Consumer complaint received 2025-09-05 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: MoneyLion Inc.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Summary of Complaint : On XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX MoneyLion / XXXX XXXX engaged in a series of company-designed practices that obstructed the complainants and likely other consumers ability to resolve charged-off accounts in full. 

Despite available funds, an active mortgage underwriting process, and multiple documented good-faith payment attempts, MoneyLions internal repayment protocols created unreasonable and avoidable barriers to resolution. 

This is not a technical failure ; it is intentional system design. 

The result is material, high-stakes financial harm : The delayed payoff directly threatens the complainants ability to secure a 5.26 % mortgage interest rate. 

If this account can not be resolved immediately, there is a real and urgent risk that mortgage loan approval will be denied entirely. 

MoneyLions obstruction jeopardizes the complainants home purchase and long-term financial stability a life-changing consequence tied directly to these company-created policies.

MoneyLions practices are not federally mandated. They are internally engineered barriers, applied at scale, and they raise significant concerns under : UDAAP for unfair and abusive practices FCRA 623 for furnishing accuracy and reporting consistency CFPB supervisory expectations requiring creditors to provide reasonable repayment pathways Timeline and Evidence of Events 1. Payment Obstruction Immediate Barriers to Payoff Created The complainant initially called MoneyLion on XX/XX/XXXX, to rectify a charged-off account reported on her credit file in preparation for a XX/XX/XXXX mortgage closing. 

Intent to settle first : The complainant first attempted to negotiate a settlement, but the representative stated that MoneyLions policy prohibits settlements.

Pivot to pay-in-full : The complainant immediately offered to pay the balance in full on the call instead. 
Payment plan pushed : Despite multiple refusals, the representative attempted to enroll the complainant in a payment plan three separate times.

Debit card issue introduced : After agreeing to pay in full, the rep requested only the last four digits of a debit card, which the complainant no longer had due to the age of the account. 
Charged-off contradiction surfaced : The complainant stated, Im looking at my credit report, and it says this account is charged off. How is this active? No explanation was provided. 
Request for escalation denied : The complainant asked if she could speak to the department handling charged-off accounts and was told there was no escalations department. She then requested a supervisor and was transferred. 

2. ACH Rejection Blocked Payments From an FDIC-Insured Bank Once transferred, the supervisor offered ACH transfer as the solution. The complainant agreed, but this attempt failed without valid cause.

ACH attempted twice : The complainant provided her XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX account, an FDIC-insured, nationally chartered bank, and was told both attempts failed security clearance. 
No explanation for security clearance : The supervisor could not explain why an FDIC-insured bank failed internal MoneyLion security.

No alternative provided : When the complainant asked what account would pass, the supervisor could not answer and suggested using a different checking account, despite knowing she only maintains one active account.

Complainant attempted to comply at every step but was repeatedly blocked. 

3. Payment Obstruction Forced Into Inactive Platform After ACH rejection, the supervisor stated the only way to proceed was to log into the original MoneyLion platform tied to the loan.

Inactive platform issue : The complainant explained she no longer had access to the associated email account to log in. 
Requested email update : The complainant asked for her email to be updated. The supervisor agreed but required a one-business-day review before access could be restored. 
Supervisor repeatedly slipped, stating, We need to investigate your file I mean review, multiple times on a recorded line.

Supervisor promised to manually expedite the review process so access could be granted sooner.

After review completion, the supervisor revealed that adding a new debit card to the platform would trigger a mandatory five-business-day verification before payment could be processed. 
Complainant again attempted to comply but faced yet another delay. 

4. Payment Obstruction Roar Money Account Requirement The supervisor later called back and stated that in order to make payment, the complainant must open a new MoneyLion XXXX XXXX account and wait up to 710 business days for activation. 

Complainant refused initially, stating : I do not want another account. I want to pay this balance in full, close it, and be done. 
Facing no alternatives, the complainant reluctantly agreed to open the account solely to resolve the debt. 
Before proceeding, the complainant requested written confirmation that she had called in good faith to pay the account in full and that MoneyLions policies and systems were blocking her from doing so.

Supervisor sent an email but minimized the urgency, omitting critical facts like the complainants pending mortgage closing and repeated attempts to comply.

5. Escalation to Customer Advocacy No Contact Provided After sending the email, the supervisor informed the complainant she was escalated to Customer Advocacy and would be contacted within one business day.

The complainant waited the full day and received no call, no email, and no outreach of any kind. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, the complainant called back and requested to speak directly with Customer Advocacy, even offering to provide the case reference number. 
After three separate holds totaling over 45 minutes, the representative stated there is no direct line to Customer Advocacy and that she would just have to wait.

The complainant reminded them of the time-sensitive mortgage closing and warned that she would escalate the matter to the CFPB if unresolved. 
Representative acknowledged the warning but provided no further options or timeline for resolution. 

6. Contradictory Account Classification MoneyLions internal designation of the account conflicted directly with its credit bureau reporting.

MoneyLion referred to the account as active while reporting it as charged-off to all three credit bureaus.

When the complainant disputed this inconsistency during the call, no explanation was provided. 
Furnishing an account as charged-off while treating it as active to the consumer raises potential FCRA 623 violations.

7. Failure to Verify Power of Attorney MoneyLion deviated from standard industry practices by bypassing power of attorney ( POA ) verification.

POA in effect since XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  : The complainants credit file has been under active management by authorized representatives for nearly a year. 
Every other creditor verified POA status before proceeding ; MoneyLion bypassed this step entirely. 
This inconsistency further delayed resolution and introduced additional compliance concerns. 

8. Recorded Admission of Internal Investigation Supervisory statements on recorded calls suggest undisclosed internal review activity tied to the account.

Supervisor repeatedly referred to an investigation into the complainants file before self-correcting to review multiple times.

These statements were made on a recorded line and indicate possible undisclosed actions relevant to the account status. 

Regulatory Implications UDAAP ( Dodd-Frank 5531 ) : Creating avoidable, policy-driven barriers to repayment constitutes an unfair and abusive practice resulting in material consumer harm.

FCRA 623 : Reporting an account as charged-off while treating it as active/open to the consumer introduces potential furnishing violations.

CFPB Supervisory Standards : CFPB expects creditors to provide clear, reasonable, and timely repayment pathways. MoneyLions policies fail this standard at every level.

Important Note : As of XXXX XXXX - Customer Advocacy has still not reached out or responded in ANY way.

Company public response: Company believes the complaint provided an opportunity to answer consumer's questions
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation