Consumer complaint received 2026-04-06 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — VA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue while managing or servicing your loan
Company: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
CFPB SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT Truist Bank CFPB Complaint ID : XXXX Re : Supplemental Complaint and Rebuttal to Truists XX/XX/XXXX Response Truists XX/XX/XXXX response fails to address material evidence, omits critical facts, and reflects an investigation that was neither reasonable nor complete under XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ) or XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ). Key Undisputed Fact : Truist has admitted that its notice did not indicate the loan restriction status which prevented [ the borrower ] from processing a regular payment. This complaint can be resolved administratively based on this admitted notice deficiency and the borrowers documented good-faith payment attempts. The factual background, payment chronology, and deficiencies described in the borrowers XXXX and VA XXXX XXXX XXXX complaints are incorporated herein by reference. The Core Issue : A Pattern, Not a Single Error Preliminary note : I acknowledge that prior returned ACH payments in XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX resulted in Truist imposing a guaranteed funds restriction on my account. Truists XX/XX/XXXX response also references a letter mailed XX/XX/XXXX, regarding this restriction. The issue before the CFPB is not whether the restriction was warranted or whether a letter was mailed. The issue is whether Truist provided operationally clear instructions on how to comply with the restriction. Truists own XX/XX/XXXX response admits that its notice did not indicate the loan restriction status which prevented [ the borrower ] from processing a regular payment. If even Truists own XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) could not resolve the issue at the branch level and had to direct the borrower to the mortgage department, the restriction was not effectively communicated to Truists own personnel let alone to the borrower. This complaint involves a documented pattern of inconsistent, contradictory, and operationally deficient instructions provided by Truist across every servicing channel to a 100 % Permanent and Total XXXX Combat Veteran ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) with XXXX VA-recognized service-connected conditions including XXXX, XXXX, and hearing XXXX : XXXX. Online Portal : Payment failed to process. No clear error or restriction notice. I informed Truist I could not complete payment online. XXXX. Mortgage Phone Operators ( Call XXXX ) : I called Truist. I informed the operator of my XXXX and hearing loss. I requested instructions. I followed them. The payment attempt failed. XXXX. Mortgage Phone Operators ( Call XXXX ) : I called again. I again informed the operator of my XXXX. I again followed their instructions. The payment attempt again failed. XXXX. Branch Teller ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : I went in person. I informed XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) of my XXXX. I confirmed payment by check was acceptable. She confirmed it was. She accepted and receipted the payment. It was returned XXXX days later. XXXX. Teller Voicemail ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : XXXX XXXX left a voicemail confirming she accepted the payment, asking if borrower resolved the issue by phone, and directing borrower to the mortgage department at XXXX confirming branch personnel were unaware of the restriction. I have preserved this voicemail recording. A transcription is attached as Exhibit XXXX. XXXX. Branch Manager ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Could not explain why the accepted payment did not post. Had to contact the mortgage department. XXXX. Written Notice ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Required guaranteed funds but directed payment online, by phone, or by mail. Did not define the term or explain compliance. XXXX. Internal Resolution Specialist ( XXXX ) : Spoke with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Client Resolution Research XXXX. XXXX XXXX advised escalation to the VA confirming the issue could not be resolved at Truists resolution level. Truists Critical Admission Establishes Servicer-Caused Delinquency Truists own response states : The letter did not indicate the loan restriction status which prevented you from processing a regular payment. This is not a minor procedural admission. It supports causation. Truist : ( XXXX ) imposed a payment restriction on my account; ( XXXX ) failed to clearly communicate that restriction; and ( XXXX ) that failure materially contributed to my inability to make a compliant payment despite multiple good-faith attempts. Despite acknowledging this deficiency, Truist did not evaluate whether its failure to provide adequate notice contributed to the reported delinquency and did not correct the reporting. The reported delinquency was not the result of nonpayment. It was materially affected by Truists failure to provide clear and accurate payment instructions and its subsequent handling and return of payments made in good faith. The issue is not whether a payment posted after a due date, but whether the servicers own conduct including deficient notice, inconsistent instructions, and failure to investigate identified communications materially affected the borrowers ability to make a compliant payment, rendering the reported delinquency at minimum materially misleading. But for Truists failure to provide operationally clear instructions regarding the guaranteed-funds restriction, the XX/XX/XXXX payment would have been successfully completed and no delinquency would have occurred. Truists own conduct prevented the borrower from making a timely compliant payment, and therefore the resulting delinquency reflects a servicer-caused failure rather than a true payment default. Point-by-Point Rebuttal to Truists XX/XX/XXXX Response The following addresses each specific deficiency in Truists response, with the applicable legal obligation identified : XXXX. FAILURE TO ADDRESS REQUESTED CALL RECORDINGS Legal obligation : XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ) requires a servicer to conduct a reasonable investigation of a Notice of Error and provide a written response that addresses the asserted error. My Notice of Error expressly required Truist to preserve and review call recordings from XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, identify calls by date, time, and department, and provide written summaries of payment instructions given. Truists response does not reference call recordings, does not confirm whether they were retrieved, and does not provide any summary of instructions. This is a material omission because the core issue is whether I relied on instructions provided by Truists own representatives and whether those instructions were accurate. XXXX. FAILURE TO ADDRESS MY INBOUND CALLS Legal obligation : XXXXXX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ) requires a furnisher upon dispute to review all relevant information provided. I contacted Truist Mortgage Phone Operators on XXXX separate occasions after I was unable to complete payment online. On each call, I informed the operator of my XXXX and requested instructions. Truists response references only outbound collection activity ( XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX ). It does not acknowledge that I called Truist, what instructions I was given, or whether those instructions were accurate. Truist substituted its own outbound collection attempts for actual investigation of the inbound communications that are central to this dispute. This omission is critical because my dispute centers on reliance on Truists own instructions. XXXX. FAILURE TO ADDRESS TELLER INTERACTION AND VOICEMAIL Legal obligation : XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( an act is deceptive when a representation misleads a consumer acting reasonably ). On XX/XX/XXXX, I confirmed with XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) that payment by personal check was acceptable. She confirmed it was. She accepted the payment and issued a receipt. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX left a voicemail ( Exhibit XXXX ) in which she confirmed she had accepted a mortgage payment from me, asked if I had been able to resolve anything by phone, and provided the direct number for the mortgage department as XXXX. This contemporaneous communication reflects that, immediately after accepting the payment, branch-level personnel were not able to resolve the issue and directed the borrower to the mortgage department. Notably, the number XXXX XXXX provided differs from the number on Truists XX/XX/XXXX letter ( XXXX ). Truists response does not address XXXX XXXX confirmation of the payment, her follow-up voicemail, or this phone number discrepancy. XXXX. FAILURE TO ADDRESS BRANCH MANAGER ESCALATION Legal obligation : XXXXXX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) requires investigation of the specific error asserted, including servicer communication failures. In XX/XX/XXXX, the Branch Manager was unable to explain why the XX/XX/XXXX payment did not post despite having been accepted and receipted. She had to contact the mortgage department for clarification. Truists response does not address this escalation or the internal confusion it reveals. This is evidence that the guaranteed funds restriction was not communicated to branch-level personnel. XXXX. CONTRADICTORY AND INCOMPLETE GUARANTEED FUNDS NOTICE Legal obligation : XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( an act is unfair when it causes substantial injury not reasonably avoidable and not outweighed by countervailing benefits ) ; XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( unfair or deceptive trade practices ). Truists XX/XX/XXXX notice stated guaranteed funds are required due to the loan status. The same notice directed payment online, by phone, or by mail. The notice did not define guaranteed funds, did not identify acceptable payment forms ( cashiers check, money order, wire transfer, etc. ), and did not explain how paying online, by phone, or by mail would satisfy the restriction. This notice was not merely unclear it was an operationally unclear and materially incomplete instruction. The XXXX listed payment methods are standard non-guaranteed channels, yet the notice simultaneously required guaranteed funds. These instructions directly contradict each other. A reasonable consumer could not determine from this notice what action to take. The resulting harm was not reasonably avoidable because I relied on Truists own notice and representatives. Truists own response admits this notice was deficient. Truist required guaranteed funds while directing payment through channels that do not operationally accept guaranteed funds without additional instruction, rendering compliance not reasonably achievable. An adequate notice would have : ( XXXX ) defined guaranteed funds ; ( XXXX ) identified which specific payment forms satisfy the restriction ( e.g., cashiers check, money order, wire transfer ) ; ( XXXX ) identified which payment channels accept those forms; and ( XXXX ) provided a specific phone number and point of contact for assistance. Truists notice did none of these. XXXX. FAILURE TO EXPLAIN ACH DEBIT AND RETURN Legal obligation : XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( errors relating to the payment of a periodic payment ) ; XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ( investigation and response to qualified written requests and NOEs ). The record shows that an ACH payment of {$2600.00} was debited from my bank account on XX/XX/XXXX, and returned by Truist on XX/XX/XXXX. My Notice of Error requested transaction detail and return information, including return codes and trace data. Truists response does not explain why the ACH was accepted and then returned, what system condition caused the return, or produce the requested return data. XXXX. FAILURE TO EXPLAIN ACCEPTANCE AND RETURN OF CHECK PAYMENT Legal obligation : XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( harm not reasonably avoidable when borrower relies on servicers own confirmation ) ; XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ). The XX/XX/XXXX payment of {$2700.00} was accepted at the branch, receipted by the teller, and then returned XXXX days later by disbursement check on XX/XX/XXXX. Truists response states only that the funds were not in the form of guaranteed funds. It does not address why the payment was accepted initially, why branch personnel confirmed it was acceptable, or why the branch did not know about the restriction. A payment accepted and receipted by the servicers own branch creates reasonable reliance. XXXX. XXXX CONTEXT ( SUPPLEMENTARY ) Legal context : XXXX XXXX. XXXX ;XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). This section provides supplementary context for the primary RESPA, FCRA, and UDAAP claims above. It is not asserted as the central legal theory. My Notice of Error stated that I am a 100 % Permanent and Total XXXX veteran with XXXX, XXXX, and hearing loss requiring VA-issuedXX/XX/XXXXXXXX. It expressly invoked XXXX XXXX. XXXX and requested reasonable accommodation including clear written payment instructions and written summaries of telephone guidance. I informed Truist of my XXXX on every interaction : XXXX phone calls, with XXXX XXXX, in person with the teller, and in person with the Branch Manager. Truists response does not acknowledge the accommodation request, does not reference my XXXX, and relies on unanswered telephone calls as evidence of adequate communication to a veteran with documented hearing loss. Truist did not acknowledge or respond to the accommodation request despite being informed of hearing-related limitations on every interaction. XXXX. CONCLUSORY DENIAL WITHOUT CAUSATION ANALYSIS Legal obligation : 15 U.S.C. XXXX ( b ) ( furnisher must conduct a reasonable investigation and review all relevant information ) ; XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( reasonable policies to ensure accuracy and integrity of furnished information ). Truists response states : Our review indicates that our reporting to the credit agencies has been accurate ; therefore, an update is not warranted. This statement is conclusory. It relies solely on payment posting dates without evaluating whether Truists own instructions contributed to the payment failure, whether inconsistent guidance across channels prevented timely payment, or whether the reported delinquency was servicer-caused and therefore materially misleading under 15 U.S.C. XXXX ( a ). A reasonable investigation under the FCRA requires review of all relevant information not merely a payment ledger. Complete Escalation Chain Every internal remedy was exhausted : front-line operators branch ( XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX branch manager written notice Notice of Error Client Resolution Research XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who advised escalation to the VA ) CFPB complaint this supplemental complaint. Despite reaching Truists Officer-level resolution staff, the issue was not resolved internally. XXXX and Communication Failure I informed Truist of my XXXX on every single interaction : on XXXX phone calls to Mortgage Phone Operators, with Client Advocacy, in person with XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), and in person with the Branch Manager. Each time I explained I have hearing loss requiring XX/XX/XXXXXXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and that I need clear, consistent instructions. Truists reliance on unanswered collection calls ( XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX ) as evidence of adequate communication to a veteran with documented hearing loss is inappropriate and raises concerns under XXXX XXXX. XXXX and XXXX XXXX. XXXX. Federal and State Laws Implicated by Truists Conduct Applicable case law standard ( XXXX XXXX ) : In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX held that when a furnisher does not already possess evidence establishing that disputed information is true, the FCRA requires the furnisher to seek out and obtain evidence before reporting the information as verified. In XXXX v. XXXX University, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX held that technically correct information XXXX nonetheless be inaccurate under the FCRA if, through omission, it creates a materially misleading impression. Truists reporting of a XXXXday delinquency without context omitting its own admitted notice deficiency, its inconsistent instructions, and the borrowers multiple good-faith payment attempts creates precisely such a materially misleading impression. Distinguishing adverse precedent : In XXXX v. XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the XXXX XXXX held that delinquency reporting was accurate where the borrower was making reduced forbearance payments below the contractual amount. That case is distinguishable because the borrower in XXXX was informed of and understood the forbearance terms. Here, the borrower was not informed of how to comply with the guaranteed funds restriction Truist admits this. Additionally, courts that have upheld delinquency reporting have done so where the borrower failed to follow clear payment instructions. Here, the instructions were not clear they were contradictory and operationally incomplete, and Truists own branch employee could not resolve the issue. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ; XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( RESPA ) : Inadequate investigation of Notice of Error. Failed to address inbound calls, branch interactions, voicemail, or XXXX. 15 U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) and ( b ) ( FCRA ) : Furnishing information the furnisher has reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. Conclusory investigation without meaningful review of disputed facts. XXXX XXXX. Part XXXX, Regulation XXXX : Failure to maintain reasonable policies to ensure accuracy and integrity of furnished information. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) : Deceptive notice ; harm not reasonably avoidable ; substantial injury. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX supplementary ) : Failure to respond to formal accommodation request. Supporting context for primary claims. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) : Unfair and deceptive trade practices. XXXX XXXX. XXXX : Communication of information regarding indebtedness known to be misleading. Documented Harm Credit score damage : On XX/XX/XXXX before the delinquency was reported my credit scores were :XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ( Good ),XX/XX/XXXXXXXX,XX/XX/XXXXXXXX. As of XX/XX/XXXX, my XX/XX/XXXXFICO Score XXXX has dropped to XXXX ( Fair ) a XXXX decline closely associated in time with the reported XXXXday delinquency. Screenshots documenting both pre-incident and post-incident scores are attached as Exhibit XXXX. Livelihood impact : I am a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business ( XXXX ) owner registered with SAM.gov. Government contracts in my target range require surety bonding, and bonding underwriters evaluate personal credit as a primary factor in determining bonding capacity and premium rates. The XXXX credit score decline from XXXX ( Good ) to XXXX ( Fair ) has materially impaired my ability to pursue government contracts requiring bonding. I have been deterred from submitting bonding applications for contracts I would otherwise pursue because the current score creates a material risk of denial or less favorable underwriting terms. This directly affects my livelihood. My business operations are supported by attached documentation confirming active Florida XXXX registration and federal XX/XX/XXXXcertification ( Exhibits XXXX and XXXX ). Additional Context Regarding Communication Limitations : Due to my service-connected XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( TBI ) , I am prescribed and take multiple daily medications as part of my ongoing VA treatment. The VAs own XX/XX/XXXX Rating Decision assessed my XXXX as causing occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity including mild memory loss, such as forgetting names, directions or recent events and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. These documented cognitive effects, in combination with medication side effects and documented hearing loss requiring VA-issuedXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( subsequently diagnosed by VA audiology with tinnitus and mild bilateral hearing loss, for whichXX/XX/XXXXXXXX were prescribed ), increase my reliance on clear, consistent, and unambiguous communication when managing financial obligations. Ongoing Treatment and Documentation : I am under continuous medical treatment for my service-connected XXXX, anxiety, and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ), which includes multiple prescribed daily medications for XXXX, XXXX, anxiety, pain, and related conditions. Documentation of this treatment can be provided if necessary as this matter proceeds. Conclusion Taken together, the documented servicing failures, admitted notice deficiency, incomplete investigation, and resulting measurable credit and business harm demonstrate a servicer-driven breakdown that has produced materially misleading reporting requiring correction. Notice of Intent If Truist does not correct the inaccurate reporting within XX/XX/XXXX days, I intend to pursue all available remedies including private action under 15 U.S.C. XXXX and XXXX ( FCRA ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( f ) ( RESPA ), XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) in the United States District Court, XXXX XXXX of Florida, XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX 100 % VA XXXX and Total XXXX Veteran

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation