Consumer complaint received 2025-12-29 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: TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
This submission is not a duplicate complaint. 
Prior CFPB complaints addressed factual inaccuracies in the reporting of this account. This escalation addresses new and independent violations introduced in the furnishers most recent CFPB response, including provably inaccurate payment application, inflation of delinquency through improper accounting, an unsupported Date of XXXX  Delinquency ( DOFD ), and an improper charge-off inconsistent with the furnishers stated policy. These issues arose after notice and require escalation. 



Overview The furnishers response dated XX/XX/XXXX ( transmitted weeks later ) asserts that the accounts reporting was confirmed as accurate. That assertion is demonstrably false. 

The response misapplies payments, ignores overpayments, improperly counts non-qualifying months as delinquent, relies on postcharge-off activity to justify a charge-off, and fails to explain how a XX/XX/XXXX DOFD is legally possible on an account that was delinquent and closed years earlier. 

This is not a disagreement of interpretation. 
It is continued inaccurate reporting after notice. 



XXXX. Misapplication of XXXX Payment to Manufacture Delinquency The furnisher relies on a purported XX/XX/XXXX payment to support its delinquency timeline. This is incorrect. 
The XX/XX/XXXX payment ( {$110.00} ) was applied to the XXXX billing cycle, not to a XXXX statement. 
The XX/XX/XXXX payment ( {$110.00} ) was also applied to the same XXXX cycle. 
There was no separate XXXX billing-cycle payment. 

By treating the XX/XX/XXXX payment as a XXXX payment, the furnisher manufactures an artificial delinquency period that does not exist. 



XXXX. XXXX Overpayment Fully Offset XX/XX/XXXX The XXXX billing cycle reflects XXXX accepted payments, resulting in an overpayment relative to the modified payment obligation. 

That overpayment necessarily carried forward to satisfy the XX/XX/XXXX payment obligation. XXXX therefore can not be treated as an unpaid or newly delinquent month under the payment plan. 

Ignoring the carry-forward effect of this overpayment while selectively reassigning payments backward is improper and inflates delinquency. 



XXXX. False Claim of Underpayment in XX/XX/XXXX The furnisher asserts that payments from XXXX forward were short, beginning with XXXX. This is false. 

XX/XX/XXXX payments : {$120.00} {$34.00} Total XXXX payments : {$150.00} This amount exceeded the reduced payment obligation. XXXX was not underpaid and can not be treated as delinquent. 



XXXX. XXXX Overpayment and XX/XX/XXXX Payment The XXXX overpayment necessarily carried forward to offset the XXXX obligation. 

Additionally : XX/XX/XXXX payment : {$75.00} ( made and accepted ) When XXXX overpayment and XXXX accepted payment are properly applied, XXXX can not be treated as a qualifying delinquency month. 



XXXX. Improper Reliance on PostCharge-Off Activity The furnisher relies on XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX payments to characterize delinquency and justify charge-off. 

This reliance is legally improper. 

Per credit bureau reporting, the account was charged off on XX/XX/XXXX. Once an account is charged off : It can no longer accrue delinquency months Postcharge-off payments are not plan payments Postcharge-off months can not be used to justify the charge-off Using XXXX activity to rationalize a XXXX charge-off is invalid. 



XXXX. Improper and Premature Charge-Off The furnisher charged off the account on XX/XX/XXXX despite : Active payments under modified terms A compliant XXXX payment totaling {$150.00} Accepted payments immediately prior to charge-off Further, the furnishers own correspondence states that charge-off occurs after XXXX  days delinquent, yet this account was charged off at approximately XXXX  days. 

The furnisher fails to explain : Why its stated XXXX policy was not followed How a charge-off was permissible while payments were being accepted How delinquency was calculated without relying on non-qualifying months This constitutes an improper and premature charge-off. 



XXXX. Inflation of Delinquency Using Non-Qualifying Months The furnisher improperly counts XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX as delinquency periods. 

This is incorrect : XX/XX/XXXX was satisfied by XXXX overpayment XX/XX/XXXX was fully paid XX/XX/XXXX was offset by carry-forward credit and an accepted payment XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX occurred after charge-off and can not count Delinquency can not be inflated by counting months that were satisfied, offset, or occurred after the account was already charged off. 



XXXX. Unsupported and Impossible DOFD The furnisher asserts a XX/XX/XXXX XXXX, claiming the account was current in XX/XX/XXXX. 

This is unsupported and contradicted by the record : The account was not current in XX/XX/XXXX Late fees were assessed prior to XX/XX/XXXX Delinquencies date back to XXXX The account was closed due to delinquency in approximately XXXX XXXX A DOFD can not legally occur years after an account has already defaulted and been closed for delinquency. The furnisher provides no legal explanation under FCRA 605 ( c ) reconciling this impossibility. 



XXXX. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation Despite claiming verification, the furnisher : Misapplied payments backward Ignored overpayments forward Counted postcharge-off months as delinquent Charged off the account inconsistently with its own policy Failed to answer the core questions raised This does not meet the standard of a reasonable investigation under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ).

Requested Resolution I respectfully request that the CFPB require the furnisher to : XXXX. Correct or delete the inaccurate payment history XXXX. Provide a written legal explanation citing FCRA 605 ( c ) for the asserted DOFD XXXX. Correct the DOFD and removal date accordingly XXXX. Correct or reverse the improper charge-off XXXX. Delete the tradeline entirely if accurate reporting can not be substantiated Conclusion The furnishers response introduces new inaccuracies, relies on improper accounting methods, and inflates delinquency to justify an otherwise unsupported charge-off. These are continued statutory violations after notice requiring CFPB oversight.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation