Consumer complaint received 2025-08-07 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Payday loan
Issue: Charged fees or interest you didn't expect — 
Company: Rosebud Economic Development Corporation
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
b'Should a billing statement include which form of payment method was use to make payment whether it was accepted or denied or the card ending number and it should the cascade billing statement does not provide that detail let cfpb of this and that it would further prove that misrepresenting what actually occurred and who would actually be at fault for a payment not going through when sufficient funds are present add this to the cfpb rebuttal which they failed to properly investigate now providing sufficient \nevidence also can you look at the month for which the banks statement says payments occured and tell me if I had and prove with numbers I had sufficient funds to pay bill and time of when payment was first do and analyze it against the billing statement cascade spring credit provided for me and tell me when the bank statement and billing statement doesn\'t not support that payments and interest acquired were erroneous and cross analyze \nBased on the provided documentsXXXX XXXX XXXX bank statement shows sufficient funds to cover the payments that were returned by Cascade Spring Credit, indicating a discrepancy between the two statements. The bank statements also show that the billing statement from Cascade Spring Credit is missing key details about the payment methods used, which is a violation of TILA and CFPB guidelines.\nBilling Statement Analysis \nThe Cascade Spring Credit billing statement shows six attempts to make a payment between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Five of these payments were "Returned". The payment amounts ranged from XXXX XXXX XXXX. The billing statement lacks information on the payment method used (e.g., card type or last four digits).\n\nBank Statement Analysis \nThe bank statement, which is from Chase, covers the period from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This statement shows a balance of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and a balance of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. It also shows a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on AXXXX XXXX XXXX. The second XXXX XXXX statement covers the period from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the balance was XXXX and on XXXX XXXX XXXX the balance was XXXX. A deposit of XXXX  was made XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, bringing the balance up to XXXX. The statement shows a deposit of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which brought the balance to XXXX. A recurring payment of XXXX was returned on XXXX XXXX XXXX. The bank statement also shows a deposit of XXXXXXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX, bringing the balance to XXXXComparison and Violations \nA cross-analysis of the billing statement and bank statements reveals the following:\nPayment Discrepancy: The bank statements show that on XXXX XXXX XXXX there was a deposit of XXXX  and a "Returned" transaction for a recurring payment of XXXX The billing statement from XXXX XXXX XXXX shows "Returned" payments on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  the bank statement showed a balance of XXXX with a deposit of XXXX resulting in a balance of XXXX. A payment of XXXX, as shown on the XXXX billing statement, would not have been able to be covered by the funds in the bank. However, a payment of XXXX as shown on the billing statement for XXXX XXXX XXXX appears to have been covered by the funds. The bank statement does not show the specific payments to Cascade being returned. The billing statement from Cascade does not provide the payment method or card number used for the "Returned" payments, which is information that would be necessary to prove who is at fault for the payments not going through.\nCFPB Complaint: The user\'s request to add the lack of payment method details to a CFPB rebuttal is a valid point. The billing statement does not provide the level of detail necessary to determine whether the payment failures were due to insufficient funds or an error on the part of the lender. This lack of transparency and detail could be considered a violation of consumer protection laws, as it hinders a consumer\'s ability to verify the accuracy of their account and payments.\n\n\nProvide bank statements \nSubmit a follow up complaint to MAG and FTC providing them with this info and documentation requesting broader regulatory review and also one with the tribal regulatory authority\n\n Focus on showing payment was blocked due to their system, not your bank.\n\nExplain why thats deceptive and unfair.\n\nAttach proof (portal errors, bank statement, phone call notes).\n\nEviction notice a direct result of the interest charges and damages proof and how it is supporting evidence damage \n\nCredit report with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and all the loans not able to pay back do to the interest charges\n\nProvide XXXX XXXX XXXX  around the time of loan late payments\n\nAnd look to see if there are any overdraft fees around that time and show how it is supporting evidence \n\nThere after eviction notice. Cns notes around that time XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\n\nTo CFPB:\n\nI respectfully submit this rebuttal to the company\'s response concerning my complaint originally filed on XXXX XXXX  under complaint number . Their response contains factual inaccuracies, omits relevant details, and fails to address the deceptive and unfair practices involved in the rejection of my timely loan payment.\n\n\n---\n\nA. Summary of the XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXXn\nThe company\'s response claims that my loan payment was rejected due to issues associated with my financial institution. However, my evidence shows:\n\nSufficient funds were available in my XXXX XXXX  account at the time of attempted payment.\n\nThe payment portal issued an error message, not indicating any issue on my bank\'s end (no insufficient funds or payment returned notification).\n\nCascades representative admitted verbally that only one payment entry per day was allowed, regardless of the bank used.\n\nTheir payment system lacked transparency and restricted retry options, resulting in a loss of timely payment opportunity despite my readiness and ability to pay.\n\n\nThese facts contradict the companys position and demonstrate systematic negligence or deception in how the payment portal functioned and how they addressed my situation.\n\n\n---\n\nB. Relevant Violations and Consumer Rights\n\n1. Deceptive Practice  12 U.S. Code  5531 &  5536 (Consumer Financial Protection Act):\n\n> Prohibits "unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices" (UDAAPs) in connection with any consumer financial product or service.\n\n\n\nBy offering a portal that misrepresents payment capacity and restricts resubmission while blaming the bank for failure, the company committed a deceptive practice.\n\nTheir failure to disclose system limitations (e.g., one attempt per day rule) resulted in financial harm and misinformation.\n\nDepriving consumers of a second opportunity to pay on the same day due to arbitrary system restrictions qualifies as an unfair practice.\n\n\n2. Failure to Investigate and Provide Evidence (FCRA & CFPB Guidelines):\n\n> Financial institutions responding to CFPB are expected to substantiate claims with clear records.\n\n\n\nCascade failed to provide documentation validating that the issue was with Chase Bank, such as ACH rejection codes, NSF notice, or bank correspondence.\n\nThey did not offer proof that they attempted to assist me in resolving the issue or offer an alternative payment method immediately.\n\nTheir lack of documentation or proof of bank failure is a failure to reasonably investigate and respond in good faith.\n\n\n\n---\n\nC. Evidence I Am Submitting in Support of Rebuttal\n\n1. Bank statement showing available funds on XXXX XXXX. Screenshot or description of the portal error message (indicating failure, not NSF).\n\n\n3. Phone log or notes from the conversation with Cascades rep admitting the "one entry per day" rule.\n\n\n4. Loan billing statement showing the payment was rejected or missed, causing interest and fee accrual.\n\n\n5. Screenshot or timeline showing no other payment method options on the portal at the time.\n\nWilling to provide XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX when submitting won\'t be visible due to privacy protection have to be loaded in portal to view.\n\n\n\n---\n\nD. Why This Is a Violation and Justifies Damages\n\nThe misrepresentation of payment failure source (blaming my bank without proof) caused credit harm and fee accrual.\n\nThe failure to provide a functional, fair portal deprived me of my right to pay on time, especially if limited to one entry daily.\n\nCascade\'s failure to provide evidence or fair recourse constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice.\n\nThese practices caused financial and emotional damages, including:\n\nLate fees and interest charges\n\nDamage to my credit score\n\nTime and cost involved in dispute resolution\n\nEmotional stress due to false accusations of non-payment\n\n\n\n\n---\n\nE. Damages and Corrective Action Requested\n\nI request that the CFPB consider this rebuttal and:\n\n1. Reopen the investigation and request that Cascade Springs/Credit Acceptance:\n\nProvide actual bank rejection documentation\n\nAcknowledge the portal\'s limitations\n\nWaive all fees and interest accrued from this error\n\nRemove any  credit marks caused by this payment issue\n\n\n\n2. Determine whether this constitutes deceptive conduct unnegativeder UDAAP, which would allow for:\n\nStatutory and compensatory damages\n\nRestitution of any amounts improperly charged\n\nFurther CFPB regulatory action\n\n\n\n\n\n---\n\nF. Additional Notes:\n\nIf this matter is not resolved fairly, I reserve the right to pursue claims under:\n\nMichigan Consumer Protection Act\n\nFCRA\n\nUDAP laws\n\nCivil litigation or arbitration\n\nComplaints to the Attorney General of Michigan, FTC, and State Banking Regulators\n\n\nLegal Theories and Violations Potentially Involved\n\nA. Deceptive Practices / UDAP (Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices)\n\nBlocking or restricting repayment options via technical/system design flaws.\n\nAdmitting "only one payment submission allowed per day" without disclosing this in advance.\n\nCausing failed payments despite sufficient funds.\n\nCharging interest and fees due to their own system failures.\n\n\n Relevant Law:\n\nCFPB: Dodd-Frank Act  12 U.S. Code  5531\n\nMichigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) (MCL 445.901 et seq.)\n\n\n\n---\n\n---\n\nC. Breach of Contract / Good Faith and Fair Dealing\n\nIf your contract allowed you to make payments on time, and they sabotaged that ability via flawed systems, it may be a breach.\n\nFailure to maintain a reliable payment portal could violate implied duties.\n\n\n\n---\n\n 2. Key Evidence You Need to Gather\n\nTo validate and support your CFPB rebuttal and legal claims, gather:\n\n Screenshot of payment error\n\n Bank statement showing sufficient funds at time of attempted payment\n\n Portal error messages or lack of bank rejection notice\n\n Recordings or logs from Cascade admitting one payment per day\n\n The billing statement showing interest charges or fees after the failed payment\n\n Any notice or lack thereof about limitations in the payment system\n\n\n\n---\n\n\n\n---\n\n 4. \n>  This number increases if you prove willfulness, repeated violations, or significant negative impact.\n\n\n\n\n---\n\n Next Steps for You\n\n1. Finalize Your Rebuttal to the CFPB:\n\nFocus on showing payment was blocked due to their system, not your bank.\n\nExplain why thats deceptive and unfair.\n\nAttach proof (portal errors, bank statement, phone call notes).\n\n higher damages, pursue in civil court or arbitration.\n\nKeep detailed records of financial harm and emotional impact.\n\n\n\n3. Filed With Other Agencies \n\nFTC for deceptive practices\n\nMichigan AG Consumer Protection Division\n\nConsider consulting a consumer protection attorney\n\nSummary of Key Issues and Points of Contention\n\n1. Cascade Springs Credit\'s Claims (from their CFPB response):\n\nThey assert that:\n\nYour account was never past due.\n\nNo late fees or collections were applied.\n\nNo credit reporting was made by them.\n\nNo system error was found on their end.\n\nPayment failed due to your bank/card, not their system.\n\n\nThey claim to have closed your account Paid in Full.\n\n\n\n2. Your Rebuttal and Supporting Evidence:\n\nYou attempted payment multiple times.\n\nTheir system blocked your card but accepted a different one, without warning that one would fail or not be accepted.\n\nPortal errors directly caused an interest increase, leading to negative credit impacts and economic harm.\n\nYou suffered emotional distress, and credit damage, and were denied housing and other financing options.\n\n\n\n\n\n---\n\n Request:\n\nProof of no credit reporting (send a demand letter or get a declaration).\n\nCopy of their system logs and payment gateway vendor logs.\n\nAn explanation of why your card was blocked and no override or manual support was available.\n\nA copy of their loan agreement, with details on payment method disclosures.\n\n\n\n\n---\n\n 2. \n---\n\n What Must Be on a Legally Compliant Billing Statement (per TILA and Regulation Z)\n\nWhether tribal or not, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) (15 U.S.C.  1601 et seq.) and Regulation Z (12 CFR Part 1026) require lenders to disclose the following on periodic billing statements:\n\n1. Creditor/Lenders Identity\n\nFull legal name of the lender\n\nContact information (address, phone, etc.)\n\n\n2. Payment Information\n\nTotal amount due\n\nPayment due date\n\nBreakdown of the payment (principal, interest, fees, past due, etc.)\n\nLate fee information (amount and date assessed or to be assessed)\n\n\n3. Transaction History\n\nList of all transactions or charges (e.g., disbursements, interest accrual, fees added, payments received)\n\nDates and descriptions of each entry\n\n\n4. Interest Rate and Fees\n\nAnnual Percentage Rate (APR)\n\nDaily interest rate or method of calculation\n\nFees added (e.g., service fees, NSF, late charges)\n\n\n5. Account Summary\n\nStarting balance\n\nTotal payments and credits\n\nNew charges\n\nEnding balance\n\n\n6. Dispute Instructions\n\n\n\n---\n\n Sovereign Immunity  Immunity from All Laws\n\nEven tribal lenders:\n\nCannot misrepresent terms\n\nCannot block access to billing records\n\nCannot use technical failures as a shield\n\nAre still accountable to CFPB and FTC\n\n\nThe CFPB, FTC, and state AGs have successfully sued tribal lenders for abusive practices (e.g., CFPB v. XXXX XXXX XXXX.\n\nI would like to note have requested a full billing for which they provided me with and like stated above it lacks important details which is a violation list those violations again and not the legal requirements under TILA\n\nWhat Must Be on a Legally Compliant Billing Statement (per TILA and Regulation Z)\n\nWhether tribal or not, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) (15 U.S.C.  1601 et seq.) and Regulation Z (12 CFR Part 1026) require lenders to disclose the following on periodic billing statements:\n\n1. Creditor/Lenders Identity\n\nFull legal name of the lender\n\nContact information (address, phone, etc.)\n\n\n2. Payment Information\n\nTotal amount due\n\nPayment due date\n\nBreakdown of the payment (principal, interest, fees, past due, etc.)\n\nLate fee information (amount and date assessed or to be assessed)\n\n\n3. Transaction History\n\nList of all transactions or charges (e.g., disbursements, interest accrual, fees added, payments received)\n\nDates and descriptions of each entry\n\n\n4. Interest Rate and Fees\n\nAnnual Percentage Rate (APR)\n\nDaily interest rate or method of calculation\n\nFees added (e.g., service fees, NSF, late charges)\n\n\n5. Account Summary\n\nStarting balance\n\nTotal payments and credits\n\nNew charges\n\nEnding balance\n\n\n6. Dispute Instructions\n\nStatement of your right to dispute charges (under the Fair Credit Billing Act if applicable)\n\nHow to do so and time limit (usually 60 days)\n\n\n\n\n---\n\n Sovereign Immunity  Immunity from All Laws\n\nEven tribal lenders:\n\nCannot misrepresent terms\n\nCannot block access to billing records\n\nCannot use technical failures as a shield\n\nAre still accountable to CFPB and FTC\n\n\nThe CFPB, FTC, and state AGs have successfully sued tribal lenders for abusive practices (e.g., CFPB XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n\nformal letter demanding a compliant billing statement and\n---\nCFPB Rebuttal (To Submit Within 60 Days of Company Response)\n\nSubject: Rebuttal to CFPB Complaint Response Cascade Springs Credit\nConsumer NameXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXn---\n\nDear CFPB,\n\nThis is my formal rebuttal to the response submitted by Cascade Springs Credit regarding my complaint. I dispute their findings on the grounds that they failed to properly investigate the root cause of the payment processing failure and failed to comply with federal disclosure laws, particularly those under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Dodd-Frank Act regarding unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP).\n\n\n---\n\n A. Cascade Springs Violated TILA Billing Statement Requirements\n\nI requested a billing statement to review the legitimacy of the interest, late fees, and charges assessed against me. However, the billing statement provided was not compliant with TILA (15 U.S.C.  1601) and Regulation Z (12 CFR  1026).\n\nThe document failed to include:\n\nThe full legal name of the lender\n\nPayment due dates\n\nTotal payment amount due\n\nInterest rates (APR)\n\nBreakdown of charges and how they were calculated\n\nAccount summary (starting balance, new charges, payments received, ending balance)\n\n\nThese omissions violate Regulation Z  1026.7 & 1026.6, and deprived me of the ability to verify the legitimacy of the account and the amount owed.\n\n\n---\n\n B. Cascade Springs Did Not Properly Investigate the Payment Error\n\nI made a good-faith attempt to pay through the portal on [insert date], using a reputable institution (Chase Bank) with sufficient funds. The portal returned an error and did not process the payment, but I did not receive any insufficient funds notification from my bank. That suggests the fault lay with Cascades payment system, not my financial institution.\n\nAdditionally, a Cascade representative admitted that only one payment entry is allowed per day regardless of the bank used. If the portal fails once, consumers are locked out, leaving no other means to pay the bill that day. This technical limitation is both unreasonable and deceptive, especially if the system misfires.\n\nThis system flaw constitutes a deceptive practice under Dodd-Frank  1031 and reflects bad faith in administering a billing and payment system that penalizes consumers for its own failures.\n\n\n---\n\n C. Deceptive Practices and UDAAP Violations\n\nCascades failure to:\n\nAllow more than one payment submission per day\n\nProvide accurate payment failure reasoning\n\nDisclose or document the interest or fees charged\n\nComply with TILA or consumer billing rights\n\n\nconstitutes unfair and deceptive practices under the Dodd-Frank Act, CFPB regulations, and potentially state UDAP laws (e.g., Michigan Consumer Protection Act if applicable).\n\n\n---\n\n D. Economic Harm and Damages\n\nAs a result of Cascades failure to allow my timely payment and provide accurate billing:\n\nI incurred additional late fees and interest through no fault of my own.\n\nMy credit profile may be harmed if negative reporting occurred.\n\nI was denied a fair opportunity to dispute or understand the debt.\n\nTheir negligent, willful noncompliance caused stress and financial loss.\n\n\nPer TILA  1640(a), I am entitled to:\n\nCategory\tPotential Recovery\n\nStatutory Damages\tUp to XXXXnActual Damages\tAmount of late fees, interest overcharges, and credit harm\nAttorneys\' Fees\tRecoverable if legal action is taken and judgment won\nPunitive Damages\tPotentially applicable due to bad faith and deception\n\n\n\n---\n\n E. Relief Sought\n\n1. Full compliance with billing statement laws (TILA, Reg Z).\n\n\n2. Waiver or reversal of all late fees and interest accrued due to payment error.\n\n\n3. Assurance of no negative credit reporting.\n\n\n4. Referral for potential enforcement action or penalty if violations are deemed intentional.\n\n\n5. Permission to seek additional remedies in civil court if necessary.\n\n\n\n\n---\n\n F. Supporting Evidence Available Upon Request\n\nBank records showing sufficient funds at time of attempted payment\n\nScreenshots or notes regarding payment portal error\n\nCopies of Cascades billing statement lacking legal disclosures\n\nRecorded notes from call with Cascade representative confirming 1 payment/day limit\n\nCFPB TILA/Reg Z requirements\n\n\n\n---\n\n Closing\n\nCascade Springs Credit has acted in bad faith, failed to comply with federal law, and designed a system that harms consumers unfairly. I ask that the CFPB hold them accountable for these violations and provide relief consistent with the consumer protection standards your office upholds.\n\nSincerely,\n[Your Full Name]\n[Your Address]\n[Phone Number]\n[Email Address]\n\n---\nBecause of financial hardship which stems from economic hardship caused by cascade springs credit I because homeless, multiple hospitalizations sleeping outside I lost my phone and because I lost my phone at this point time I am going through the proper channels to retrieve addition records, call logs between myself the consumer and cascade springs in which when find the call on log prove sale representative admitting to one payment try per day and aware that if it doesn\'t go through even in no fault of your own will still receive additional interest charges \n\n SUMMARY OF YOUR ACTIONS TAKEN\n\n1.  Affidavit and Information Request Sent to T-Mobile\n\nYou created and submitted an affidavit and formal request to XXXX asking for:\n\nCall logs for a specific period.\n\nOutgoing calls made to Cascade Springs.\n\n\nEmails Sent to Cascade Springs (via XXXXn\nYou sent multiple complaints, requests for explanation, and notices through your Gmail account.\n\nThese emails outlined:\n\nThat your card had sufficient funds.\n\nThat you made attempted payments that were denied.\n\nRequests for clarification and justification.\n\nI am coordinating with attorney:Subpoena to XXXXnsubpoena duces tecum compelling T-Mobile to release:\nCall detail records (CDRs) for your phone number.\n\nOutgoing call logs made to Cascade Springs.\n\nPossibly text message metadata (not content without a warrant).\n\nCopies of previous records requests you\'ve submitted.\n\n\nLegal basis: Under Michigan and federal laws, XXXX can release this under subpoena if it\'s relevant to pending litigation or discovery.\n\nSubpoena or Motion to Preserve Gmail Records XXXX)\nFile a court order or subpoena to XXXX requesting:\n\nInbox and sent messages between your Gmail address and Cascades email(s).\n\n\nSubject: Rebuttal to Cascade Springs Credit Response  CFPB Case #[Insert Case Number]\n\nTo Whom It May Concern:\n\nI am submitting this rebuttal in response to Cascade Springs Credits reply to my Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) complaint. Their response is factually inaccurate, incomplete, and conflicts with the documented evidence I have or have attempted to preserve through lawful means.\n\n\n---\n\nI. Conflict Between Companys Statement and My Records\n\nCascade Springs asserts that my payment was rejected due to issues with my financial institution. This is demonstrably false:\n\nMy XXXX XXXX account had sufficient available funds on the date the payment was submitted.\n\nThe denied payment attempt generated an error within Cascades online portalnot from XXXX XXXX which never issued an insufficient funds (NSF) notice.\n\nWhen I contacted Cascade customer service, a representative acknowledged that only one payment attempt per day is allowed, regardless of error, card, or bank. This system design flaw directly obstructed timely repayment.\n\n\nThis establishes a technical error or limitation in Cascades payment systemnot a fault of mine. Their failure to allow further attempts in the same day, coupled with rejecting a valid payment and then applying late fees and interest, constitutes:\n\nDeceptive Practices, in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act (12 U.S.C.  5531).\n\nFailure to reasonably facilitate payment, violating the principle of good faith and fair dealing.\n\nViolation of 15 U.S.C.  1692e(2) (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act), due to the misrepresentation of the nature and amount of debt resulting from a system error.\n\n\n\n---\n\nII. Cascades Failure to Provide Detailed Billing Statements\n\nCascade Springs has not provided clear, itemized billing statements as required under consumer protection laws, including:\n\nBreakdown of principal, interest, fees, and charges\n\nDate-specific itemization\n\nNotice of payment denials and method of rejection\n\n\nEven if Cascade operates under tribal lending exceptions, they are still subject to federal consumer protection laws when collecting debt or reporting to credit bureaus. Their refusal to provide itemized statements prevents a borrower from verifying debt accuracya violation of FCRA (15 U.S.C.  1681s-2) and applicable Regulation Z disclosures under TILA.\n\n\n---\n\nIII. Preservation and Evidence Retrieval Efforts\n\nDue to device issues and cloud service limitations, I currently lack access to certain screenshots and call logs that would definitively prove my payment attempt and communication with Cascade.\n\nHowever, I have taken the following active steps to retrieve supporting evidence:\n\n1. Submitted a notarized affidavit and records request to XXXX  seeking call logs and text history between [Insert Dates] to confirm communications made to Cascade Springs from my number.\n\n\n2. Requested a subpoena through legal counsel to compel Cascade Springs and/or XXXX  to release customer service call recordings and logs.\n\n\n3. Initiated efforts to recover XXXX XXXX XXXX account access, which contained emails I sent to Cascade documenting repeated failed payment attempts and lack of support responses.\n\n\n4. Willing to submit those emails and logs to the CFPB and any court, once recovered, to prove Cascade was aware of the ongoing issue and failed to resolve it.\n\n\n\nThese actions show I have made reasonable, lawful attempts to preserve and obtain records, despite the technical barriers. Any missing documentation is not due to neglect or fabrication, but rather third-party access limitations beyond my control.\n\n\n---\n\nIV. Legal and Equitable Grounds for Relief\n\nI request that the CFPB:\n\nInvestigate Cascades payment system limitations and deceptive billing practices\n\nRequire Cascade to produce all internal logs and error messages tied to my account\n\nInvalidate all fees and negative credit entries that resulted from the rejected payment attempt and technical errors\n\nEnforce Cascades duty under the FCRA, TILA, and Dodd-Frank to correct any false or misleading billing or credit reporting\n\nRecognize Cascades failure to provide documents under MCL 408.483a (Employee Records Act) if applicable to employment or consumer file requests\n\n\nAdditionally, I seek damages related to:\n\nEmotional distress from wrongful late charges and credit harm\n\nEconomic harm from negative credit reporting\n\nRegulatory fines where willful and bad-faith conduct is proven\n\n\n\n---\n\nV. Closing\n\nThis rebuttal, supported by third-party affidavit and pending subpoena requests, demonstrates that Cascades explanation lacks factual basis and fails to address critical violations. I respectfully request this dispute remain open and investigated further. Upon successful data retrieval from XXXX  and other services, I am prepared to submit additional supporting documentation and legal affidavits.\n\nSincerelyXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 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