Consumer complaint received 2026-03-26 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Federal student loan servicing
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: Central Research Inc
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
I. BORROWER INFORMATION Name : XXXX XXXX ( legal name ) / XXXX XXXX ( former name on account ) Account Number : XXXX Loan Type : Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan Original Principal : {$9200.00} Previous Servicer : XXXX Current Servicer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Transfer Date : XX/XX/XXXX Date of Complaint : XX/XX/XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Email : XXXX II. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT This complaint is filed against Central Research , Inc. ( CRI ), a federal student loan servicer operating under contract with the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, for multiple violations of federal law and regulation that directly caused an XXXX reduction in my credit score through no fault of my own. CRI failed to provide legally required advance notice of a loan servicer transfer, failed to send required billing statements through any verified contact channel, failed to notify me of forbearance placement and termination, reported inaccurate and internally inconsistent delinquency information to consumer reporting agencies, failed to activate their own designated secondary contact channel despite XXXX months of XXXX borrower response, made multiple false statements during XXXX separate recorded compliance calls, and after being put on notice of an imminent dispute on a recorded call on XX/XX/XXXX, expanded adverse reporting to a third bureau that had previously shown no delinquency without conducting any investigation and without noting the account as disputed. I am an actively engaged borrower with a documented payment history. My last payment to XXXX was made on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX month before CRI acquired the loan. CRI 's cascading notification failures are the sole cause of the delinquency they reported. III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND VERIFIED TIMELINE The following timeline is supported entirely by documentary evidence including XXXX payment records, a complete XXXX search of all CRI correspondence, call log screenshots, XXXX loan status data, all three credit bureau reports pulled on both XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, and full recorded transcripts of the XX/XX/XXXX call with CRI representative XXXX and the XX/XX/XXXX call with CRI representative XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX Final payment of {$200.00} made to XXXX, applied entirely to accrued interest. Account current and in good standing. Establishes borrower as actively paying as recently as XXXX month before CRI acquired the loan. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX officially transfers from XXXX to CRI. Transfer amount {$9500.00} {$9200.00} to principal and {$260.00} to interest. XXXX balance remaining with XXXX. XXXX arrives at CRI in perfect standing with no pre-existing delinquency. This date triggers CRI 's advance notification obligation under federal law. Violation : 20 U.S.C. 1092e CRI required to provide written notice at least 15 days BEFORE XX/XX/XXXX. No such notice was ever provided before or on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX exists in CRI 's possession but system does not finish loading until XX/XX/XXXX. No payment to CRI was technically possible during this XXXX window. Confirmed independently by both CRI representative XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and CRI representative XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX on separate recorded calls. XX/XX/XXXX CRI sends one email to XXXX notifying borrower of the transfer 14 days AFTER the XX/XX/XXXX transfer date. Email automatically filtered away from inbox. No payment obligation information included. This is the only transfer-related communication CRI ever sent. When CRI representative XXXX was asked on the XX/XX/XXXX recorded call what methods CRI used to contact the borrower and on what dates, she cited only this single XX/XX/XXXX welcome email no mention of any XXXX letter, XXXX call, XXXX call, or XXXX pre-reporting email. XXXX days later XXXX claimed all of those contacts from the same system of record. XXXXXXXX XXXX account corroborated by complete XXXX record. XXXXXXXX XXXX account contradicted by complete XXXX record and call log. Note : XXXX confirmed XX/XX/XXXX as the email date. XXXX stated XX/XX/XXXX from the same system of record contradicted by physical email, establishing CRI misquotes their own records. Violation : XXXX XXXX. XXXX Retroactive notification sent 14 days after transfer can not satisfy the advance notice requirement by definition. XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX CRI sends XXXX communications to borrower 's confirmed email address regarding payments, billing, account status, or forbearance. Over XXXX months of complete communication silence through the only verified contact channel CRI possessed. Complete XXXX search confirms this absolutely. CRI representative XXXX admitted on the XX/XX/XXXX recorded call that email was CRI 's designated secondary contact method to be activated when mail correspondence failed to produce a response. XXXX months of XXXX borrower response never triggered that secondary channel. Violation : 34 C.F.R. 682.208 ( f ) No billing statement sent to confirmed email address at any point during this period. Violation : 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 CRI 's own stated policy required email activation when primary mail contact failed to produce a response. Never activated despite XXXX months of silence. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX 's enrollment status changes to XXXX at XXXX, effective this date. XX/XX/XXXX Forbearance placed on account the day after enrollment status change. Borrower receives XXXX notification of placement, XXXX notification of interest consequences, XXXX notification of capitalization implications. CRI 's own system can not locate who placed the forbearance or under what authority. XXXX narrative codes XXXX Student Loan Payment Deferred appear for XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX on the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX report, corroborating the forbearance period on CRI 's own bureau submissions. Violation : 34 C.F.R. 682.211 Servicer required to notify borrower of forbearance placement and interest consequences. No such notification ever sent to confirmed email address. Complete XXXX record confirms absolutely. XX/XX/XXXX Forbearance ends. Loan returns to repayment status. Accrued interest capitalizes into principal, increasing balance from {$9200.00} to {$9400.00} a {$120.00} increase confirmed independently by CRI representative XXXX on the XX/XX/XXXX recorded call. Borrower receives XXXX notification of forbearance termination, XXXX notification repayment resumed, XXXX notification of capitalization. Violation : 34 C.F.R. 682.211 No notification of forbearance termination sent to confirmed email address. Violation : 34 C.F.R. 682.208 ( f ) First payment due XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX advance billing statement window begins running. No billing statement sent to confirmed email. XX/XX/XXXX ( CRI 's claimed date ) XXXX claimed on the XX/XX/XXXX recorded call that CRI sent a letter to borrower 's mailing address notifying that forbearance was ending. CRI had the XXXX XXXX address on file the only mailing address they possessed until XX/XX/XXXX. They never verified whether it was current after the XX/XX/XXXX transfer despite possessing XXXX database checks, credit header data, and the XXXX XXXX as verification tools. No email sent simultaneously. XXXX made no mention of this letter from the same system of record XXXX days earlier. XXXX also cited XX/XX/XXXX in an earlier part of the same call XXXX different dates for the same claimed correspondence within XXXX call, an additional internal inconsistency. XX/XX/XXXX CRI issues first billing statement showing {$100.00} due XX/XX/XXXX. Sent by paper mail to XXXX XXXX address on file never verified as current after XX/XX/XXXX transfer. No email copy sent despite email being the confirmed secondary contact channel. Borrower did not receive paper statement. Violation : 34 C.F.R. 682.208 ( f ) Billing statement not delivered through verified contact channel. CRI possessed confirmed working email and chose not to use it. XX/XX/XXXX First payment of {$100.00} due under CRI. Borrower receives XXXX notification through any verified channel. Payment missed. Account becomes delinquent. XXXX records Delinquent Date as XX/XX/XXXX the day after the missed due date confirming XX/XX/XXXX as the first missed payment. This is the mathematical anchor for the XXXX XXXX violation : XXXX days from XX/XX/XXXX is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is XX/XX/XXXX. CRI 's own data submission to XXXX would later confirm a first delinquency date of XX/XX/XXXX exactly XXXX days after XX/XX/XXXX proving CRI 's own records confirm the XXXX XXXX violation. Violation : 34 C.F.R. 682.208 ( f ) No verified notification before due date. Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) If CRI was reporting monthly status as XXXX claimed, accurate XXXX XXXX XXXX for XX/XX/XXXX was XXXX late. No such mark exists on any bureau. XX/XX/XXXX ( CRI 's claimed date ) XXXX claimed CRI made a phone call to borrower on this date. Directly contradicted by complete call log showing XXXX calls from XXXX on this date. No voicemail received. XXXX made no mention of this call from the same system of record XXXX days earlier. Carrier records formally requested XX/XX/XXXX pending. XX/XX/XXXX ( CRI 's claimed date ) XXXX claimed CRI made a second phone call on this date and that the account reflected 15 days past due. Internally inconsistent 15 days past XX/XX/XXXX due date is XX/XX/XXXX, not XX/XX/XXXX. Directly contradicted by complete call log. No voicemail. XXXX made no mention of this call. Carrier records pending. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX sends XXXX tax form email to XXXX. First email to confirmed address since XX/XX/XXXX nearly XXXX months of silence. XXXX reference to missed payment, delinquent account, or any payment obligation. This email proves the email channel was fully functional and accessible throughout the entire delinquency accumulation period. CRI used the confirmed channel for tax correspondence while deliberately withholding it from payment-critical communications. Violation : 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 Deliberate policy choice to use email channel for tax correspondence while withholding it from payment notifications. Secondary contact policy never activated despite functional channel existing throughout. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX incoming missed call from XXXX at XXXX PM XXXX XXXX. No voicemail left. Only phone contact CRI ever attempted during entire delinquency accumulation period. No email sent after missed call despite email being designated secondary contact method. XXXX stated this call was at XXXX PM Central Time converts to XXXX PM XXXX a six-hour discrepancy from documented XXXX PM XXXX that no time zone conversion can explain. XXXX XXXX is XXXX hour behind XXXX, not XXXX hours. Violation : CFPB reasonable servicing standards XXXX missed call with no voicemail and no email follow-up is not reasonable outreach for a borrower approaching XXXX delinquency when a confirmed email channel existed and was designated as secondary contact under CRI 's own stated policy. XX/XX/XXXX CRI sends second email to XXXX regarding tax return document. XXXX reference to delinquency or payment obligation. Account now over XXXX days past due. Second consecutive email using confirmed channel exclusively for tax purposes while delinquency accumulates without any direct payment notification. Violation : CFPB reasonable servicing standards Secondary email contact policy not activated despite account being over XXXX days past due and confirmed email channel being actively used for non-payment correspondence. XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX XXXX routes urgent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX notifications through XXXX financial aid office rather than contacting borrower directly. XXXX holds no legal obligation to ensure borrower receives loan payment notifications. Violation : CFPB student loan servicing regulations Using third-party educational institution as substitute for direct borrower contact does not satisfy reasonable communication requirements. XX/XX/XXXX ( CRI 's claimed date ) XXXX claimed CRI sent a pre-reporting notice to XXXX on this date. Complete XXXX record including inbox, spam, and trash contains XXXX emails from any CRI domain on this date. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX summary of complete CRI email history confirms no such email exists. XXXX made no mention of this email from the same system of record XXXX days earlier. This is the most consequential false statement XXXX made a specific claimed compliance act that both documentary evidence and CRI 's own prior representative 's account confirm never occurred. XX/XX/XXXX CRI reports borrower as XXXX days past due to XXXX XXXX XXXX with {$320.00} past due. Simultaneously reports same account as XXXX XXXX Agreed with XXXX delinquency to XXXX. No XXXX or XXXX marks appear on any bureau at any point despite XXXX 's recorded admission of monthly bureau reporting . The reporting is mathematically impossible : for the account to be XXXX days past due in XX/XX/XXXX the first missed payment must have been XX/XX/XXXX, meaning XX/XX/XXXX should show XXXX days late and XX/XX/XXXX should show XXXX days late. Neither mark exists on any bureau. CRI 's own subsequent data submission to Equifax confirmed a first delinquency date of XX/XX/XXXX exactly XXXX days after the XX/XX/XXXX missed payment proving with CRI 's own data that XXXX and XXXX should have carried intermediate delinquency marks. Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) XXXX distinct violations. First : CRI reported contradictory information to different bureaus for same account in same period XXXX report definitionally inaccurate. Second : delinquency resulted entirely from CRI 's own notification failures borrower had no actionable information from which to make a payment. Third : complete absence of XXXX and XXXX marks despite claimed monthly reporting means inaccurate XXXX XXXX XXXX codes submitted for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, proven by CRI 's own first delinquency date submission. Violation : 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 CRI 's XXXX reporting policy systematically produces inaccurate XXXX XXXX data and violates furnisher accuracy and integrity obligations. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX discovers XXXX XXXX XXXX reduction. Calls CRI at XXXX PM, speaks with representative XXXX for XXXX minutes. Call recorded. When asked what methods CRI used to contact borrower and on what dates, XXXX cited only the XX/XX/XXXX welcome email no mention of any XXXX letter, XXXX call, XXXX call, or XXXX pre-reporting email. This is the central evidentiary conflict : XXXX CRI representatives reading from the same system of record XXXX days apart gave completely irreconcilable accounts of CRI 's contact history. XXXX 's account XXXX email is fully corroborated by the borrower 's XXXX record and call log. XXXX 's account multiple letters, calls, and emails is contradicted by every piece of documentary evidence. Additional Latia admissions : confirmed XX/XX/XXXX system load date, confirmed XX/XX/XXXX email date contradicting XXXX 's later XX/XX/XXXX claim, confirmed capitalized interest of {$120.00}, confirmed no forbearance currently showing in system despite prior existence, confirmed account 100 days past due with {$420.00} past due. After call borrower created XXXX account and updated contact information confirmed by XXXX CRI system emails received same day. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX calls CRI at XXXX PM, speaks with representative XXXX for XXXX minutes. Call recorded. XXXX made XXXX documented false statements each directly contradicted by evidence and by XXXX 's account : ( 1 ) Claimed XX/XX/XXXX letter sent not mentioned by XXXX, contradicted by XXXX record. ( 2 ) Claimed XX/XX/XXXX call made not mentioned by XXXX, contradicted by call log. ( 3 ) Claimed XX/XX/XXXX call made not mentioned by XXXX, contradicted by call log, internally inconsistent date. ( 4 ) Claimed XX/XX/XXXX pre-reporting email sent to XXXX not mentioned by XXXX, contradicted by complete XXXX record. ( XXXX ) Stated CRI received loan in XXXX contradicted by XX/XX/XXXX system load date confirmed by both representatives. ( XXXX ) Stated XX/XX/XXXX call was at XXXX PM XXXX contradicted by call log showing XXXX PM Eastern, six-hour discrepancy. XXXX confirmed email was CRI 's designated secondary contact method to be activated when mail failed to produce a response then used borrower 's non-enrollment in e-correspondence to justify never using it, a direct internal contradiction. Confirmed XXXX reporting policy. XXXX informed XXXX that a CFPB complaint and bureau disputes would be filed. XXXX acknowledged this on recorded line. XXXX report pulled same day shows XXXX delinquency Pays As Agreed, no first delinquency date, no past due amount. Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) Borrower put CRI on notice of intent to dispute on recorded line. CRI obligation to investigate and correct activates from this date. Any adverse reporting added or continued after this date without XXXX dispute notation constitutes additional violation. Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX Within 12 days of borrower informing CRI on a recorded line that a CFPB complaint and bureau disputes would be filed, CRI updated the XXXX tradeline to add XXXX days past due, {$320.00} past due, and a first delinquency date of XX/XX/XXXX none of which appeared on the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX report . CRI had been actively reporting to XXXX as recently as XX/XX/XXXX per the Date of Last Activity field on the XX/XX/XXXX report, meaning the absence of delinquency on XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX was a deliberate reporting choice, not an oversight. Rather than investigating the dispute and removing the delinquency from XXXX XXXX XXXX as required, CRI responded by expanding adverse reporting to a third bureau that had previously been clean without conducting any investigation and without noting the account as disputed on any bureau. The first delinquency date of XX/XX/XXXX that CRI furnished to XXXX is self-incriminating : it confirms XX/XX/XXXX was the first missed payment and mathematically proves that XX/XX/XXXX should have shown XXXX days late and XX/XX/XXXX should have shown XXXX days late on every bureau. Neither mark exists anywhere. CRI 's own XXXX data submission proves their XXXX XXXX violation across all three bureaus simultaneously. Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) Continued and expanded adverse reporting after notice of dispute without XXXX notation and without investigation. Adding delinquency to XXXX after dispute notice rather than removing from XXXX XXXX XXXX is the direct opposite of the conduct this statute requires. Violation : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) First delinquency date of XX/XX/XXXX furnished by CRI to XXXX mathematically proves inaccurate XXXX XXXX reporting across all three bureaus. CRI 's own data submission is the evidence of their own violation. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX pulls all three credit bureau reports. XXXX now shows XXXX days past due, {$320.00} past due, first delinquency date XX/XX/XXXX none of which appeared on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX unchanged from XX/XX/XXXX. All three bureaus now show delinquency. Cross-bureau inconsistency resolved by CRI expanding adverse reporting rather than correcting it. XX/XX/XXXX XXXX files CFPB complaint and all three bureau dispute letters. Formal dispute clock starts. Any continued adverse reporting without AID dispute notation after this date constitutes additional violation under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ). IV. PATTERN OF DECEPTION AND RETALIATORY CONDUCT The record establishes XXXX distinct patterns of conduct that elevate this case beyond negligent servicing into willful noncompliance. Pattern 1 False Statements During Recorded Compliance Inquiries The central evidentiary conflict is the irreconcilable difference between XXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX account and XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX account of CRI 's contact history. When XXXX described how CRI contacted the borrower, she cited XXXX email on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX days later XXXX cited an XXXX letter, XXXX phone calls, and a XXXX email from the same system of record. The borrower 's documentary evidence confirms XXXX 's account entirely and contradicts XXXX 's account entirely. A servicer whose representatives give irreconcilably different accounts of their own contact history within XXXX days does not have a clerical error problem. It has a systemic accuracy and integrity problem. False XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX stated CRI sent a letter on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX made no mention of it. XXXX record contains no corresponding email. XXXX cited XXXX different dates for the same letter within the same call XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. False Statement XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Phone Call XXXX stated CRI called borrower XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX made no mention of it. Complete call log shows no call on this date. No voicemail. Carrier records pending. False Statement XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Phone Call XXXX stated CRI called borrower XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX made no mention of it. Complete call log shows no call on this date. No voicemail. Date internally inconsistent with claimed account status. Carrier records pending. False Statement XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Pre-Reporting Email XXXX stated CRI sent a pre-reporting notice to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX made no mention of it. XXXX XXXX record including inbox, spam, and trash contains no such email. This is the most consequential false statement because it describes a specific compliance act CRI would rely on to defend the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX report. False Statement XXXX XXXX Loan Receipt Tiara stated CRI received the loan in XXXX. Both representatives confirmed XX/XX/XXXX system load date in their respective calls. CRI 's own welcome email is dated XX/XX/XXXX. False Statement XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Call XXXX XXXX stated the XX/XX/XXXX call was at XXXX PM Central Time. XXXX 's call log shows XXXX PM XXXX. XXXX XXXX is XXXX hour behind XXXX XXXX PM XXXX equals XXXX PM XXXX. The six-hour discrepancy can not be explained by any time zone conversion. The XXXX XXXX XXXX stated email was CRI 's designated secondary contact method to be activated when mail failed to produce a response. She then used the borrower 's non-enrollment in e-correspondence to justify never using it. These statements are mutually exclusive. Enrollment status governs whether email is the primary channel not whether it is available as the secondary channel CRI 's own policy requires. Pattern XXXX Anticipatory Adverse Furnishing After Dispute Notice On XX/XX/XXXX, borrower informed CRI on a recorded line that a CFPB complaint and bureau disputes would be filed. As of that date XXXX showed XXXX delinquency Pays As Agreed with no adverse marks. Within 12 days XXXX updated the XXXX tradeline to add XXXX days past due and a first delinquency date of XX/XX/XXXX. CRI did not investigate. CRI did not remove the delinquency from XXXX XXXX XXXX CRI did not note any bureau account as disputed. Instead CRI expanded the adverse reporting to a bureau they had previously left clean. This conduct expanding derogatory credit reporting in direct response to a borrower announcing a formal dispute is the precise conduct 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) exists to prohibit. V. SPECIFIC FEDERAL VIOLATIONS Violation 1 20 U.S.C. 1092e : Failure to Provide Advance Notice of Servicer Transfer Federal law requires written notice at least 15 days before the effective transfer date. CRI sent XXXX email on XX/XX/XXXX 14 days after the XX/XX/XXXX transfer. No notice was provided before the transfer. Violation 2 34 C.F.R. 682.208 ( f ) : Failure to Send Required Billing Statements Servicers are required to send billing statements at least 21 days before each payment due date through a channel reasonably calculated to reach the borrower. No billing statement was ever sent to the borrower 's confirmed email address. Paper statements sent to an unverified mailing address while a confirmed electronic channel existed and was never used do not satisfy this requirement. Violation 3 34 C.F.R. 682.211 : Failure to Notify of Forbearance CRI failed to notify borrower of forbearance placement on XX/XX/XXXX, failed to notify of interest consequences and capitalization, and failed to notify when forbearance ended XX/XX/XXXX. CRI 's own representatives confirmed the forbearance can not be located in their system. Violation 4 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) : Inaccurate and Inconsistent Credit Reporting CRI violated this statute in four distinct ways : ( 1 ) reported contradictory information to different bureaus for the same account in the same period ; ( 2 ) reported a delinquency that resulted entirely from CRI 's own notification failures ; ( 3 ) submitted inaccurate XXXX XXXX XXXX codes for XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX proven by CRI 's own first delinquency date submission ; ( 4 ) expanded adverse reporting to XXXX after dispute notice rather than investigating and correcting. Violation 5 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 3 ) : Continued Adverse Reporting After Dispute Notice After being put on notice of an imminent dispute on a recorded call on XX/XX/XXXX, CRI added delinquency reporting to XXXX within 12 days without conducting any investigation and without noting any account as disputed. This is the direct opposite of what this statute requires. Violation 6 12 C.F.R. 1022.42 : Failure to Maintain Accuracy and Integrity Procedures CRI 's admitted XXXX reporting policy systematically produces inaccurate XXXX XXXX data. CRI 's own first delinquency date submission to XXXX proves this policy violated XXXX XXXX accuracy requirements across all three bureaus simultaneously. Violation 7 CFPB Student Loan Servicing Standards : Failure to Maintain Reasonable Communication Policies CRI possessed a confirmed working email address, designated it as secondary contact under their own stated policy, proved it functional via tax correspondence, and failed to use it for any payment-critical communication. CRI also routed urgent payment notifications through XXXX financial aid office rather than contacting borrower directly. VI. DOCUMENTED IMPACT XXXX-point credit score reduction directly attributable to CRI 's delinquency reporting Delinquency reporting now present on all three bureaus as of XX/XX/XXXX expanded from XXXX bureaus to XXXX within 12 days of borrower announcing intent to dispute No XXXX or XXXX intermediate delinquency markers on any bureau despite CRI 's claimed monthly reporting mathematically impossible timeline First delinquency date of XX/XX/XXXX furnished by CRI to XXXX proves XXXX XXXX XXXX with CRI 's own data Interest capitalization XXXX {$120.00} added to principal without notification or consent Estimated removal date of XX/XX/XXXX on XXXX XXXX years of ongoing harm XXXX not corrected Damage to borrower 's creditworthiness affecting eligibility for future financing, housing, and employment Multiple false statements made across XXXX recorded compliance calls Anticipatory adverse furnishing to XXXX after dispute notice rather than investigation and correction

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation