Date Received: 2018-12-05
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt is not yours
Consumer Complaint: Sent creditor multiple letters and they never respond.
Company Response:
State: FL
Zip: 32725
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-12-05
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-12-05
Issue: Managing an account
Subissue: Problem accessing account
Consumer Complaint: This used to be " America 's most convenient bank ''. Not anymore. They blocked my access to my account online without any prior notice. They then said the only way to unblock it is via a text message. I am XXXX, like many folks my age, I rarely use text messages. Also, I have two phones and they would only send the access code/text message to my phone number ending in XXXX even though I was carrying my phone with the number ending in XXXX that day. Telling them this fell of deaf ears. So the next day I took my XXXX phone with me and called them again. This time their representative said they could only send the new code to the XXXX but not the XXXX number and she refused to give me the new code over the phone even though I answered all her security questions correctly. So the next day i took the XXXX phone with me specifically so i could get the texted code and the representative said she can only text it to the XXXX number. When I asked for a supervisor I was left on hold for a half hour waiting. Finally when I spoke to the supervisor I answered more security questions and she then assured me the account was unblocked. Then when I went back online the account wasn't unblocked and I had to go through the text message thing all over again. Then when I was finally able to access my account online, five minutes later it it bounced me out stating it was due to " inactivity '' even though there was no inactivity and I was in the process of scheduling a payment when I got bounced out. They need to hire competent tech people like they used to have.
Company Response:
State: NJ
Zip: 08003
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-12-05
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-12-05
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Was not notified of investigation status or results
Consumer Complaint: XX/XX/XXXX- $ XXXX-unathorized charges XX/XX/XXXX- $ XXXX-paid in full not removed from credit report XX/XX/XXXX- $ XXXX-unauthorized charges and will not contact me XX/XX/XXXX- $ XXXX- not my account/fraud activity XX/XX/XXXX- $ XXXX- not my account, I had another one and paid in full XX/XX/XXXX- $ XXXX- paid in full and not removed from credit report XX/XX/XXXX- {$880.00} account was in a plan and paid from bank draft every month until paid balance down and it showed that I was late 30-60 days and was not
Company Response:
State: TN
Zip: 383XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-12-05
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-12-04
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account
Subissue: Transaction was not authorized
Consumer Complaint: I purchased an auto insurance policy from XXXX for XXXX and XXXX per month payment for a 6 month policy.They deducted XXXX plus an additional XXXX. The XXXX was not authorized neither did I know that amount was due to purchase the policy. This occurred on XX/XX/2018. My Bank is TD Bank.At this time I am unable to maintain my other financial obligations.
Company Response:
State: NJ
Zip: 088XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-12-04
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-12-02
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Subissue: Debt was paid
Consumer Complaint: In XXXX I was contacted by XXXX XXXX XXXX, a collection agency representing TD Auto finance, regarding a debt owed. After several conversations with a representative at XXXX I was able to come to resolution that would satisfy the debt in full. On XX/XX/XXXX I paid the agreed upon amount of {$5000.00} and received correspondence from XXXX indicating the debt had been satisfied however TD Auto finance is still actively collecting on this debt. I have attempted to contact TD Auto finance but I am being referred back to XXXX as two entities can not collect on the same debt. XXXX is unable to assist me as they show the debt as paid in full. I am requesting relief/assistance from the CFPB as I no longer owe this debt.
Company Response:
State: TX
Zip: 76904
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-12-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-12-01
Issue: Problem with the payoff process at the end of the loan
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Roughly XXXX or XXXX years ago, I purchased a furniture set through a company that I financed. During the life of that loan, it was sold to another organization, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Automatic payments were set up for the loan, with the understanding that the final payment would be in XX/XX/2018. In XX/XX/XXXX, my remaining balance was {$37.00}. The monthly payments up until that point were {$32.00}. It was communicated beforehand that the final payment would be slightly more. However, the company 's payment system, through which my bank account was automatically debited each month did not process the last payment because the scheduled withdrawal amount of {$32.00} was not sufficient to cover the remaining balance of {$37.00} ; or at least that is the understanding I gained from my conversation with the company. At no point in our communications was this functionality limitation of their system communicated to me. In my initial agreement with the organization, and I assume ownership of that agreement was transferred but still binding, I agreed to pay the final amount of {$37.00}. Because I had a remaining balance, I began accruing a {$1.00} finance charge each month. Afterwards, the minimum payment due was set to {$2.00} and the system began debiting my account again. This meant that each month, I would pay the company a {$1.00} fee and only {$1.00} would go to my principal balance, potentially extending the loan an additional XXXX months. Since I run on a budget and {$2.00} is immaterial, I did not notice until XXXX months later. Yes, the total impact is not significant. This cost me {$6.00}, and if it went unnoticed, would have cost me {$37.00}, barring any other fees ( which are probable ) that I am unaware of. However, their customer base for this function of their enterprise is comprised of mostly low income people, i imagine. Those typically have to finance purchases of this nature due to their inability to expend amounts of a few thousand in a single instance. If this practice is done to all customers, the company is reaping a massive profit in what I feel is a very unethical, and predatory manner. These are the items that give me the impression that this practice is intentional and hopefully in violation of some form of regulation or ethical standard : 1. ) The payment schedule was agreed to in the initial contract. The final balance was communicated to me within that schedule. When the automatic payments were agreed to, it was not communicated to me nor was there any indication that the final payment would not also be automatically withdrawn. In fact, though I have not yet located the initial paperwork, I am certain that the language used to describe the service stated that the minimum payment due would be withdrawn, and am willing to research further if this complaint requires additional information. Continuing, if the minimum payment due was {$37.00} on the payment schedule, why was it not also {$37.00} in the system? 2. ) The structure of the payment system indicates that this process is intentional. As discussed, the system refused to process the final payment altogether because it was not sufficient to cover the remaining balance. External to the fact that it was implied the automatic withdrawal would adjust in the final month, the system did not apply the {$32.00} amount to the balance, either. By not applying the {$32.00} and instead refusing to process any contribution to the account in this instance or set of circumstances indicates, to me at least, that this is not a functionality limitation of their software, but rather an intentional design choice. An intentional design choice that increases the life of a loan by potentially a significant amount of time, should it go unnoticed by the consumer. 3. ) In further support of the intentional nature and possible predatory practice of the system, consider the ensuing payments after XX/XX/XXXX - in XX/XX/XXXX, the system was programmed not to pay the {$37.00} remaining balance ( that was scheduled in the agreement ) due to the automatic withdrawal amount being set to only {$32.00}. However, once the balance was unpaid, and finance charges began accruing, the automatic withdrawal amount was adjusted to {$2.00}, without my consultation or authorization. The system then began applying a {$1.00} finance charge each month and only contributing {$1.00} to my balance. At this point, though the automatic payment amount was less than the remaining balance as was the case in XX/XX/XXXX when the system rejected the automatic payment, the automatic payments were able to be processed again.Due to the discrepancy in withdrawal practices, significant reduction in automatic withdrawal amount which would conveniently extend the length of the loan and allow them to accrue additional finance charges, the small amount of the new automatic withdrawal after the " delinquency '' has occurred ( which seems designed to slip through consumers ' notice due to the immateriality of the amount, as happened to me ), I feel this is a predatory practice.
Company Response:
State: FL
Zip: 32301
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-12-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-12-01
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: XXXX has been non-compliant with removing the unverified account TD AUTO FINANCE XXXX which has been deleted by XXXX and XXXX. XXXX and XXXX have both completed their research and determined that TD AUTO FINANCE was not established by myself but XXXX keeps verifying this accounts. Also, when I called the company they responded that XXXX did not send them all of the verifying evidence to confirm each account is unverified.
Company Response:
State: CA
Zip: 91709
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-12-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-12-01
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: XXXX has been non-compliant with removing the unverified account TD AUTO FINANCE XXXX which has been deleted by XXXX and XXXX. XXXX and XXXX have both completed their research and determined that TD AUTO FINANCE was not established by myself but XXXX keeps verifying this accounts. Also, when I called the company they responded that XXXX did not send them all of the verifying evidence to confirm each account is unverified.
Company Response:
State: CA
Zip: 91709
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-12-01
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-11-30
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: XXXX has been non-compliant with removing the unverified account TD BANK USA/XXXX XXXX which has been deleted by XXXX and XXXX. XXXX and XXXX have both completed their research and determined that TD BANK USA/XXXX XXXX was not established by myself but XXXX keeps verifying this accounts. Also, when I called the company they responded that XXXX did not send them all of the verifying evidence to confirm each account is unverified.
Company Response:
State: MI
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-12-02
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2018-11-30
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem
Subissue: Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Consumer Complaint: XXXX has been non-compliant with removing the unverified account NORDSTROM/TD BANK XXXX which has been deleted by XXXX and XXXX. XXXX and XXXX have both completed their research and determined that NORDSTROM/TD BANK XXXX was not established by myself but XXXX keeps verifying this accounts. Also, when I called the company they responded that XXXX did not send them all of the verifying evidence to confirm each account is unverified.
Company Response:
State: MI
Zip: XXXXX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2018-12-10
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A