Consumer complaint received 2025-11-08 00:00:00
Product: Debt or credit management — Credit repair services
Issue: Charged upfront or unexpected fees — 
Company: Early Warning Services, LLC
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I paid {$1200.00} via Zelle through my XXXX  XXXX XXXX account to a business/person called XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Official ( phone number XXXX ), operated and owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I was led to believe this was a legitimate credit repair and identity theft recovery service. XXXX XXXX claimed she was an experienced credit and fraud XXXX who could file official complaints with the FTC and CFPB, complete my FTC Identity Theft Affidavit, and contact credit bureaus to remove fraudulent accounts appearing on my credit report. After paying her, I learned these claims were false and misleading. XXXX and XXXX XXXX. False Federal Procedure Claims XXXX XXXX repeatedly stated in writing that the FTC and CFPB are the same agency. This is factually untrue. The FTC and CFPB are separate federal entities with different functions. She also stated that the FTC Identity Theft Affidavit only allows XXXX accounts, which is false the FTC form itself allows additional pages for more accounts. These statements demonstrate a lack of knowledge and intentional misrepresentation of how federal identity theft processes work. XXXX. Improper Use of Notarized Documents XXXX XXXX admitted in writing that she reuses a single notarized affidavit and swaps out the pages listing accounts for different clients. This practice is improper and invalidates the notarization, as notaries must witness the actual document being signed. This raises serious questions about the authenticity of any document she created using my personal information. XXXX. Nonperformance of Promised Services She promised to complete FTC filings, CFPB complaints, and creditor notifications within 90 days of payment. No such actions were ever completed. She provided no tracking numbers, confirmation letters, or copies of complaints. My credit reports remain unchanged, and I have no evidence of any legitimate work performed. XXXX. Refusal to Refund After Misrepresentation When I confronted her about the lack of work, I offered to let her keep {$250.00} for her time and refund {$1000.00}. She declined the refund request on XX/XX/year>, via Zelle, despite acknowledging delays and issues filing. She insisted she doesnt refund just because you think work hasnt been done, yet provided no proof of completed work. XXXX. Concealment of Third Parties XXXX XXXX initially told me she works alone. Later, when I questioned the inconsistencies, she admitted others perform the work. This was never disclosed before payment. Its unclear who had access to my personal identifiable information ( PII ) such as my SSN, ID, and credit reports raising data privacy and potential identity theft concerns. Evidence Provided Attached are : Proof of Zelle payment ( {$1200.00} on XX/XX/year> ) Refund request ( {$1000.00} on XX/XX/year> ) and decline notice ( XX/XX/year> ) Email correspondence where XXXX XXXX : Misrepresents FTC and CFPB as the same entity, Admits to reusing notarized pages, Refuses refund after failing to deliver services. My separate CFPB complaint filed against XXXX XXXX XXXX under XXXX XXXX XXXX, for violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act ( XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ). 

In her email correspondence, XXXX XXXX also stated that she reuses the same notarized affidavit page while swapping out the attached account pages. This admission raises serious concerns about improper notarization practices and further supports that this transaction was obtained through misrepresentation. I have not and will not forward the notarized documents to be swapped as each new document has to be reviewed by the notary prior to notarizing the documents. This in itself is misrepresentation and potentially fraud behavior under consumer and notary law. 

While I did authorize the Zelle payment itself, I did not authorize fraudulent activity or misrepresentation. My authorization was based on the false and deceptive claims made by the business regarding their services and federal filing procedures. Therefore, this payment should be treated as a case of fraudulent inducement and misrepresentation, not a standard authorized transaction.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation