Consumer complaint received 2026-05-11 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Problem with the payoff process at the end of the loan — 
Company: Affirm Holdings, Inc
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint regarding what appears to be the erroneous charge-off reporting of XXXX financing accounts associated with purchases through XXXX / XXXX XXXX XXXX. I recently discovered that XXXX separate loan accounts were marked as charged off with notices stating that the loans were more than XXXX days overdue. The accounts reflected charge-off dates in XX/XX/XXXX. The issue is that the payment histories displayed within the servicing platform appear inconsistent with a determination that either loan was more than XXXX days past due. For account XXXX, the account history reflects : * Loan processed on XX/XX/XXXX; * Payments made on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX; * A charge-off designation entered on XX/XX/XXXX. For account XXXX, the account history reflects : * Loan processed on XX/XX/XXXX; * Payments made on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX; * A charge-off designation entered on XX/XX/XXXX. Despite these payment histories, the platform displayed notices stating that the loans were charged off because they were more than XXXX days overdue. Based on the timelines shown in the account histories themselves, these representations appear inaccurate or unsupported. The accounts were opened in XX/XX/XXXX, reflected payments continuing through XX/XX/XXXX, and were then suddenly designated as charged off in XX/XX/XXXX. That chronology does not appear consistent with accounts being more than XXXX days overdue at the time of charge-off. Both accounts also reflected same-day adjustment entries on XX/XX/XXXX equal to the remaining balances : * XXXX adjustment : - {$1300.00} * XXXX adjustment : - {$1100.00} These adjustment entries further create confusion regarding the actual account status, accounting treatment, and basis for the charge-off determinations. The concern is not merely the internal display banner itself, but the possibility that inaccurate charge-off status information may have been furnished, reported, or retained regarding these accounts. A charge-off designation is a serious derogatory event that can materially damage a consumers credit profile, lending opportunities, and financial reputation. Reporting accounts as more than 120 days past due and charged off when the displayed payment histories appear inconsistent with that status creates significant concern. In addition, these accounts were opened and extended well after my prior bankruptcy, which occurred more than XXXX years earlier. The accounts were approved, opened, and maintained in apparent good standing during the payment period reflected in the account histories. Under these circumstances, I believe I should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to bring the accounts current or pay the balances owed rather than having the accounts abruptly coded and reflected as charged off under circumstances that appear inconsistent with the displayed payment histories. Bankruptcy discharge for XXXX is enclosed showing discharge date of XX/XX/XXXX. Account were opened and in good standing as of last payment date of XX/XX/XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation