures allegedly in dispute but without a HIPPA release form with my signature on it authorizing the release of my medical records, For this I sent Equifax proof of such violation of which I will attach with this claim. Equifax FAIL to investigate claiming that account was verified when VERIFICATION was not on dispute but rather a VIOLATION of my rights, attached I am sending proof of violation, proof of dispute with equifax, results from equifax investigation. ->.. XXXX XXXX Acct # XXXX XXXX {$120.00}

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Communication tactics — You told them to stop contacting you, but they keep trying
Company: Municipal Collections of America Inc.
State: AR

Complaint narrative:
MCOA KEEPS COLLECTING ON DEBT DISCHARGED IN BK XXXX DISCHARGED XX/XX/XXXX. THEY KEEP COLLECTION FOR ALL CLASS ACTION MEMNBERS. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ETC..

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Collected or attempted to collect exempt funds
Company: Glasser and Glasser, PLC
State: VA

Complaint narrative:
XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Virginia XXXX Glass and Glass P. L. C. 
XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, Virginia XXXX To whom it may concern back in XXXX I advice this company XXXX XXXX XXXX, that I had become XXXX XXXXXXXX and out of work. They have since threaten me on number ours occussion and now they have turn this account over too this law firm which has summoned me to court on XX/XX/XXXX. 

When I first became disable I turned in XXXX benefits forms and they denied me benefits. Im XXXX XXXX  XXXX and on Social Security Benefits. My husband became XXXX back in XXXX and currently in a chair. I have spoken with this company numerous time with no fair results. 

This bill should have been written off under the XXXX benefits.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
Been faxing loan modification since XXXX19, keep saying PROOF OF HARDSHIP my hours dropped reason i went behind see PROOF!

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 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: EQUIFAX, INC.
State: UT

Complaint narrative:
XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a debt I do not owe. I made my last payment in XX/XX/2015 and gave a 30 day notice to indicate I was leaving. They are trying to charge me for the entire time that the apartment was vacant before new renters. This debt should be past the statute in California as the date of last activity they have is inaccurate.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: Experian Information Solutions Inc.
State: UT

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a debt I do not owe. I made my last payment in XX/XX/2015 and gave a 30 day notice to indicate I was leaving. They are trying to charge me for the entire time that the apartment was vacant before new renters. This debt should be past the statute in California as the date of last activity they have is inaccurate.

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 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: UT

Complaint narrative:
XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX is reporting a debt I do not owe. I made my last payment in XX/XX/2015 and gave a 30 day notice to indicate I was leaving. They are trying to charge me for the entire time that the apartment was vacant before new renters. This debt should be past the statute in California as the date of last activity they have is inaccurate.

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 2019-07-11 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Trouble with how payments are being handled
Company: Navient Solutions, LLC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Since the beginning of this year, I have attempted to send Navient my information for an IBR. They have miscalculated my repayment 2 times. ( my income has gone down, yet my payments have gone up considerably. ) I have written to the president of the company. I have turned in my documents three times as of XX/XX/2019. They continue to harass me via phone.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation