Consumer complaint received 2025-12-22 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Self Financial Inc.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this feedback because the companys response does not resolve my complaint, contains material deficiencies, and fails to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and identity theft protections under FACTA. 

I am also stating clearly for the record that I am creating a new CFPB case because my prior case, XXXX, was closed without resolution, even though the disputed account remains inaccurately associated with my credit file. 

I do not own, did not open, and did not authorize the Self / Lead Bank account at issue. I have filed an FTC Identity Theft Report and identity theft affidavit, attesting under penalty of law that this account is the result of fraud. The companys response improperly dismisses my identity theft claim, relies on inadequate verification methods, and unlawfully shifts the burden of proof back to me as the consumer. 

1. Background and Procedural History This dispute began when I identified a Self / Lead Bank tradeline on my consumer credit reports that I did not recognize and did not authorize. I have never knowingly applied for, opened, or benefited from a Self or Lead Bank account. Upon discovery of the account, I promptly took all appropriate consumer protection steps, including : Disputing the account with consumer reporting agencies Filing an FTC Identity Theft Report Submitting an identity theft affidavit Providing documentation supporting my claim of fraud Despite these actions, the account remained on my credit file. I escalated the matter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, resulting in CFPB case XXXX. That case was ultimately closed without resolution, even though the company failed to prove that I authorized the account and failed to remove the tradeline. 

Because the harm remains ongoing, I am filing a new case and submitting this feedback to clearly document that the companys response is insufficient, non-compliant, and misleading. 

2. The Company Improperly Rejected a Valid Identity Theft Claim In its response, Self / Lead Bank asserts that the FTC identity theft report I submitted appears to have been modified and therefore can not be relied upon. This position is legally incorrect and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstandingor disregardof federal identity theft protections.

There is no requirement in the FCRA, FACTA, or FTC regulations that an identity theft report must match a specific formatting template in order to be valid. Under FCRA 603 ( q ), an identity theft report may consist of : An FTC Identity Theft Report A sworn affidavit Supporting documentation I have provided all of the above. The company does not have discretion to unilaterally invalidate an identity theft report based on formatting preferences. Doing so is not a reasonable investigation under FCRA 611, nor does it satisfy the blocking requirements of FCRA 605B.

Rejecting an identity theft claim on this basis alone is procedurally improper and inconsistent with federal law.

3. Reliance on Personal Information Matching Is Not Proof of Authorization The company states that it verified personal identifying information ( PII ), IP address data, and payment methods and therefore concluded the account was not fraudulent. This reasoning is deeply flawed. 

Identity theft necessarily involves the misuse of correct personal information. Verifying that my name, address, or other PII appears on the account does not prove that I opened or authorized it. This logic would render identity theft protections meaningless. 

A lawful investigation requires proof of consumer authorization, such as : A verifiable original application bearing my authenticated signature Evidence that funds were disbursed to an account owned by me Device or identity verification uniquely tied to me None of this was provided. Instead, the company relied on internal data points that are fully consistent with identity theft scenarios. 

4. Failure to Provide a Lawful Method of Verification The companys response does not disclose the method of verification used to confirm the accounts accuracy. This omission violates FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), which requires furnishers to disclose how disputed information was verified upon request.

Specifically, the response fails to ide
ntify : Whether verification occurred through e-OSCAR, manual review, or automated systems What documents were reviewed Who conducted the review How identity theft was ruled out A conclusory statement that an investigation occurred is not sufficient. Without transparency regarding the verification process, the response can not be considered compliant.

5. Improper Burden Shifting to the Consumer The company states that if I have new information showing the account was opened by someone else, I should submit it. This statement improperly shifts the burden of proof onto me. 

Once a consumer submits a valid identity theft report, the burden rests with the furnisher to prove the account is legitimate. Federal law does not require identity theft victims to identify the perpetrator or provide additional evidence beyond a sworn report. 

This approach delays resolution, perpetuates inaccurate reporting, and is inconsistent with consumer protection statutes.

6. Ongoing Harm and Inaccurate Reporting Despite the companys claims, the harm remains unresolved : The Self / Lead Bank account continues to be associated with my credit history My creditworthiness has been negatively impacted I have been forced to repeatedly escalate the issue due to non-resolution The response does not confirm deletion from all consumer reporting agencies, does not confirm blocking of reinsertion, and does not provide written assurances required under FCRA 605B.

7. Why a New Case Is Necessary I am explicitly stating that I am creating a new CFPB case because previous case XXXX was closed without resolution, despite the companys failure to meet its legal obligations. 

Closing a case does not make inaccurate reporting accurate. It does not cure investigative deficiencies. It does not extinguish consumer rights. The continued presence of this account necessitates renewed CFPB oversight. 

8. Required Corrective Actions To properly resolve this matter, Self / Lead Bank must : Permanently delete the disputed account from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Block reinsertion under FCRA 605B Cease all reporting and internal association of this account with my identity Correct any downstream or secondary reporting Provide written confirmation of deletion and compliance Anything less fails to remedy the harm. 

9. Conclusion I do not own the Self / Lead Bank account. I did not authorize it. I have filed an FTC Identity Theft Report and identity theft affidavit, and the company has failed to lawfully investigate, validate, or remediate the disputed tradeline. 

The companys response relies on improper standards, misapplies identity theft law, and fails to meet FCRA requirements. I respectfully request that the CFPB note that Self / Lead Bank has not resolved the dispute, and that this matter remains open and ongoing.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation