vivekkopthsd/cfpb-consumer-complaints huggingface dataset:
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Cashing a check
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting a complaint regarding Wells Fargo 's handling of a check deposit and the resulting hold on my funds. I opened a new Wells Fargo account online and received a personal check for approximately {$5000.00} drawn on a XXXX XXXX account. I initially attempted to deposit the check electronically through Wells Fargo 's mobile deposit process. Before Wells Fargo rejected the deposit, I was instructed to endorse the check with a restrictive endorsement indicating that it was for deposit to Wells Fargo only. After the endorsement was made, Wells Fargo declined to accept the electronic deposit and required that the physical check be mailed for processing. As a result, I was unable to negotiate or deposit the check elsewhere and was forced to rely on Wells Fargo 's mail-in process. This added approximately XXXX days of delay that was caused by Wells Fargo 's procedures rather than by any action on my part. The check has since been presented to XXXX XXXX and the funds have been removed from the check writer 's account. Despite this, Wells Fargo continues to hold the deposited funds for an extended period under its new-account hold policy. I understand that banks may place holds on deposits in certain circumstances. However, my concern is that Wells Fargo 's own deposit procedures created a substantial delay after requiring a restrictive endorsement that effectively prevented me from using another deposit method. The result is that my funds have been unavailable for significantly longer than they otherwise would have been. I am requesting that Wells Fargo : Review the hold and determine whether the funds can be released before the currently scheduled availability date. Explain why the additional delay caused by Wells Fargo 's rejected mobile deposit and mail-in requirement was not considered when determining funds availability. Provide a detailed explanation of the basis for the hold now that the check has been presented to and honored by the paying bank. I am seeking a fair review of the hold and a written explanation of Wells Fargo 's actions in this matter.

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
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Savings account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem accessing account
Company: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
State: CT

Complaint narrative:
pened an Ally savings account approximately two weeks ago and deposited over {$60000.00}. Since opening the account, I have experienced repeated account lockouts and have been unable to reliably access my funds. I contacted Ally multiple times seeking assistance. During one call, I was disconnected by a representative. During a subsequent call, I was informed that my account was under review and that access could not be restored at that time. I was later told that the restriction was related to fraud concerns, potentially triggered by my use of different computers or devices to access the account. I am the legitimate account holder and am willing to complete any identity verification or security procedures necessary. However, Ally has not provided a clear explanation of what specific information or documentation is required, nor have they provided a timeline for resolving the issue and restoring access to my account. I am requesting that Ally provide a clear explanation of the status of the review, identify any verification requirements needed from me, and promptly restore access to my account or otherwise provide access to my funds. The lack of communication and repeated lockouts have caused significant concern given the amount of money being held in the account. This needs to be fixed immediately.

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
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Problems at the end of the loan or lease — Problem with paying off the loan
Company: ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I bought a car on XX/XX/XXXX and traded in my old vehicle. The dealership sent a payoff check and it was returned due to short payoff and verbiage on the check. Ally states that the payoff amount was - {$14.00}. I believe the {$14.00} difference was due to late fees they had incurred by not processing the check immediately. The dealership, XXXX enterprise XXXX in XXXX, Alabama overnighted another check on XXXX. The XXXX tracking shows that it was signed for by Ally on XXXX. Ally has completely given me the runaround saying that they never received a check. My account is now incurring late fees and they are threatening to send it to collections. I have called Ally at least a dozen times over the last month and nobody has been willing to help me with this issue. I have requested to speak to a supervisor to put a temporary hold on my account and requested a mailroom audit- and they refuse to let me speak to a supervisor. The XXXX tracking number is XXXX. Signed for by XXXX on XX/XX/year>. Upon researching, this company has tons of complaints for similar issues. Upon speaking to the dealership again, they informed me that Ally could not identify the account number despite it being accurate on the payoff. The dealership has now submitted a third check highlighting the account number.

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
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Getting a credit card — Card opened without my consent or knowledge
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
My information was heisted and this accounts are fraudulent and do not belong to me. I would like these accounts completely removed from all XXXX credit bureaus on my credit report.

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
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem when making payments — Problem during payment process
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I sent a payment of {$2400.00} to the wrong credit card. Both credit cards are held by US Bank, XXXX business and XXXX personal. First contact XX/XX/year> XXXX XXXX The following day, I requested that the money be transferred to the correct card ( the business card ). I was told that this could not be done and I would need to wait for them to refund the money to me. This could take XXXX to XXXX business days. It would be returned the same way that it was paid. I waited the days and called back. Call XXXX I reported that I had not received the money. The representative told me that it could take from XXXX XXXX business days. While waiting for the days to pass. I researched on the internet and found out there policy was that if the request is submitted in writing that it takes XXXX business days. BBB- Made a formal complaint with the Better Business Bureau XXXX Chat conversation- I took this approach so that it would be in writing. Still did not receive the money. Call XXXX Representative informed me that the check would be received within XXXX business days and that the money had been sent. No money was received and the account balance still showed a {$2400.00} credit. Call XXXX Today XXXX Regular representative answered and it seemed like the same nonsense and I asked to be escalated to a supervisor. XXXX, the best customer service representative, which admittedly had to handle me with kid glove. Because at this point, I am beyond XXXX!!! I find out that a representative canceled my request for my refund ( which I absolutely did not do ) and that the money could have been transferred to the other credit card from the beginning. XXXX expedited my request by email and explained that I may want to follow-up on XX/XX/year> to verify the process has been completed. This has been XXXX of the most terrible customer service failures that I have ever experienced as a customer ANYWHERE. I have been, what I thought was a great customer, paying my bills on time and communicating any issues that I experience with the institution. I am at a loss of words for how devalued and taken advantage of as a customer. Is the interest earned on holding my money XXXX for and entire month really worth this? All money charged is processed instantaneously, but a customer has to wait 30 days to receive an overpayment back? This is abuse and an imbalance of the haves and the have nots ( or haves less ). Honest, hardworking people deserve more respect than this. To image that US Bank would hold my money for a month while I have another credit card with them with an outstanding balance that needs paying. This seems quite intentional and at the least is an EPIC FAILURE BY US BANK!!!

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 monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: FIRST TECHNOLOGY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
I am sending this complaint against the Law firm of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, on which I filed earlier complaints against them, more to XXXX XXXX against their attorney, XXXX XXXX XXXX. He mentioned in most of the complaint responses that the lawsuit was filed on XX/XX/XXXX. In another response, he mentioned it was filed on XX/XX/XXXX. He never bothered to correct this, but he tried to correct the parts about the date the summons was delivered to my home, and the date I sent him an email. He mentioned something how the email was delivered to their general email, but it's his email address. I am finally attaching the original court documents to this complaint, along with the document showing he mentioned the lawsuit was filed on XX/XX/XXXX instead of XX/XX/XXXX. He also mentioned I sent emails to first tech on XX/XX/XXXX. But I saved my emails I've sent to first tech all the way back to around XXXX and I have sent them over to the nc XXXX bar for review not too long ago.

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
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Other banking product or service
Issue: Closing an account — Company closed your account
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
For over a month I've requested multiple times to get all information on every account Myself and spouse had individually and together. They have an account that they say ran from XXXX and that is incorrect. They also have a savings that is listed like a trust with only XXXX of our XXXX kids. That would have NEVER happened. They say it was opened in XXXX. I believe these dates to be factually incorrect yet they produced run on paperwork for XXXX account from XXXX yet I have from them our other accounts that the bank statement doesn't reflect and no closing dates. They would only give open dates that reflect XXXX balance and a printout that the accounts are closed yet no closed date or balance is listed. Citibank has given us nothing but the run around and aren't being transparent about our accounts and any other accounts linked to us.

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
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
Financial Institution : Bank of America, N.A.Account Type : Small Business Checking AccountTransaction Date : Monday, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXDisputed Amount : $ XXXXDetailed Description of the Violation : I am filing a formal regulatory complaint against Bank of America for a direct violation of federal funds availability laws under 12 CFR Part 229 ( Regulation CC ) .On Monday, XX/XX/year>, I deposited a check for {$10000.00} into my commercial small business checking account. On Tuesday, XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXX XXXX, Bank of America officially processed, cleared, and credited these funds to my available balance. Acting in good faith on the bank 's presentation of available capital, I completed a business transaction of $ XXXX.At approximately XXXX XXXX, Bank of America retroactively altered my availability and instituted a blanket, 100 % hold on the entire {$10000.00} deposit, locking my available balance and freezing my business operating capital.Bank of America is operating in direct violation of federal law on multiple fronts : Violation of 12 CFR 229.13 ( b ) ( Large Deposit Exception Hold ) : Under current Regulation CC statutory thresholds, a bank utilizing a large deposit exception hold is legally mandated to make the baseline threshold of {$6700.00} available to the depositor on standard next-day and second-day availability timelines. The bank is permitted to place an exception hold only on the remaining amount exceeding that threshold ( in this case, {$3200.00} ). By freezing 100 % of the {$10000.00} deposit and withholding the statutory baseline, Bank of America is unlawfully restricting my funds.Violation of 12 CFR 229.13 ( g ) ( Notice Requirements ) : Bank of America has failed to provide my business with a lawful Notice of Exception Hold. The law strictly requires that if a bank places a 100 % hold based on " Reasonable Cause to Doubt Collectibility '' ( 12 CFR 229.13 ( e ) ), they must issue a written or electronic notice detailing the exact, verifiable, and specific facts that led them to suspect the check. General statements regarding routing, automated system flags, or deposit size do not legally justify a 100 % freeze.Breach of 12 CFR 229.21 ( Civil Liability ) : By making the funds fully available at XXXX XXXX and subsequently pulling them back after I spent {$250.00}, the bank has exposed my business to immediate financial distress. Any potential administrative penalties, overdraft fees, or returned item fees resulting from the bank 's retroactive hold constitute actual damages under civil liability guidelines.

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 monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
These inquiries appeared without prior notification and may not have been authorized. Please review the attached documents.

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
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Debt or credit management — Credit repair services
Issue: Didn't provide services promised — 
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Request for Investigation Pursuant to FCRA 611 To Whom It May Concern : I am formally disputing the accuracy and completeness of information currently appearing on my consumer credit report. Pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681i, I am requesting a reasonable reinvestigation of the following accounts

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
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: Suttell, Hammer & White, P.S
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
SUTTELL & HAMMER ATTORNEYS AT LAW * SUTTLL & HAMMER, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SUTTLL & HAMMER, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX * SUTTE & HAMMER, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, WA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Current balance : {$21000.00} s/h XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX successor by merger to Discover Bank is the current creditor and XXXX original creditor. Pursuant to your request for validation of the above referenced account assigned to our offices to collect, you will please find enclosed herewith : XXXX ) XXXX ) Billing Statements Terms & Conditions This communication is from a debt collector. XXXX Bank has now merged with XXXX XXXX, XXXX. The merger became effective on XX/XX/XXXX, and the XXXX are now operating as XXXX company under XXXX XXXX. Public documents regarding the merger are available online at https : //www.discover.com/faqs/merger/. Yours very truly, SUTTELL & HAMMER, P.C. XXXX XXXX XXXX Attorney at XXXX

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
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Opening an account — Didn't receive terms that were advertised
Company: Netspend Corporation
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I opened Netspend checking account with promotional bonus of {$200.00} on XX/XX/XXXX and I have made sure that I completed all the requirements to receive the bonus but I didn't receive anything yet after 60 days that it stated. Terms was but this deal got extended, it was saying promotional period XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. But I called the customer support and was told they didn't know anything about it or they said the promotion was starting from XX/XX/XXXX but actually it was extended after XXXX so I believe the promotion is running year long till now. The {$100.00} offer is valid through XX/XX/XXXX. * To qualify for this offer, ( XXXX ) you must acquire a new Netspend XXXX Account, register the Account, and pass required identity verification between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, and ( XXXX ) enroll in Direct Deposit and receive Direct Deposits ( excludes XXXX transfers, XXXX, and Tax Refunds ) totaling {$400.00} or more within 60 days of acquiring the account. Youre required to keep your account active with XXXX XXXX through XXXX XXXX to receive the credit. Once this requirement is met, you will receive credit within XXXX to XXXX business days. See link XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX

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
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — FHA mortgage
Issue: Trouble during payment process — Fees charged
Company: LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
XX/XX/XXXX from Lakeview but owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX charged me XXXX for fees as to foreclosure costs. My payments with XXXX XXXX have always been full amount plus an extra dollar l, on time to the date. Never late. After being screwed over by XXXX XXXX XXXX has been serving my loan since XXXX of XXXX no issues with my payments other than reporting late payments that were paid on time at the start. XXXX XXXX XXXX acted like I was screaming at them as I explained to them these fees are incorrect and they need to be removed as I asked for a reason they claimed I had been in furclosure with XXXX XXXX and that is not true. I have no idea who my actual lender is at this point.

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
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Prepaid card — Government benefit card
Issue: Trouble using the card — Trouble using the card to spend money in a store or online
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
US Bank rely a card locked my account up by doing so when I tried to buy diapers for my baby my card was declined. The bank refuses to assist me. I have expressed to them that I do not possess an unexpired ID and they would not be able to get that from me. It would take XXXX weeks in Michigan to get a new unexpired ID sent and I simply cant be left destitute for XXXX weeks waiting for a verification process to happen when theres absolutely no reason for it to begin with. I had an expired government ID and a selfie to verify my identity and they refused. I offered up the out of XXXX method for verification purposes and they refused the gentleman I spoke to was XXXX. He was a supervisor and XXXX refused to help me in anyway. Was no way around it. And did not care at all that I needed diapers for my kid. This is not acceptable. It can not go down like this. XXXX on unemployment and I have no other means to take care of my family. I have discontinued deposits to the account but they still have my XXXX weeks worth of unemployment that theyre holding and I dont get paid again for another XXXX weeks. Please help.

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
Consumer complaint received 2026-06-23 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — Store credit card
Issue: Getting a credit card — Card opened without my consent or knowledge
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/2022, a XXXX XXXX cashier enrolled me in a credit line under the guise of a " store promotion and discount. '' I already had a Home Depot credit card and did not need a second one and would have never agreed to a second one. The associate never disclosed that this involved opening a second credit card, nor was I provided mandatory Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) disclosures. Because I did not know the account existed, I never received or anticipated a bill. Upon discovering this unauthorized line on my credit report, I immediately acted in good faith by paying the {$160.00} balance in full. While the account status reads " Paid, Closed, '' the history is flagged as " Potentially Negative '' due to late payments caused entirely by the store 's deceptive tactics. My credit profile should not suffer because a retail clerk hid a credit application to meet store quotas.

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