Date Received: 2023-07-29
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Subissue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Consumer Complaint: I had a special order from Home Depot in XX/XX/XXXX, which was charged on my Home Depot Citibank card. This order was to be delivered in XXXX of XXXX. It was never delivered. In XX/XX/XXXX I raised a Dispute with Citibank which they closed with no explanation and pointed me back to Home Depot. Inspire of my various attempts to reach Home Depot I did not get any response from Home Depot for over 6 months. Yet I had been paying my credit card minimum balance due each month thru XX/XX/XXXX. In XXXX I again filed a dispute with Citibank that the services have still not been delivered by Home Depot. At that point I had to stop making payments as I had no product for which Iw as paying for over one year already. Citibank started harassing me with collections calls multiple times a day, in the mid night and so on. Citibank also reported this to Credit Reporting agencies XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. Even though there is an active dispute with Citibank. The services from Home Depot against this transaction have still Not been delivered its end of XX/XX/XXXX. The amount is {$35000.00} approx. I m not getting any response from Home Depot still and Citibank is harassing me for the balance for a transaction which was never fulfilled or delivered. Kindly help me with this issue, Really appreciate your help Thank You
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: WA
Zip: 98056
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-29
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Account status incorrect
Consumer Complaint: I have XXXX citi bank cards. The payments are due on XX/XX/XXXX. Citi bank They reported to the credit bureau on XXXX that my payments were late which is no where near 30 days past due. This result in a negative issue on my credit report and caused my XXXX score to drop XXXX pts. My payment was made on XX/XX/XXXX.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: IL
Zip: 60061
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-29
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Subissue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/XXXX, I placed an order on Wayfairs website for two stools and charged them to my Wayfair credit card. XXXX delivered the items ahead of schedule on XX/XX/XXXX. I was not home and I was not expecting the items until XX/XX/XXXX. I returned home on Tuesday ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and found only one box at the door. I immediately contacted Wayfair but did not hear back until until XXXX from their resolutions dept. Unfortunarely, I was out of the country until XX/XX/XXXX and did not see the message sooner. Upon my return I immediately replied and followed their instructions. They ask me for an incident report and I did. On XX/XX/XXXX they replied that they needed and actual police report. I call the local police report and asked them to do a police report. I told the police exactly what I told XXXX resolution dept. the police generated a police report number which I gave to Wayfair immediately and said it would take anywhere from XXXX business day to be available. I forwarded the info the Wayfair. They replied again and said they had to have the actual police report and then, they would process the return for credit on the stolen stool. Additionally they wanted the report before XXXXdays from purchased date or the refund would be void. I explained it would be impossible as I dont have any control over when a police report would be available and the XXXXdays would come before the time establishe by police when a report is ready. I am still puzzled why the obsession with the actual police report. I did not give them any new information that I hadnt given to Wayfair already and Wayfair already had the police report number the police had provided. I feel Wayfair is avoiding to process the refund and putting all these obstacles to avoid processing. Im tired of dealing with them and the associate assigned to this situation is less then willing to offer resolution.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 330XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-29
Issue: Closing an account
Subissue: Company closed your account
Consumer Complaint: I opened a savings account with Citi Bank. I transferred {$10000.00} into the account from my XXXX checking account. The deposit was made immediately and a few days later the funds were available for use by Citi Bank. I attempted to transfer online {$5000.00} back into the XXXX account where the money originally came from and the system would not let me and told me to call Citibank. I called Citibank and was told I would need my ATM card and PIN number to transfer money. The ATM card is in the email and had not arrived yet. I then went back into the online system and tried to transfer {$1000.00} back into the same XXXX savings account where the money came from and the system allowed me to. So I made four more {$1000.00} dollar transfers, for a total of {$5000.00} in online transfers, all back into the same XXXX account the money came from. On XX/XX/2023, Citi Bank closed my savings account for fraud. I called them, spoke with a supervisor and was told there was nothing they could do for me. Told me they would mail my balance to the address on record in 60 days. I asked to speak with higher level supervisor and was told goodbye and they hung up. This entire thing is ridiculous. Close the account, fine but to hold my money XXXX is beyond the pale.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: AZ
Zip: 85212
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-29
Issue: Improper use of your report
Subissue: Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize
Consumer Complaint: I have a citi best buy account. great card no issues. However on CITIBANK NA, BEST BUY ( Bank ) XX/XX/2022 i had asked for a credit card increase. I was told by there customer service rep this would only be a SOFT pull that's why I did it. When I later looked they had made it a hard pull and explained how the customer service rep provided wrong information. They had told me would give me a courtesy an remove the hard inquiry for the increase for being a valued customer but it had never happened. I have tried on multiple times to fix this since and it has never happened. I have no issues with the credit card, the store and bank. I will continue doing business with them as there company I always recommend.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NY
Zip: 10305
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-29
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-28
Issue: Closing an account
Subissue: Company closed your account
Consumer Complaint: On XX/XX/2023 my check posted in my account and I went to log in and I couldnt access the account I was told I had to call and when I did I was told my account was close! I didnt get an email or a letter in the mail or anything it was just close. I asked why was my account closed and was told it was close due to abuse of the account. So I signed up for fraud protection as well as over draft protection and every other day I had money taken from my account or a over daft. I had things I had to keep fighting with them about like the service fees when I wasnt suppose to get charged as well and when something came out and I requested a block on the company they would allow it to keep going through and made me open a new case each time even tho it was for the same company! So I was just told it was closed down due to this I only called about 6 different things in two years. My money is still with the bank I keep calling trying to get my money from my check and everyone keeps telling me they cant help me this is stealing! And I want answers and my money this has never happened to me and should never happen to anyone else please stay away from Citi bank you will be sorry if you dont
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: TN
Zip: 37040
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-28
Issue: Fees or interest
Subissue: Charged too much interest
Consumer Complaint: 1. Payment due dates are changed every month without any previous notice to create " got-ya '' moment with intent to fradulently charge fees and interest. Example : the statement with billing period ( a ) XX/XX/23 to XX/XX/23 had a payment due date of XX/XX/23, ( b ) XX/XX/23 to XX/XX/23 had a payment due date of XX/XX/23. 2. For billing period XX/XX/23 to XX/XX/23, we were prompted to pay " Remaining Statement Balance, '' and we paid the remaining statement balance {$1100.00} way before the due date. We had statement credits from rewards points and other past payments. 3. For billing period XX/XX/23 to XX/XX/23, we were chared {$17.00} in interest- even after paying the full " Remaining Statement Balance '' as prompted. 4. There was absolute no basis for the $ XXXX rather XXXX XXXX should have given us interest for having credit balance. This is fraud and deception. 5. We contacted Citi 's Customer Service- they admitted the problem- and informed us that the " System '' is not allowing them to refund the money. When we requested to cancel our credit cards- he told me that system does not allow him to cancel the credit card.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: GA
Zip: 30067
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-28
Issue: Managing an account
Subissue: Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed
Consumer Complaint: As I wrote in the complaint XXXX, I was told the money would be refunded by TODAY XX/XX/ Friday, it's not been in my bank account. It's totally a lie and can be recognized as a fraud made by the bank. Give me the money back immediately. That's what I really need for my everyday life!!
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NY
Zip: 11377
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-28
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Subissue: Account status incorrect
Consumer Complaint: I am adding this info onto my current complaint to Citi bank reporting my recently settled account info as a recent charge off and recent late payment. According to the FCRA terms and guidelines, what they are doing is against the law and I refuse to stand for it, and accept what they are doing. I have made multiple attempts to call them and ask them to correct the info immediately as it is effecting my quality of life and has dropped my credit score below the acceptable range for a mortgage and I am going to be homeless in the next month due to an error made in part by them. According to this section of the FCRA 87 FR 64689 as follows, they are breaking the guidelines that are supposed to be adhered to. I am requesting this info be fixed ASAP or I will be taking measures necessary to correct it myself. They have retaliated against me for disputing the info that they did not update when I settled the debt with them last XXXX. Please see the following guidelines for the specific details of the FCRA Accuracy in consumer reports is of vital importance to the consumer reporting system, particularly as consumer reports play an increasingly central role in the lives of American consumers. Consumer reporting agencies collect and assemble credit, public record, and other consumer information into consumer reports. [ 2 ] Creditors, insurers, landlords, employers, and others use the information in these reports to make eligibility determinations and other decisions that can have a significant impact on consumers. For example, creditors use information in consumer reports to determine whether, and on what terms, to extend credit to a particular consumer, while landlords and employers use background screening reports in deciding whether to rent to prospective tenants and hire employees, respectively. Inaccurate, derogatory information in consumer reports can have significant adverse impacts on consumers. For example, inaccurate, derogatory information in consumer reports can lead to higher interest rates, ineligibility for promotional offers, or otherwise less favorable credit terms for affected consumers. This in turn may cost consumers hundreds or thousands of dollars in additional interest. Even worse, inaccurate, derogatory information in consumer reports could lead lenders to deny a consumer credit entirely, making it difficult or impossible for that consumer to obtain a mortgage, auto loan, student loan, or other credit. Any of these consequences can be devastating for a consumer 's financial well-being and life. Inaccurate, derogatory information in consumer reports can also harm the businesses that use such reports by leading them to make unsupported decisions. Consumer report accuracy depends on the various parties to the consumer reporting system, including : the three nationwide consumer reporting agencies ( XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX ) ; other consumer reporting agencies, such as background screening companies ; entities such as creditors who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies ( i.e., furnishers ) ; and public record repositories. While any of these parties may introduce inaccurate information into the consumer reporting process, a consumer reporting agency is uniquely positioned to identify certain obvious inaccuracies and implement policies, procedures, and systems to keep them off of consumer reports. In some cases, such as when certain account or other information fields on consumer reports are logically inconsistent with other fields of information, a consumer reporting agency can detect the logical inconsistencies and prevent the inaccurate information from being included in consumer reports it generates, thereby avoiding the consumer harm to individual consumers that can result from reporting such inaccurate information. Inaccuracy in consumer reports is a long-standing issue that remains a problem today. Pursuant to its obligations under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions ( FACT ) Act [ XXXX ] to conduct a study of consumer report accuracy and completeness, the Federal Trade Commission in XXXX published a report finding, among other things, that one in five consumers who participated in the study had an error on at least one of their three nationwide credit reports. [ 4 ] Another more recent study, published in XXXX, found that over 34 % of consumers surveyed were able to identify at least one error in their credit reports. [ 5 ] Consumer complaints submitted to the Bureau continue to reflect significant consumer concern about inaccuracies in consumer reports. Complaints about incorrect information on your report have represented the largest share of credit or consumer reporting complaints submitted to the Bureau each year for at least the last six years. [ 6 ] In XXXX alone, companies responded to more than 157,000 such complaints, representing a majority ( 53 % ) of credit or consumer reporting complaint responses that year. [ 7 ] Moreover, the Bureau continues to see accuracy issues at furnishers and consumer reporting agencies through its supervisory activities. For example, the Bureau noted in its XXXX XXXX Supervisory Highlights that many furnishers lacked reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information relating to consumers. [ 8 ] In its XXXX XXXX Supervisory Highlights, the Bureau explained that some consumer reporting agencies lacked adequate procedures for assuring maximum possible accuracy of consumer reports when they continued to include information in consumer reports that was provided by unreliable furnishers. [ 9 ] The Bureau also continues to find accuracy issues in the consumer reporting context through its enforcement activities. For example, the Bureau has brought enforcement actions against consumer reporting agencies whose inadequate name-only matching led to reports with inaccurate derogatory criminal and public records information on consumers. [ 10 ] The Bureau also has brought enforcement actions against furnishers who furnish information with inherent logical inconsistencies, such as furnishing an increasing original loan amount over time, where that field should not change. [ 11 ] The FCRA regulates consumer reporting. [ 12 ] The statute was designed to ensure that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information. [ 13 ] In interpreting the statute, Federal courts likewise highlight the importance of data accuracy. The FCRA was enacted to protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them and to establish credit reporting practices that utilize accurate, relevant, and current information in a confidential and responsible manner. [ 14 ] Because of the importance of consumer report accuracy to businesses and consumers, the structure of the FCRA creates interrelated legal standards and requirements to support the policy goal of accurate credit reporting. Among these is the requirement that, when preparing a consumer report, consumer reporting agencies shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. [ 15 ] Inaccuracies in consumer reports can, in part, be attributed to consumer reporting agencies failing to maintain reasonable procedures, such as business rules, to prevent the inclusion of facially false data, including logical inconsistencies relating to consumer data and/or the status or other information associated with consumer accounts, when preparing consumer reports. Courts have recognized that in certain instances, inaccurate credit reports by themselves can fairly be read as evidencing unreasonable procedures [. ] [ 16 ] The Bureau is issuing this advisory opinion to highlight that the legal requirement to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individuals about whom the reports relate includes, but is not limited to, procedures to screen for and eliminate logical inconsistencies to avoid including facially false data in consumer reports. There are many logical inconsistencies that could result in inaccurate, facially false data being included on consumer reports in violation of section 607 ( b ). The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of some of the types of logical inconsistencies that reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy would screen for and eliminate : Inconsistent Account Information or Statuses A consumer reporting agency 's policies and procedures should be sufficient to detect tradelines with account statuses or codes that are plainly inconsistent with other information reported for that same account, such that, if included in a consumer report, at least one item of information therein would necessarily be inaccurate. Such inconsistencies may include : An account whose status is paid in full, and thus has no balance due but nevertheless reflects a balance due ; [ 17 ] An account that reflects an Original Loan Amount that increases over time, an impossibility by definition ; [ 18 ] and Derogatory information being reported on an account, although that derogatory information predates an earlier report that did not include the derogatory information. [ 19 ] A consumer reporting agency 's policies and procedures should further identify and prevent illogical reporting of a Date of First Delinquency in connection with an account. [ 20 ] Section 605 ( a ) of the FCRA identifies categories of information that can not be included in a consumer report after a certain amount of time. [ 21 ] For example, a consumer reporting agency may not include on a consumer report accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss that antedate the report by more than seven years and 180 days. [ 22 ] This provision enables consumers to move beyond their past and rebuild their credit following a delinquency. The Date of First Delinquency provided by a furnisher must reflect the month and year on which the delinquency being reported commenced. [ 23 ] When accurate, that date corresponds with the start of the time period that, once elapsed, precludes the delinquency from remaining on a consumer report under FCRA section 605 ( a ). A Date of First Delinquency that is more recent than the start of a delinquency may lead a report user to believe a consumer had financial difficulty more recently than is the case. Similarly, a Date of First Delinquency reflected on a report where a consumer is not in fact delinquent could cause a user to inaccurately believe that the consumer is delinquent. Examples of an illogical Date of First Delinquency may include : A Date of First Delinquency reported for an account whose records reflect no delinquency, such as through activity reflecting a current account ( complete history of timely payments, {$0.00} amount overdue ) or through a current account status code ; [ 24 ] A Date of First Delinquency that post-dates a charge-off date ; and A Date of First Delinquency, or date of last payment, that predates the account open date ( for non-collection accounts ). Illogical Information Relating to Consumers A consumer reporting agency 's policies and procedures should also identify logical inconsistencies in consumer information, such that, if included in a consumer report, some of the information therein would necessarily be inaccurate. Such inconsistencies may include : Impossible information about consumersfor example, a tradeline that includes a relevant date, such as a date of account opening, account closing, date of last payment, or date of first delinquency, for an account that is in the futurean obvious impossibilityor for an individual account that either predates that consumer 's listed date of birth or that is so far in the past ( e.g., XX/XX/XXXX ) that it must predate every living consumers ' date of birth, as individuals can not open an account before they are born ; [ 25 ] and Information about consumer accounts that is plainly inconsistent with other reported information, such that one piece of information must be inaccuratefor example, if every other tradeline is reporting ongoing payment activity, while one tradeline contains a deceased indicator, reasonable policies and procedures should identify the inconsistency and the consumer reporting agency should prevent the inclusion of the inaccurate information in consumer reports it generates. [ 26 ] A consumer reporting agency 's policies, procedures and internal controls should further identify and prevent reporting of illegitimate credit transactions for a minor. Minors generally can not legally enter into contracts for credit except in certain limited circumstances. It is logically inconsistent when a credit transaction is reported for a person who lacks capacity to enter into a contract because they are a minor, unless there are indicia that the credit transaction is legitimate, such as in the context of student loans, credit card authorized users, or emancipated minors. [ 27 ] The Bureau is aware of evidence showing that instances of identity theft are especially prevalent for minors, suggesting that identity thieves may target minors due to the value of unused Social Security numbers and a belief that there is a lower probability of discovery of the fraud. [ 28 ] This risk may be even more acute for minors in the United States foster care system, who often lack a permanent address and frequently have their personal information shared among numerous adults and agency databases, making them particularly susceptible to identity theft and inaccurate credit history information. [ 29 ] This heightened risk faced by minors underscores the importance for consumer reporting agencies to maintain procedures designed to identify illegitimate credit transactions reported for minors and prevent inclusion thereof when preparing consumer reports. The Bureau is issuing this advisory opinion to remind consumer reporting agencies that the failure to maintain reasonable procedures to screen for and eliminate logical inconsistencies, to prevent the inclusion of facially false data in consumer reports, is a violation of their FCRA obligation to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy under section 607 ( b ) of the FCRA. B. Coverage This advisory opinion applies to all consumer reporting agencies as defined in FCRA section 603 ( f ). [ 30 ] C. Legal Analysis Section 607 ( b ) of the FCRA provides that [ w ] henever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. [ 31 ] The Bureau has interpreted this requirement in section 607 ( b ) to include as an integral component that consumer reporting agencies implement and maintain reasonable screening procedures, such as business rules, designed to identify and prevent the inclusion of facially false data, such as logical inconsistencies relating to consumer or account information, in the consumer reports they prepare. Courts have spoken on this topic. For example, in Bryant v. TRW , Inc., the court rejected a consumer reporting agency 's assertion that it had no obligation to compare facially inconsistent information contained in two of plaintiff 's consumer reports from different months because such an interpretation would make the consumer reporting agency simply a conduit and eliminate from the [ FCRA ] its emphasis on the reasonableness of the procedures followed in putting together a consumer report, contrary to Congressional intent. [ 32 ] Courts have also indicated that the inclusion of facially false data inaccuracies on a consumer report may, in certain circumstances, evidence the unreasonableness of a consumer reporting agency 's procedures. [ 33 ] It continues to be the Bureau 's interpretation as outlined in this advisory opinion that such procedures are required, consistent with the core purpose of the FCRA as described in FCRA section 602 i.e., to require consumer reporting agencies to adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner that is fair and equitable to the consumer with regard to accuracy, among other responsibilities. [ 34 ] This interpretation also aligns with the Federal Trade Commission 's 40 Years Report, which states that pursuant to 607 ( b ), a consumer reporting agency must maintain procedures to avoid reporting information with obvious logical inconsistencies, such as a credit account opened when the consumer was known to be a minor. [ 35 ] In addition to provisions authorizing Federal and State enforcement, [ 36 ] the FCRA contains two provisions relating to civil liability to consumers for noncompliance. Section 617 provides that any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the consumer 's actual damages, and costs and reasonable attorney 's fees. [ 37 ] Section 616 provides that any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to actual or statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation, such punitive damages as the court allows, and costs and reasonable attorney 's fees. [ 38 ] A violation is willful when it is inconsistent with authoritative guidance from a relevant agency. [ 39 ] As with any guidance issued by the CFPB on the FCRA, or predecessor agencies that were responsible for administering the FCRA prior to the CFPB 's creation, consumer reporting agencies risk liability under Section 616 if they violate the FCRA in a manner described in this Advisory Opinion, regardless of whether the consumer reporting agencies were previously liable for willful violations prior to its issuance. II. Regulatory Matters This advisory opinion is an interpretive rule issued under the Bureau 's authority to interpret the FCRA, including under section 1022 ( b ) ( 1 ) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, [ 40 ] which authorizes guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of Federal consumer financial laws. [ 41 ] The Bureau has determined that this advisory opinion does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. [ 42 ] Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, [ 43 ] the Bureau will submit a report containing this interpretive rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United Stat es prior to the rule 's published effective date. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this interpretive rule as not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 ( 2 ). Rohit Chopra, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Footnotes 1. 85 FR 77987 ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). Back to Citation 2. See15 U.S.C. 1681a ( d ) ( defining consumer report ). Back to Citation 3. Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Public Law 108-159, sec. 319, 117 Stat. 1952 ( 2003 ). Back to Citation 4. See Fed. Trade Comm'n, Report to Congress Under Section 319 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, at 64 ( XXXX. XXXX )XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Back to Citation 5. See Syed Ejaz, Consumer Reports, A Broken System : How the Credit Reporting System Fails Consumers and What to Do About It 4 ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX. Back to Citation 6. See Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Consumer Response Annual Report, at 20 ( XXXX. XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX ; Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Consumer Response Annual Report, at 22 ( XXXX. XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ; Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Consumer Response Annual Report, at XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX ; Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Consumer Response Annual Report, at 19 ( XXXX. XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ; Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Consumer Response Annual Report, at 13 ( XXXX. XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ; Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Consumer Response Annual Report, at 18 ( XXXX. XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX. Back to Citation 7. See Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, Consumer Response Annual Report, at 20 ( XXXX. XXXX )XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for more in-depth analyses. Back to Citation 8. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX Supervisory Highlights, at XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX. Back to Citation 9. See XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX Supervisory Highlights, at XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX. Back to Citation 10. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX )XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Back to Citation 11. Consent Order at XXXX, In re XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX. Back to Citation 12. See15 U.S.C. 1681-1681x. Back to Citation 13. 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( b ). Back to Citation 14. Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info., 45 F.3d 1329, 1333 ( 9th Cir.1995 ) ( citations omitted ) ; see also S. Rep. No. 91-517, at 1 ( 1969 ) ( explaining that the FCRA was intended to prevent consumers from being unjustly damaged because of inaccurate or arbitrary inform ation in a credit report ). Back to Citation 15. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). Back to Citation 16. Stewart v. Credit Bureau , Inc., 734 F.2d 47, 52 ( D.C. Cir. 1984 ). Back to Citation 17. Cf. Consent Order at 20, In re XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( Respondent also reported in approximately XXXX instances that accounts had a current balance and simultaneously furnished contradictory information, such as also furnishing information indicating that the accounts were paid in full. ), XXXX : XXXX. The XXXX consent order, along with other CFPB consent orders cited herein, relate to furnisher obligations under section 623 of the FCRA, but the underlying logical inconsistencies involved, as described herein, are illustrative examples of the types of inconsistencies that a credit reporting agency 's reasonable policies and procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy should be designed to detect. Back to Citation 18. Cf. Consent Order at 41, In re XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ( After furnishing the correct original loan amount ( a field that should not change ), Respondent furnished increased amounts for the original loan amount, making it appear that a consumer had taken out a larger loan than they had actually taken out. ), XXXX : XXXX. Back to Citation 19. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX. Mich. XXXX ) ( refusing to set aside a jury verdict finding that a consumer reporting agency failed to follow reasonable procedures under FCRA section XXXX ( b ) for failing to detect inconsistencies between a XXXX report containing derogatory information and an earlier XXXX report on which such information did not appear even though at least one of the derogatory items predated the XXXX report ). Back to Citation XXXX. The Date of First Delinquency herein refers to the date furnished to a credit reporting agency by a furnisher that purportedly reflects the month and year on which the delinquency being reported in connection with a consumer 's account commenced. Back to Citation 21. 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ). Back to Citation 22. 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ), ( c ). Back to Citation 23. 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). Under the FCRA, furnishers must report a Date of First Delinquency within 90 days of furnishing information regarding delinquent accounts being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action. Id. Back to Citation 24. Cf. Consent Order at 36, In re XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) ( Respondent furnished account data showing that the consumer account was current, such as reporting {$0.00} amount overdue or full payments made timely each month, but then also furnished a [ Date of First Delinquency ], a field that inaccurately indicated that the account was in an ongoing delinquency. ) ; Consent Order at XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) ( alleging XXXX violated FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) by inaccurately furnishing internally inconsistent data, including reporting [ Date of First Delinquencies ] for accounts that were current, paid in full ( and not delinquent immediately beforehand ), or previously delinquent but subsequently became current ). Back to Citation 25. See, e.g., XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( referencing a consumer report that indicated both that XXXX was born in XXXX and that the account was opened in XXXX as XXXX of XXXX inconsistencies that provide [ d ] a basis from which a jury could infer that the procedures were unreasonable ). Back to Citation 26. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ; see also XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, at XXXX ( referencing the fact that only one account of approximately two dozen on a consumer 's report included the deceased notation as one of two inconsistencies that provide [ d ] a basis from which a jury could infer that the procedures were unreasonable ). Back to Citation 27. This example is consistent with prior Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) 's 40 Years Report. See FTC, 40 Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( XX/XX/XXXX ) [ hereinafter, the FTC 40 Years Report ], available at XXXX : XXXX, at 68, comment 8 ( A [ consumer reporting agency ] must maintain procedures to avoid reporting information with obvious logical inconsistencies, such as a credit account opened when the consumer was known to be a minor. ). FTC staff published the 40 Years Report, an updated compilation of past FTC interpretations of the FCRA, to coincide with the transfer of authority to the Bureau. Effective XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Dodd-Frank Act transferred rulemaking authority related to most of the FCRA to the Bureau, giving the Bureau the primary regulatory and interpretive roles under the FCRA. Back to Citation 28. See, e.g., Richard Power, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Child Identity Theft : New Evidence Indicates Identity Thieves are Targeting Children for Unused Social Security Numbers ( XXXX ), available at XXXX : XXXX Back to Citation 29. See Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, CFPB Releases Tools to Protect Foster Care Children from Credit Reporting Problems XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), available at XXXX : //www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-releases-tools-to-protect-foster-care-children-from-credit-reporting-errors/ # : ~ : text=To % 20submit % 20a % 20complaint % 2C % 20consumers,1 % 2D855 % 2D237 % 2D2392. Back to Citation 30. 15 U.S.C. 1681a ( f ). Back to Citation 31. 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). Back to Citation 32. See Bryant v. TRW , Inc., 487 F. Supp. at 1242. See also McKeown v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 335 F. Supp. 2d 917, 930 ( W.D. Wis. 2004 ) ( [ R ] eceiving apparently inconsistent credit reports may trigger an obligation to investigate on the part of the credit reporting agency.... [ because ] allowing credit reporting agencies to act as nothing more than mere conduits of information would eviscerate the act 's emphasis on reasonable compilation procedures. ) ( citing Bryant, 487 F. Supp. at 1242 ) ; Wright v. XXXX Info. Sols., Inc. , 805 F.3d 1232, 1239 ( 10th Cir. 2015 ) ( Courts have held [ consumer reporting agencies ] must look beyond information furnished to them when it is inconsistent with the [ consumer reporting agencies ' ] own records, contains a facial inaccuracy, or comes from an unreliable source. ). Back to Citation 33. See Stewart v. Credit Bureau , Inc., 734 F.2d at 52 ; Sheffer , 2003 WL 21710573, at *2. Back to Citation 34. 15 U.S.C. 1681 ( b ) ; see also Guimond, 45 F.3d at 1333. Back to Citation 35. FTC 40 Years Report, at 68, comment 8. Back to Citation 36. 15 U.S.C. 1681s. Back to Citation 37. 15 U.S.C. 1681o ( emphasis added ). Back to Citation 38. 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( emphasis added ) ; Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 57-58 ( 2007 ) ( construing meaning of willful ). Back to Citation 39. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 70 ( 2007 ) ; Fuges v. Sw. Fin. Servs., Ltd. , 707 F.3d 241, 253 ( 3d Cir. 2012 ). Back to Citation 40. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 ( 2010 ). Back to Citation 41. 12 U.S.C. 5512 ( b ) ( 1 ). Back to Citation 42. 4 U.S.C. 3501-3521. Back to Citation 43. 5 U.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: IN
Zip: 460XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2023-07-28
Issue: Money was not available when promised
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Unfortunately you ( Citibank ) havent answered my personal concern. You have an account with the XXXX XXXX XXXX dept, based in XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. They use your service to transfer cash to pay pensioners internationally their necessary pension incomes. You stopped my pension income for political reasons. Because I am resident in XXXX. My Pension dept say they cant pay me because Citibank refuses to pay XXXX pensioners resident in XXXX. Do you want me and my family to starve, go in debt and as a result deported back to the XXXX away from my dependant family? What can you do to resolve this matter? I too am concerned about the loss of life in XXXX and XXXX due to a prolonged battle killing each other and the starvation of those people trying to make a living and prevented from doing so thanks to the decisions of a handful of individuals. that is not the fault of ordinary people in either country.
Company Response:
State:
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2023-07-28
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A