Consumer complaint received 2026-06-10 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Getting a loan or lease — Credit denial
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: IN

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this formal complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union for material non-compliance with consumer lending disclosure, fraud protection, and dispute investigation mandates under federal law. I am a consumer with an established personal credit history spanning over five years. Because I have previously been a victim of identity theft, I have a formal, active fraud alert and identity theft blocks properly placed on my consumer credit profiles to protect my personal credit data. Recently, I su bmitted a standard consumer credit application to Navy Federal Credit Union utilizing my Social Security Number ( SSN ). Navy Federal subsequently issued an adverse action on the application, citing a generic, boilerplate reason of " insufficient credit history. '' This claim is factually impossible and directly contradicted by my five-plus years of active, established consumer trade lines. It is apparent that Navy Federals automated underwriting system ( XXXX ) either completely misread the credit bureau blocks associated with my active fraud alert or utilized the fraud flag as an administrative excuse to automatically reject the file to avoid conducting the mandatory manual identity verification procedures required by law. When I utilized Navy Federals secure online messaging portal to formally notify them that inaccurate and fraudulent data was impacting my profile, their customer service team refused to cooperate or offer a legitimate path for a manual review. On XX/XX/year>, Navy Federal sent a final communication stating verbatim : " Unfortunately, our underwriters do not speak directly to members. We consider this matter addressed and will no longer respond regarding it. '' ( Please see the attached screenshot evidence, " image.png '' ). By implementing a complete communication blackout and explicitly refusing to correspond further with a consumer regarding a disputed lending file, Navy Federal Credit Union is in direct violation of multiple federal statutes : 1 VIOLATION OF THE DIRECT DISPUTE RULE ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 8 ) and 12 CFR 1022.43 ) : Under the FCRA Furnisher and Direct Dispute mandates, a financial institution is strictly prohibited from ignoring a consumer 's direct notification of data inaccuracies. Upon receiving notice that inaccurate data is impacting an application, the institution is legally mandated to conduct a reasonable investigation into the disputed information and review all relevant information provided by the consumer. Terminating communication via an online portal and stating they " will no longer respond '' is an explicit evasion of this statutory duty. XXXX VIOLATION OF FRAUD ALERT MANDATES ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( h ) ) : Lenders are strictly prohibited from establishing a new credit plan or extension of credit when an active fraud alert is present unless they utilize reasonable policies and procedures to verify the true identity of the applicant. Utilizing an automated, generic denial to clear a file from a queue because a fraud flag is present, rather than performing the required identity verification, directly circumvents these federal consumer protections. XXXX VIOLATION OF ADVERSE ACTION DISCLOSURES ( XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX - REGULATION B ) : Lenders must provide specific, accurate, and principal statutory reasons for an adverse action. Providing a factually incorrect reason ( " insufficient credit history '' ) while actively withholding a compliant digital copy of the Adverse Action Notice and forbidding the consumer from requesting clarification ( " will no longer respond '' ) violates ECOA notification standards. Because Navy Federal Credit Union has explicitly stated in writing that they will refuse to correspond with me through standard consumer channels, I am requesting that the CFPB compel this institution to extract my application file from the automated queue. I demand that a senior compliance XXXX or manual underwriting XXXX audit the profile, perform the required fraud alert identity verification, conduct a proper investigation into the disputed reporting data, and provide a legally compliant, transparent disclosure regarding this file.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation