Consumer complaint received 2022-04-08 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: Flagstar Bank, N.A.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
As per 15usc6802 ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.

( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. 

As stated in 6802, the company flagstar which services my FHA mortgage neve disclosed how they would share information. Furthermore they disclosed information to the data furnishers/credit bureaus using my Social security number/card . the social security card is a nonpublic personal piece of information. 

Furthermore, flagstar never informed me with any time notice that they would be disclosing information related to my account and/or gave me proper time to chose to have them share such information. 

Furthermore, flagstar shared nonpublic personal information with a non affiliated third party. As the law is written ; flagstar can only share information within companies directly tied to the parent company itself. Data furnishers/ credit bureaus are non affliated third parties due to the fact they are not a direct parent/sibling company of flagstar therefore they're violation the laws and as such has caused me financial/emotional/and irrevocably damaged my life. 

15usc1681a ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; exclusions are transactions ( history of payments ) or experiences ( utilization ) 15usc1681S2 ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. 

now that ive disputed this information through my credit reports and nothing changed you're in clear violation that I've disclosed this information should not be on the report. 
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- aside from flagstar violating 15usc6802. They're also not in comliance with their reporting methods to the data furnishers/credit bureaus and as such has caused me personal, financial, and emotional damages. 

FLAGSTAR BANK with XXXX has what appears to be one or more indicators of being NON- COMPLIANTLY omitted although requisite reported, inconsistently reported, misleadingly reported, and or otherwise seems to be potentially with at least one or more reported data field ( s ) with XXXX-deemed jeopardized reporting integrity due to being in deviation from the mandatorily utilized XXXX XXXX format for fair and certifiably compliant reporting ( s ) out of alignment of the very laws that the compliance standard ensures absolute adherence to each any and all requisites in total accordance of the FCBA, FCRA , ECOA , and each any and all applicable state laws and or standards expected, mentioned or not. In cognizance to the item questioned above, Account Type : reported as REAL ESTATE for XXXX, Mortgage account for XXXX XXXX, and as Mortgage for XXXX and as such is in apparent deviation from the requisite standard ( s ) for certifiably compliant reporting, hence the genesis of my rightful consumer complaint contesting reporter 's privilege to report this claim unless it accepts and successfully fulfills the challenge to prove indisputably its confirmed and demonstrated adequacy of reporting practices and process to include no less than the full adherence of their required perfection and completeness of the Credit Reporting Industry 's mandatorily utilized XXXX XXXX Format standards, and as such are XXXXne or more likely deficient of its exigency of reporting edict, and as such are one or more for all intents and purposes surely deficient of its exigency of reporting proficiency and or expected appropriateness! In regard to item questioned above, Account Type - Detail : reported as FHA Mortgage for XXXX, Mortgage account for XXXX XXXX, and as Mortgage for XXXX and as such is one, each or all in deviation from the requisite standard ( s ) and or is not proven much less certifiably compliant to its regulatory mandates as its a sin qua non for compliant reporting and as such are one or more apparently deficient of its exigency of reporting decree ( s )! Now, in regard to this items displayed account number, the mandatorily utilized XXXX XXXX format, the data field known as XXXX Consumer Account Number is reported as XXXX for XXXX, XXXX for XXXX XXXX, and as XXXX for XXXX. As such, even just this aspect of the items reporting proves mathematical improbability the alleging data reporting furnisher can truly prove full compliance to their mandatorily abided by regulations and or standards as proof of below described deviation from the requisite standard ( s ) for the compliant reporting, which requires undeniable proven data reported ONLY. As reported, it is NOT in clarity if the account data field pieces of information as displayed is in fact absolutely and only associated with and only with the reported account number, exactly as displayed. If the account number is four-redacted in its truncation there are at least 10,000 possible numbers mathematically the account could be. Equally as problematic, if not more so, if the redacted characters within the account numbers truncation is greater than four then for each additional redacted value there is, mathematically, a 10-fold greater likelihood of the account number and or the accounts data field pieces of information being not only of association with each other. As such, mathematically there might would be at least a 10-fold increase in possible merging of information and or mixing of information between multiple accounts on my report and or with another persons report, be it a relative of similar name or otherwise unrelated matters not. Further, if the redacted values of an account truncation is lesser than four, mathematically there logically exists at least a 10-fold increase in ease of theft of information leading to possible fraud and or identity theft, be it realized or not. POINT BEING, unless the reported account number and ALL aspects of its reporting including each any and all data points HAS ITS INFORMATION FACTUALLY CONFIRMED and documented to be it and only it, there can be no true certainty of a claims nor claimers absolute satisfying of the minimal requirements of lawful reporting much less that of the mandatorily utilized XXXX XXXX format compliance, therefore the report-ability of any such claims reporter is and should be contested and challenge made for the Sayer to prove indisputable and CERTIFIABLY COMPLIANT each any and all of the claim ( s ) and each any and all aspect ( s ) of said claim ( s )! Reporter 's Claimed account number for XXXX, XXXX, XXXX has LESS THAN THE REQUIRED FOUR ( <4 ) redacted values in its alleged truncated account number. MATHEMATICALLY, EACH LESSER REDACTED VALUE GENERATES 10-FOLD LIKELIHOOD THE REPORTED CLAIM OF THIS ACCOUNT IS POTENTIALLY RELATED TO UNKNOWN AND OR FRAUDULENT EVENTS. THIS IS BECAUSE 4 REDACTED VALUES HAVE A POSSIBILITY OF BEING ONE OF 10,000 POSSIBLE VARIATIONS ( 0000-9999 ). SIMILARLY, THE 3-REDA CTED TRUNCATION HAS POTENTIALLY ONLY 1,000 VARIATIONS ( 000-999 ). EVEN MORE WORRISOME IS FACT THAT A 2-REDACTED TRUNCATION HAS POTENTIALLY ONLY XXXX00 ( 00-99 ) VARIATIONS. SCARILY, IF ONLY 1-REDACTED TRUNCATION THERE IS BUT 10 MATHEMATICAL VARIATIONS POSSIBLE. AND WORSE OF ALL, IF NO REDACTED TRUNCATION OR A 0-REDACTED ACCOUNT NUMBER IS REPORTED AND POTENTIAL IDENTITY THEFT PERPETRATOR AND OR FRAUDSTERS WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY HANDED MY EXACT ACCOUNT INFORMATION LENDING OBVIOUS INJURIOUS ABILITIES TO SAID WRONG DOERS. ANY SUCH TRUNCATION THAT IS DEVIANT FROM THE REQUISITE OF ONLY AND EXACTLY FOUR REDACTED VALUES IN ALL ACCOUNT TRUNCATIONS, CERTAINLY JEOPARDIZES THE INTEGRITY OF THE REPORTING CLAIM ( S ). ***************************************************************************************************** It is noteworthy that as the injured consumer, I am of no obligation to reveal any imperfections nor any flawed reporting as it is your moral imperative to NOT HAVE ANY for which I may be even able to do so. However, at a very minimum, the reported allegations versus me I have marked as reported potentially in dereliction include identified likely SUSPICIOUS claims of how the mandatorily used and required perfectly reported XXXX XXXX formats Base Field 7 ( XXXX ) with redacted truncation indicated above does actually report. Understand please that in mathematical reality, this makes impossible for ANY ENTITY to be certain of adequacy to the perfect inclusion and arrangement of ONLY accurate and complete data field information within the requisite reported data fields outlined mandatory for lawful reporting fulfilling the necessary decrees. That is, how is it assumed that the true account number, whatever it might be, actually has exactly and only the reported data fields and reported data field information as proclaimed by the alleged accusing data reporting furnisher? Further, I ask, given the redacted values within the alleged charged off claim versus me, how can it possibly be confirmable the impeccable reporting when it's not provable the displayed data fields are in and of only perfect alignment with the exact information from such data field ( s ) related to only the one account number that would be supposed truly and provable mine yet not even exposed at all? It is obvious the unjust significant injurious nature of each any and all of the claim ( s ) as reported to my person, character, emotional well-being, and financial reputation let alone my otherwise fair creditworthiness, ILLEGALLY SO MIGHT I ADD? Your requisite investigation of my complaint and notification of my here now contesting of your otherwise assumed privilege to report MUST BE ethical, lawful, and otherwise perfectly COMPLIANT to all requisites of any entity 's assumed desire to report. It is the claim 's report-ability here contested, and my challenge is for proof undeniable of certifiably compliant reporting practices for which you have assumed is satisfying of minimal criteria for retained reporting privilege. The RIGHT for an owed party to lawfully attempt collection is NOT disputed, that is NOT my argument. It is the apparent deficit of evident Fair Reporting Practices that is of my concern and the genesis of my calling into question the claim ( s ) above identified made versus me. Let it be in clarity that due to my concerns relating to your apparent substantial deviations from the mandatorily perfect, complete, and utilized XXXX XXXX Data- filled field formatted reporting standards that I here and now forward this written challenge. Understand please that my challenge is to any and each related data reporting furnisher ( s ) as well as each and any data receiving repository ( i.e. CRA ) to demonstrate physically ( via required documentation ) the afore and below-mentioned and each and any other required evidence confirming the absolute adherence to each and any of the requisite certifiably compliant reporting process ( es ) to include adequate precision in total undeniable accordance with and to the XXXX 's most recent announced reporting industry standards ( i.e. the near annual XXXX ), each and any of the applicable federal regulations, and each and all applicable state laws and or standards, mentioned or not. Supposed or even legitimate ignorance of the necessary adequate applications of the obligatory measures in relationship to all prospective menacing reported claims lending detriment to my credit worthiness does not alleviate any entity from each and any requisites of reporting mandates. Unless of a circumstance I am unaware, there is no RIGHT TO REPORT, RATHER THERE EXISTS A RIGHT TO COLLECT ( OF WHICH IS NOT CONTESTED HERE ), YET THERE IS BUT A VERY CONDITIONAL PRIVILEGE TO REPORT IF AND ONLY IF THE REPORTING IS SATISFACTORY OF THE VERY SPECIFIC CRITERIA TO REPORT in full compliance ETHICALLY AND LAWFULLY. Is it not true that no entity can report nor accept reporting NON-COMPLIANTLY and continue to do so once alerted to the ailment, be it done willfully or in ignorance? In obviousness, the minimal standard is to report and or to only accept reporting of claim ( s ) made only to a degree of MAXIMUM possible accuracy AND completion within perfect fidelity to the mandated XXXX XXXX format reporting standards as exactly outlined in the XXXX 's most current XXXX. Again, per above noted minimal criterion to report, there can be no deviation from the reporting standards and equally it must be in uniform alignment in the claim ( s ) " reporting accuracy and completion to a degree of no lesser than that of a MAXIMUM POSSIBILITY. I remind you, the data reporting furnisher ( s ) and each and any receiving repository could have and SHOULD HAVE BEEN CERTIFIABLY COMPLIANT IN THE REPORTING PROCESS ( ES ). IN FACT, PER XXXX written XXXX XXXX4, " ANY DEVIATION FROM THESE STANDARDS JEOPARDIZES THE INTEGRITY OF THE DATA ''. MY CONTESTING OF ANY NOTED CLAIM 'S REPORT-ABILITY IS JUSTIFIED, HENCE MY CHALLENGE for accusers TO DEMONSTRATE THE FACTUAL CERTIFIABLY COMPLIANT REPORTING PROCESS INCLUDING ITS MANDATORILY PERFECT AND COMPLETE XXXX XXXX  DATA-FILLED FIELD FORMATTED REPORTING STANDARDS, OF WHICH PER XXXX " ANY DEVIATION OF THESE STANDARDS JEOPARDIZES THE INTEGRITY OF THE DATA ''. OBVIOUSLY, DEFICIT OF INTEGRITY THERE CAN BE NO ASSUMPTION REPORTER DID SO TO THE REQUIRED DEGREE OF PRECISION WHICH IS NO LESSER THAN TO A MAXIMUM POSSIBLE ACCURACY AND COMPLETION. The data reporting furnisher AND the accepting data repository could have and legally SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLIANT. Now, if this notice is ignored, or fails to deliver your then appropriate reporting actions to modify, remove from reporting, and or elsewise demonstrate in confirmation your satisfying of at least the minimal criterion for retaining the PRIVILEGE to report, I will consider seeking suit versus you and any entity involved for then-obvious WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE leading to the significantly injurious marks versus me. As reported, given the above questionable aspects I have noted in the reportings for which I have contested reporters privilege to do so, it appears that each any or all of the deviation ( s ) highlights even more so the likelihood of the claim 's questionable reporting. In clarity, this is an infraction of the ethical and lawful reporting practices compelled of and from each and or either of the alleging data reporting furnisher and any accepting repository, particularly following my written consumer complaint notifying each and any of discovered potentially divergent nonconforming claim ( s ) ' reporting in likely dereliction. Given the palpable precariousness and urgency of above detailed concerns, in rightfulness I demand your immediate cease from reporting this unfounded claim, removing the unfair injury versus me. Do so today, even right here right now so to return to competency for your hopes to retain the privilege to participate in the mandated certifiably compliant reporting that MUST BE without ANY deviation from the standards nor regulations elsewise including no omitting of requisite reported accurate and complete data fields in perfect adherence to the previously discussed XXXX XXXX format and any application of law.

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