Consumer complaint received 2021-07-03 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 — Investigation took more than 30 days
Company: Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Our problem stems from a unique XXXX mortgage payment problem -- one that has been amicably resolved with XXXX XXXX

This resolved issue has somehow morphed into an adverse credit agency ( XXXX  ) report of a late XXXX mortgage payment. But there was no late XXXX mortgage payment. 

The original XXXX situation involved an electronic mortgage payment of {$2600.00} XXXX through XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX autopay in the ordinary manner -- same address, same loan number, and same amount paid -- used since XXXX. In early XXXX, wthout any previous notice, call, email or other indication of a problem from XXXX, XXXX informed us that this mortgage payment was floating around in the matrix. It had neither been accepted nor rejected by XXXX. So XXXX informed us that they would return the money to our checking account. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX administering the account under an authorization with XXXX ) called XXXX and determined that : i ) the XXXX XXXX account number had changed ; ii ) the address for payment had changed ; and that iii ) the required payment had been increased by {$3.00}. 

XXXX and XXXX agreed that as soon as the XXXX payment to XXXX was returned to our checking account by XXXX, that XXXX would sent a replacement payment for XXXX, plus {$3.00}. XXXX confirmed the new address, new account number, and that the amount should be {$3.00} higher. As soon as the initial electronic payment was returned to our account, the new payment ( increased by {$3.00} XXXX was sent out by Bank XXXX XXXX. The XXXX payment was electronically transferred to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. 

XXXX understood that the XXXX problem was not just a consumer mistake ; and XXXX, therefore, agreed to waive any late fee for XXXX. When a letter arrived from XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, letter ) confirming this, the letter had also added an unacceptable new term to the previously agreed resolution ; namely, that the waiver was a one-time courtesy waiver. We objected because the " fault '' behind the XXXX situation was mostly XXXX ; and asked that the one-time courtesy characterization should be removed. XXXX agreed, and subsequently sent another letter XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, letter ) confirming the resolution without a late fee, and without that " courtesy '' characterization. Situation resolved. 

Meanwhile, XXXX had tried to adjust the BofA autopay to change the address, the XXXX XXXX, and the amount before the XXXX payment was electronically sent out by XXXX. But XXXX was unable to stop the prescheduled auto payment. So XXXX had XXXX send a separate payment of {$3.00} to XXXX. When XXXX recieved this {$3.00} electronic payment, it called XXXX to ask what this was for. XXXX explained that the customary amount had also been paid electronically on XX/XX/XXXX, but to the customary address and with the loan account number that had been used since XXXX. XXXX confirmed that unlike the XXXX payment, that XXXX had indeed received the {$2600.00}. 

It took XXXX the rest of XXXX to find this payment. At one point, XXXX passed on a demand from its research department that we prove that XXXX had received this money by providing a copy of the front and back of the mortgage check deposited by XXXX. XXXX explained that this was an electronic payment, with XXXX receipt confirmed by XXXX ; and pleaded that XXXX should look for the money on its side. Eventually, XXXX found and accepted that the full payment for XXXX had been timely received by XXXX Bank. At XXXX point in XXXX, XXXX did send another payment to XXXX ; but this money was returned to us once XXXX found the XX/XX/XXXX payment. 

After finding the money, XXXX never asserted that this payment was late ; and XXXX has never asserted any intent or right to charge us a late fee for XXXX. 

But TransUnion, perhaps based on incorrect or incomplete computer information states that our XXXX payment was late. Having learned from hours of phone calls with many XXXX representatives that a systems change was making it difficult for XXXX to get information needed to properly administer loans, we sent a Preservation Letter to XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The letter asked XXXX to preserve evidence of the systems changes and problems that had caused our XXXX payment to float around in the matrix for nearly a month, and then, even though the XXXX payment was electronically received by XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, required almost a month before XXXX could confirm that it had been paid. 

The XXXX response to this XXXX XXXX was an email providing an apology ; but directing us to contact another company " XXXX Mortgage '' that XXXX claimed was servicing our mortgage. This was the first we had heard of XXXX, Dovenmuehle Mortgage XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX ( M.D. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ). 

Because we had never received any correspondence from XXXX XXXX, and never spoke to them on the phone, we called XXXX ( consumer representative XXXX XXXX after receiving the XXXX response to our dispute. We asked how XXXX could report that our XXXX mortgage payment to XXXX was late. The XXXX representative gave us two responses. The first was that this was not an XXXX problem because the XXXX  report was in error. She said that the problem was a XXXX issue ; because XXXX had reported the problem as resolved. 

When we asked for that in writing, the answer changed. The answer then became that our resolution of the XXXX situation would show up as late on a computer report if that XXXX resolution was seen as a payment for XXXX. We explained that XXXX had already agreed to accept the XX/XX/XXXX payment as resolution of the XXXX situation. We also explained that the XXXX payment had been made on time, even though some systems change or problem resulted in it taking almost a month to find the payment received by XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX advised us that the only was to resolve the XXXX credit report was to sue. 

It is possible to imagine a dispute over allocation of fault for the XXXX mortgage payment. But that dispute was resolved. Once we agreed to resend the XXXX mortgage payment, increasing the prior payment amount by {$3.00}, there was no longer any dispute. XXXX understood that because the XXXX payment had been taken out of our account and sent by autopay ( to be received at the normal address and for the normal account number ) that we needed to get the money back into our account before sending it out again by autopay. XXXX considered the issue to be resolved. 

As to our XXXX payment, while some bank system change or problems ( possibly at Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. ) delayed for nearly one month XXXX ability to find that it had accepted ( on a timely basis ) the electronic XXXX payment, there was no late payment for XXXX. 

Our current hypothesis is that the information in the XXXX report as to a late XXXX mortgage payment ( see XXXX  Investigation Results ) was based on an erroneous computer report provided by someone at XXXX XXXX or more likely, by Dovenmuehle ) who was unaware of the resolution worked out with XXXX. Our complicated XXXX payment issue was ultimately resolved ; and XXXX quick action on information provided by XXXX resulted in a full XXXX payment that was also received by XXXX on time. 

The XXXX report of a late XXXX payment seems to be the result of XXXX not doing its job XXXX seems to have relied on a computer report ( possibly from Dovenmuhle although its investigation refers to a computer report from Grantor ) that did not reflect the actual workout process, agreements and final resolution with XXXX. 

As a consumer reporting agency XXXX is obligated to look into the resolution pointed out by a consumer. XXXX breached the duty imposed upon it by 15 U.S.C. section 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) to conduct a reasonable dispute reinvestigation. There can be no doubt but that the XXXX  ( possibly Dovenmuehle ) computer report on which XXXX relied did not reflect the actual workout process, agreements and final resolution with XXXXXXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation