vivekkopthsd/cfpb-consumer-complaints huggingface dataset:
Consumer complaint received 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — Conventional home mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — Application denials
Company: Lennar Financial Services, LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
In XX/XX/XXXX I applied for a mortgage through Lennar Mortgage , LLC in connection with purchasing a Lennar home in XXXX, California. After touring homes and beginning the mortgage application process, Lennar representatives informed me that my profile in their internal system was flagged for litigation due to my participation as a class member in a construction-defect class action related to a prior Lennar home purchase in XXXX. A Lennar sales representative specifically stated that the XXXX XXXX doesnt want to sell to you because of the litigation, and that the transaction was therefore considered a dead deal. I had not filed any personal lawsuit against Lennar ; I merely participated as a class member in a prior class action related to a development where I previously purchased a home. I had already begun the mortgage process with Lennar Mortgage and provided requested information for loan pre-approval. Because the transaction was terminated during the credit decision process, I requested a formal Adverse Action Notice as required under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), 15 U.S.C. 1691 ( d ), which requires creditors to provide a written statement of reasons when credit is denied or an application is terminated. On XX/XX/XXXX I sent a written request to Lennar Mortgages loan officer requesting the legally required Adverse Action Notice identifying the specific reasons for the denial and the federal regulatory agency overseeing compliance. Lennar Mortgage acknowledged receipt and stated that the request was forwarded to management and legal, but no Adverse Action Notice or explanation has ever been provided. As of today, the company has not complied with the ECOA requirement to provide a written statement of reasons for the denial of credit.

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 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account — 
Company: Block, Inc.
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding Cash App, a service operated by Block , Inc. My account was recently locked or restricted without a clear explanation of the alleged violation. I have used my account only for normal personal transactions such as sending money to family and friends or making legitimate online purchases. In XXXX, I was the victim of identity theft and have been working to resolve related issues across multiple services. Because of this situation, it is possible that my information may have been misused without my knowledge. Despite this, I have not been provided with any specific details about the reason my Cash App account was restricted. I have attempted to request a review directly through Cash App support but have not received a clear explanation or resolution. Access to my account is important for my normal financial transactions. I respectfully request that Cash App conduct a manual review of my account, provide the specific reason for the restriction, and restore my access if no violation has occurred. I am fully willing to verify my identity or provide documentation related to the prior identity theft if necessary. Thank you for your assistance in helping resolve this matter.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Action Collection Agencies, Inc.
State: MA

Complaint narrative:
I received a call from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, stating she was a debt collector from Action Collection Agency. I was XXXX call her back, XXXX it was important. The call was XX/XX/year> @ XXXX pm. I do not have any debt that is owed.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem making or receiving payments
Company: Comerica
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I have ben trying to gain access to my XXXX XXXX card for over a month and I went to XXXX to get a new card and i sent the photos to verify my Identity and I have sent XXXX different times over the past XXXX weks the same info and it's delaying my card activation and i can not access funds to pay my rent I am XXXX and XXXX elderly women and I'm risking my housing situation because of all this.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Savings account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/2026 at XXXXXXXX XXXX an XXXX and an email from Citi informed ME of a suspicious activity on my savings account : a transfer request of {$75000.00}. At XXXX XXXX, when I discovered the XXXX I answered by XXXX, Email, phone indicating that the transfer request was fraudulent The next day, calling Citi, I was asked to open a new account which I did. The days following, I could not have online access to my accounts. After day of multiple calls, I still have no answer on the status of my claim nor on the condition of my accounts. On XX/XX/2026 I requested ( on the phone number XXXX and others ) the closing of the accounts and sending the money to me in a secure way. Still no answer and on XX/XX/2026 I emailed to Citi Executive Response Unit my request to provisionally credit the customer account.... Including Title 12 of the Federal Regulations, Banks and banking Part 1005, Electronic fund transfer ( regulation E ). No answer On XX/XX/2026, during my multiple phone calls I was told that Citi does not abide by the Federal Regulations, they have their own!!!!

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 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Money order, traveler's check or cashier's check
Issue: Problem with customer service — 
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
I recently lost my ID and debit card and needed a money order to pay my rent before accumulating late fees. I've been a customer for 28 yrs, have the money available plus two active CDs.

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 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am writing to dispute several items listed on my credit report, which I received from TransUnion on XX/XX/year>. These items contain errors, inaccuracies, and outdated information that violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Please investigate and correct these discrepancies. Below are the accounts I am disputing : Account XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account Number : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX Balance Owed : {$260.00} Status : Collection Dispute Reason : The account is inaccurately reported as Seriously Past Due. As per FCRA Section 605, it should not remain on my credit report if it can not be verified or is over 7 years old. Account XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX Balance Owed : {$130.00} Status : Collection Dispute Reason : This account is incorrectly marked as Seriously Past Due. FCRA Section 623 requires data furnishers to report accurate information. Possible FCRA Violations : 1. FCRA Section 605 : Accounts older than 7 years should be removed from the credit report unless they can be verified. 2. FCRA Section 623 : Data furnishers must report accurate and current information. 3. Data Breach : There is a possibility that this data was obtained through unauthorized access. Please verify the data 's authenticity.

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 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Vehicle loan or lease — Loan
Issue: Managing the loan or lease — Billing problem
Company: CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
State: KY

Complaint narrative:
Loan with credit acceptance where the vehicle was sold to me for higher price than I was told. I was supposed to be buying the truck for XXXX and I see now I was charged XXXX Credit acceptance sent an email to me on XX/XX/year> saying the account could be settled for {$1900.00}. I called them trying to resolve the account for said amount and was told once that I wasnt available to paid said amount and that I had to pay XXXX odd dollars. Called back and spoke with another rep that said I could pay the XXXX and the account would be closed off. He put me through to kiosk and it tried to get me to pay the XXXX odd dollars. Also on the contract from the car lot I bought the car from is falsified. The person who sold me the vehicle is not who sold me the car. It was a completely different person. I never met the man ( XXXX XXXX ) that is on the contract. The car lot gave me no paper work on said vehicle before leaving.

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 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem when making payments — Problem during payment process
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year> I made a {$1400.00} payment on my Synchrony credit card. On the same day a {$1400.00} purchase was posted and placed into a deferred interest promotional financing plan. I contacted Synchrony customer service multiple times beginning in XX/XX/year> requesting that the {$1400.00} payment be reallocated to the promotional purchase. Customer service representatives confirmed that the adjustment would be made, but it never occurred. Because the payment was not applied to the promotional balance as requested, the promotional balance remains and I may be incorrectly charged deferred interest. I am requesting that the {$1400.00} payment be reallocated to the promotional purchase dated XX/XX/year>.

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 non-monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Trouble using your card — Can't use card to make purchases
Company: CLGF Holdco 1, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am a XXXX resident and cardholder with Concora Credit. On XX/XX/year>, I completed the identity verification process requested by the company after my account was restricted while I was traveling internationally. I was explicitly told the review would take XXXX hours. It has now been over XXXX Days with no communication, no written update, and no restoration of account access. I made a {$500.00} payment immediately prior to the restriction. Despite complying in good faith with all requested verification steps, my account remains locked, and I have not been provided with a clear explanation, case number, or updated timeline. I am currently overseas, and this restriction is causing financial hardship. I am requesting : Immediate status update of my verification review. Written explanation of the continued restriction. Assurance that no adverse credit reporting will occur due to this delay. Clear documentation of the verification method used and the reason the stated review timeline was not followed. I have acted in good faith and complied fully with all instructions. I am seeking prompt regulatory review and resolution.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Investigation took more than 30 days
Company: Nelnet, Inc.
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint regarding the servicing of my student loan account with Nelnet. My account was previously enrolled in automatic payments ( autopay ). At some point, Nelnet removed my autopay enrollment without notifying me or obtaining authorization. Because I was relying on autopay to process my payments, I was unaware that payments were no longer being drafted from my account. As a result, my account eventually became XXXX days past due, and this delinquency has now been reported to the credit bureaus. Had I been notified that autopay had been removed, I would have immediately made the payments necessary to keep my account current. I have never intentionally allowed any of my accounts to become delinquent. I previously contacted Nelnet and submitted a written dispute requesting that they investigate this issue and review the credit reporting associated with it. Despite this, the delinquency continues to be reported and my credit score continues to be negatively affected. This situation appears to have been caused by a servicing error involving the removal of autopay without notice.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a complaint regarding the handling of a credit card dispute by Goldman Sachs Bank USA ( Apple Card ). On XX/XX/year> I made a purchase from an online merchant, XXXX, in the amount of {$170.00}. After receiving the item, I contacted the merchant to request a return. On XX/XX/year> the merchant approved the return in writing and confirmed that a refund would be processed once the item was received. The merchant wrote : Yes absolutely. As long as the lamp is new and unopened, we can process a return. All you have to do is ship it to the return address on the package and include your order number or original packing slip if you have it. Once I receive it, I will process a refund for you. Based on these written instructions, I returned the item to the address provided by the merchant. After receiving the item, the merchant refused to issue the refund and claimed the item was damaged. However, the merchant never provided photographs, an inspection report, or any documentation supporting the alleged damage. I disputed the charge with Apple Card ( Goldman Sachs ). I provided the email showing the merchant approved the return and promised a refund. Despite this documentation, Goldman Sachs denied the dispute and categorized it as services provided or not canceled in accordance with the merchants terms. This transaction did not involve a service. It involved a physical product return where the merchant authorized the return and promised a refund that was never issued. I requested a reinvestigation and submitted additional documentation, including the merchants written return authorization and return policy. The dispute was again denied and the temporary credit was reversed. I am concerned that the dispute was evaluated under the wrong dispute category and that the available documentation showing the merchant promised a refund was not properly considered. I am requesting that Goldman Sachs review the dispute handling and provide the documentation the merchant submitted to support their claim that the item was damaged. I am also requesting a reconsideration of the dispute under the appropriate category of a credit not processed or refund not issued.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Consumer complaint received 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Outgoing unauthorized wires from my checking account. XXXX. XX/XX/year> - {$11000.00} & {$1100.00} XXXX. XX/XX/year> - {$5000.00} XXXX. XX/XX/year> {$4900.00} The Chase XXXX department has closed out their investigation saying that the wires were initiated by my computer so there is nothing that can be done. Local XXXX XXXX Police department is investigating sending subpoenas to the receiving banks, but it sounds like the banks are blowing him off and there isn't much he can do about it. I also filed a XXXX FBI complaint twice and haven't heard from them at all. After the XX/XX/XXXX issue, I closed that account and setup a new checking account for my XXXX pay. That account was hacked XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. My account is about {$2800.00} in the negative. I'm desperate to get my money back from these fraud issues. Any information you can provide or assistance would be greatly appreciated. What else can I do? Please help! Thank you

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: OneMain Finance Corporation
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern, I am submitting this complaint regarding two credit card accounts currently reporting on my consumer credit file. Both accounts reflect a zero balance. One was settled and the other was paid in full. Despite being satisfied, these accounts continue to report in a manner that is negatively impacting my credit profile and are categorized as high-impact derogatory accounts. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 1681s-2 ( a ), furnishers are required to report information accurately and not in a manner that is incomplete or misleading. While historical delinquencies may be reported within the permissible period, the current reporting must clearly and accurately reflect the present status of the accounts. I am requesting : 1. A full investigation pursuant to FCRA 1681i. 2. Written verification of the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ). 3. Verification that the accounts are reporting in full compliance with Metro 2 industry standards. 4. Correction of any inaccurate payment history, status codes, or remarks. 5. Deletion of the accounts if they can not be fully verified with proper documentation. If the reporting can not be substantiated as completely accurate, complete, and compliant, the accounts must be corrected or removed. Please provide written documentation of your findings within the statutory 30-day period. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation
Consumer complaint received 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Mortgage — USDA mortgage
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage — Delays in the application process
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
My husband is the only mortgage obligor on our XXXX mortgage. He purchased this home in 2019. Since then we met, married and I was added to the title of the home in. We are now in the process of divorce and I want to assume the mortgage. We contacted US Bank to request an assumption application. We were told we would be sent one via mail. 2 weeks later we received a letter in the mail that states " while the loan is assumable, the transferor must remail personally liable '', and that " a release of liability will not be granted ''. When we called about this letter. The girl on the phone said the following statements to me - " This is what my manager told us to tell people when they call about this - The loan is assumable, but refinancing is a better option because you can roll in your closing costs. With the assumption you have to pay closing costs out of pocket '' This is insanely predatory. Our current mortgage is at a 4.125 % interest rate with 23 years left on a 30 year mortgage. I want to assume the mortgage, the mortgage is assumable. US Bank is blocking me from applying for the mortgage loan assumption. I believe that US Bank is sending these letters to anyone that requests an assumption, then feeding them these lines to get them to refinance instead of assuming a mortgage. 95 % of people will believe these tactics, but I've been in mortgage origination for 14 years. I am appalled at this letter, US bank 's tactics and want this to be fixed. They should not be sending these erroneous letters out to innocent customers that want to take advantage of the mortgage loan assumption feature and the benefits of doing so.

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 2026-03-04 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem caused by your funds being low — Overdrafts and overdraft fees
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding three overdraft fees totaling {$100.00} that were charged to my checking account ( ending in XXXX ) on XX/XX/year>. The fees were assessed at {$35.00} each for transactions that posted on XX/XX/year>. While I understand that my account balance was insufficient at the time of posting, the cumulative {$100.00} in fees has created a significant financial hardship. I am a low-income customer, and this fee amount represents funds that would otherwise be used to pay essential living expenses. As a direct result of these fees, one of my necessary bills will now go unpaid. Although Wells Fargo has assisted with fee reversals in the past, repeated overdraft penalties continue to disproportionately impact financially vulnerable customers. These fees, when viewed cumulatively, appear to be unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices ( UDAAP ) because they cause substantial harm, are not reasonably avoidable, and do not provide countervailing benefits to consumers. It was also unnecessarily difficult to locate a clear email address or direct communication channel to submit a written complaint. Reasonable access to complaint procedures should not be a barrier for customers already experiencing financial strain.

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