Consumer complaint received 2026-01-07 00:00:00
Product: Prepaid card — General-purpose prepaid card
Issue: Unexpected or other fees — 
Company: Self Financial Inc.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND LEGAL VIOLATIONS Payment Made and Account Standing On or about XX/XX/XXXX, the Complainant, XXXX XXXX, paid the remaining balance owed on his secured credit account in the amount of {$260.00} to Defendant Self Financial , Inc. ( Self ). This account is a secured credit line, funded by the Complainants own money, and was established for the express purpose of building credit. 
Improper Rejection of Lawful Payment Method Despite the payment being valid and lawful, Self failed to properly recognize or process the Complainants primary bank account. As a direct result of Selfs failure, the Complainant was forced to use a secondary payment method. The Complainant informed Self that this was the only bank account available to him, as all attempts to open additional bank accounts had been denied. 
Notice of Federal Law Violations The Complainant explicitly informed Self that denying or mishandling lawful payments on a secured credit account, and threatening adverse action as a result, constituted violations of federal consumer protection laws, including but not limited to : Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., which requires accurate account administration and prohibits unfair or deceptive practices involving credit accounts ; Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., which protects consumers from improper handling of electronic payments ; Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., which prohibits furnishing inaccurate or misleading information and requires reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy ; Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) under 12 U.S.C. 5531, enforced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ).

The Complainant further demanded that his secured payment be properly credited within XXXX hours, warning that failure to do so would constitute a willful violation of federal law. 
Improper Account Closure and False Attribution On or about XX/XX/XXXX, Self unilaterally closed the Complainants secured credit account, citing an alleged statement that the Complainant had requested closure during a prior telephone call on XXXX. This allegation is categorically false. 
At no time did the Complainant : Request account closure ; Provide written authorization to close the account ; Consent to termination of the secured credit line. 
Selfs own policies require verification and confirmation prior to closing a consumer credit account. No such verification occurred. 
Retaliation and Bad Faith The closure occurred immediately after the Complainant asserted his legal rights and objected to federal law violations. The timing and circumstances demonstrate retaliation, bad faith, and willful misconduct, particularly given that the account was secured by the Complainants own funds. 
Frustration expressed by the Complainant during the call was a direct result of Defendants unlawful conduct and does not constitute consent to account termination. 
LEGAL VIOLATIONS Federal Law Violations Truth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1605, 1638 ) Improper administration and termination of a secured credit account without authorization or proper disclosure.

Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693f ) Failure to properly process and investigate electronic payments.

Fair Credit Reporting Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ) Furnishing or causing inaccurate account status information and failing to follow reasonable procedures.

CFPB UDAAP Provisions ( 12 U.S.C. 5531 & 5536 ) Retaliatory account closure, misrepresentation, and abusive conduct. 
State Law Violations ( Generally Applicable ) Breach of Contract Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Conversion of Secured Funds Negligent and/or Intentional Misrepresentation Consumer Protection Act Violations ( state-specific ) SUPPORTING CASE LAW ( Illustrative ) Johnson v. MBNA America Bank, N.A. , 357 F.3d 426 ( 4th Cir. 2004 ) Creditors must conduct reasonable investigations and may not rely on false internal assertions.

Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 ( 2007 ) Willful violations include reckless disregard of statutory duties.

Spokeo , Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 ( 2016 ) Inaccurate credit handling constitutes concrete consumer harm.

In re Sanchez, 941 F.3d 625 ( 2d Cir. 2019 ) Retaliatory conduct following assertion of statutory rights is actionable. 
SUMMARY Defendant Self Financial , Inc. unlawfully mishandled a secured payment, retaliated against the Complainant for asserting federally protected rights, falsely attributed consent to close the account, and terminated a secured credit line without authorization, in violation of federal and state law. 
Included in this complaint is a copy of the email that I sent to the corporation

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation