Search the Community

Hello Fellow New Yorkers: The Experian Experience of NYState 380-j (the NYS 5-yr purge law) is now being investigated by the NY AG's office. PLEASE send a letter with your name, address, email, and phone to the address below. State in what way the Experian credit reporting agency's deviation from the norm has affected your ability to get a mortgage, rent an apartment, get insurance, get credit cards, and how you believed that the statute would protect you from vengeful reporting if you paid your debts in the spirit of the statute. WE FINALLY HAVE A CHAMPION. He gets it. Please mail him any sort of letter of complaint but make it personal in that you are being hurt as a consumer. If you IM me, I will send you a sample letter. The CFPB will not get involved in a state statute from my contact with them but will endorse anything stated by the AG of NY. Van Voris, Esq. Sr. Fraud Representative Consumer Fraud and Protection Bureau Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224-0341 Even if you don't have time to CMRRR, he is aware of the problem and is ON IT. help him out and write him so he has good reason to continue working on it. Thanks, lets flood the AG office with letters naming Experian. thanks/ Liz

Good read for those with medical collections. http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-spotlights-concerns-with-medical-debt-collection-and-reporting/ http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/heres-how-medical-debt-hurts-your-credit-report/ http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/consumer-advisory-7-ways-to-keep-medical-debt-in-check/

Good read for those with medical collections. http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-spotlights-concerns-with-medical-debt-collection-and-reporting/ http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/heres-how-medical-debt-hurts-your-credit-report/ http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/consumer-advisory-7-ways-to-keep-medical-debt-in-check/ Whychat's HIPAA program: http://whychat.5u.com/hipltr.html

This would require a little homework of anyone who didn't follow the adventure. If you're so inclined, you can read the first post of this 6-month-old thread: JDB accepted my settlement offer - THEY pay ME for violation? So here's the latest twist and your Sunday Survey... Their compliance manager sent me a LinkedIn request to connect. I'm certain it was an accident...I'm in his email contacts; he probably didn't remember how he knew me. I'm tempted to message him and ask if he's trying to be entertaining on purpose or if it was merely an oversight. He's the only person I had any communication with at that company, so it's not like he was copied on some email and didn't deal with me firsthand. I've gotten a few great suggestions on how/if I should respond...now let's hear yours!

I have been trying to deal with two old HSBC accounts that were charged off. Long story short, I had 2 HSBC cards charged off before Cap1 bought their US credit card business. They went to Cap1 and I battled them for removal by disputes, EO action, and a CFBP complaint. Nothing came of any of those attempts. They have now been assigned back to HSBC from what i can tell because they now list the po box 9 address in Buffalo instead of the Cap1 Carol Springs, IL address. I have done recent CRA disputes about these accounts and here's how they are reporting (and came back as verified): Experian is reporting these as positive trade lines that will will remain until 2021 with the notation "sold to another lender" and a "closed" date in mid 2011. No payment history is reporting at all. No balance due. No charge off notation. Shows up on the backdoor online dispute in the positive accounts section. Transunion and Equifax are reporting these accounts as charge off accounts with "closed" dates of late 2010. Payment history shows lates leading up to CO. Purchased by another lender noted. Which of the following methods would you use? Or do you have a different idea? 1. I have a 623 letter typed up with all of the issues mention above plus a few more. The two outcomes I think may come of this are either: (a) it will be removed because of the incorrect reporting or lack of records to review it since it went to Cap1 and then came back (b.) they will change the experian reporting to show the CO making it a negative account again 2. File a CFPB dispute for the trade lines reporting completely differently after disputes. I have copies of the disputes showing the completely different reporting. My goal is complete deletion of these trade lines.

Prepared Remarks of CFPB Director Richard Cordray at The Clearing House HINT: She was more entertained by talking with the speechwriter than reading the finished product.

I filed a CFPB complaint about 3 weeks ago regarding Cap One's right to report and update a CO and 3rd party sold, HSBC account. Here are the details: http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=521029 Here's the email reply I just received yesterday: The company has provided a partial response to your complaint number ********* describing the steps taken so far to address your issue. They stated they are still working on your issue, and you should hear from them again within 60 days. We will let you know as soon as we receive an update about your complaint. Thank you, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau consumerfinance.gov (855) 411-CFPB (2372) Thing is there is no response posted in the complaint, except for the email above. Questions: Is it worth complaining about allowing the an extra 60 days? Or When you file a complaint/dispute through CFPB, does that require them to update the TL as "in dispute" or does that only apply when it goes through the CRA or directly with the furnisher? If so, and they don't, is that a violation? Should I just not say anything about the 60 days and them not reporting it as "in dispute" to rack up violations? They are not reporting it as disputed. As you can see I'm going after this every way I can think of.

Especially for Reader 65/ Bravegirl and the rest of the New Yorkers out there.. FINALLY got a letter form Andrienne Walters ofthe Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Prevention (VanVoris's boss,perhaps?) They have "received and reviewed my complaint".. Policy is to intervene IF WE BELIEVE THAT OUR MEDIATION MAY BRING ABOUT RESOLUTION. She is 'forwarding a copy of your complaint to the company to request a statement of their position and a possible adjustment..." " they will contact me again when there are developments to report" First of all, they must think that the complaint has some justification and that they can intervene. That is good. Also, the same complaint to the FCPB resulted in a letter asking me for permission to pull my credit reports- my request to them was that paid settlements on accounts with CA's were not recognized as their definition of "paid" and that EXP would keep the OC on even if the CA was paid, regardless of % paid or if it was under court supervision and approved by the judge. I am also doing a complaint to EXP asking that my three OC's reporting.provide a full spectrum of information, not as a dispute but as an investigation. Two of the three of them have no statements left (all given to collector) and all three have no original credit card contract... so if they confirm the information requested, they are violating section 623 and will have to remove the tradeline...Again, took names and numbers and asked for the name and number of the contact person at OC conducting the investigation... So, three angles of pursuit, hoping hoping hoping. PM me if you want the letter to the Exp requesting a laundry list of exact information. what is that Happy song again??? I am happy happy happy hoping hoping hoping..

Enforcement Action Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. The ECOA authorizes the CFPB and the DOJ to take action against creditors engaging in illegal discrimination. The CFPB is issuing a consent order as an administrative action covering both the deceptive marketing practices and the illegal discrimination. The DOJ’s settlement on discrimination was filed in the U.S. District Court for District of Utah. The CFPB’s order requires GE Capital: · End deceptive marketing practices: GE Capital must cease its deceptive marketing practices. GE Capital ended all telephone-based enrollments for all of the add-on products involved in today’s action in October 2012. GE Capital is prohibited from marketing or offering these products by telephone until it submits a compliance plan to the Bureau. · End illegal discrimination: GE Capital must end all discriminatory credit practices. GE Capital has included qualified customers who prefer to communicate in Spanish and customers with a mailing address in Puerto Rico in the settlement offer since March 2012. GE Capital completely discontinued the statement credit offer in March 2012. · Provide $225 million to harmed consumers: GE Capital must refund $56 million to the approximately 638,000 consumers who were affected by its deceptive marketing of the credit card add-on products. GE Capital must also provide $169 million in relief to about 108,000 borrowers excluded from debt relief offers because of their national origin. The $169 million represents the value of the offer that the consumer did not receive plus interest and indirect damages. · Conveniently provide consumer relief: Consumers do not need to take action to obtain their relief. If the consumers still have credit cards with GE Capital, they have received or will receive a credit to their accounts or a check. If they no longer have credit cards with GE Capital, they will receive or have received a check in the mail or have charged-off balances reduced by the amount of the relief. If the relief is greater than the consumer’s existing balance, the consumer will receive a check for the excess. · Notify credit reporting agencies of new information: For those consumers who did not receive the debt relief offers, GE Capital will work with credit reporting agencies to ensure that any negative information associated with the consumer’s GE Capital accounts as a result of these violations will be deleted from their credit history. · Forgive debt of accounts that did not receive debt relief offers: For the customers that did not receive debt relief offers because they preferred to communicate in Spanish or had a mailing address in Puerto Rico, if GE Capital had written off or sold their debt, that debt will be forgiven. · Pay a $3.5 million penalty: For its deceptive credit card marketing, GE Capital will make a $3.5 million penalty payment to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund. With respect to the illegal discrimination, the Bureau is not assessing penalties based on a number of factors, including that the company self-reported the violation, self-initiated remediation for the harm done to affected consumers, and fully cooperated with the Bureau’s investigation. The Bureau has ongoing supervisory authority over GE Capital and will continue to conduct examinations of GE Capital to ensure its compliance with federal consumer financial law. The full text of the CFPB’s Consent Order is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201406_cfpb_consent-order_synchrony-bank.pdf

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-sues-cashcall-for-illegal-online-loan-servicing/ The CFPB’s complaint alleges that defendants CashCall, WS Funding, Delbert, and Reddam have violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibitions on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices. The Bureau’s investigation showed that the high-cost loans violated either licensing requirements or interest-rate caps – or both – in at least eight states: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and North Carolina. Under statutes in at least these eight states, any obligation to pay such loans was rendered void or otherwise nullified in whole or in part by law. Therefore, the defendants are collecting money that consumers do not owe. full complaint http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_complaint_cashcall.pdf

LVNV is on 2 of my reports for and old Providian account. It will age off in a few of months. It is, without a shadow of doubt, well beyond the SOL. I am in CA and always have been. I sent LVNV Whychats "letter to collection agency validation/dispute/cease and desist" letter, certified mail, to LVNV in January. After I confirmed receipt, I sent an itemized dispute to the CRAs listing the incorrect line items. I never heard from LVNV. They verified the account with the CRAs. I just received a dunning letter from FNCB listing LVNV as the owner. It has the typical 30 day language. It also tells me I can request all the information I already requested from LVNV. It does NOT note that the debt is past SOL. It does offer me a settlement. I assume I want to dispute and request validation. Should I also lecture them on the SOL? Should I also enclose the letter I already sent to LVNV? And copy LVNV on the whole thing? Can I also file a complaint with the CFPB? Against both companies? I appreciate any assistance on this.

Just read about this. Buried deep (and I mean DEEP...scroll all the way to the bottom) in the financial report EQ filed for 2014-Q1 is the following notice: CFPB Investigation. In February 2014, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (a “CID”) from the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) as part of its investigation to determine whether nationwide consumer reporting agencies have been or are engaging in unlawful acts or practices relating to the advertising, marketing, sale or provision of consumer reports, credit scores or credit monitoring products in violation of the Dodd Frank Act or the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The CID requests the production of documents and answers to written questions. We are cooperating with the CFPB in its investigation and are in discussions with the CFPB regarding our response to the CID. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of this CFPB investigation, including whether the investigation will result in any action or proceeding against us. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/33185/000114420414024604/v374519_10q.htm

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/03/us-financial-regulations-creditcards-idUSBREA3225H20140403

Hi all, Some of you may have read my other post about this: http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=522542&hl= http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=521029 I will post my complaint sent to the CFPB and then the first response I just received today from Cap 1. Let me know your thoughs. I have several but I want to hear what you have to say.

Dear CBers: I recently reported a Macy's Charge Off (paid in full to CA) to the CFPB as the CA told me it would be a PFD and was never deleted from any TL. I contacted Macy's first and they were no help and wouldn't even give me the name of the collection agency who handled it! This is the response I got from Macys: "I am in receipt of your complaint filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and forwarded to Macy's Executive Office on February 10, 2014. As a liaison of Macy's Executive office, I was asked to review and respond to your concerns on behalf of Department Stores National Bank. Your Macy's account was charged off due to serious delinquency on August 7, 2012, with a balance of 239.06. Your account is not currently assigned to a collections agency, but is was assigned to FMS Inc., when you paid 239.06 on January 23, 2013, bring your account to a zero balance, as reflected on the enclosed February 7, 2013, billing statement. The account is being reported accurately with a paid-in-full charged off rating. Because we do not remove accurate information from a credit report as part of a payment agreement; I must decline your request to delete your account from your credit report as you requested. Enclosed is a snapshot of what we are reporting to the credit reporting agencies. If you have anything in writing from us stating that we will delete this account from your credit report, please forward a copy to me for review. It would be against our policies to make such an offer to any customer. Our records show that on April 12, 2013, we instructed the credit reporting agencies to update their records and report your account as "customer disputes reporting". If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at the telephone number listed below." How should I best go after FMS?

Need some advice here, not sure how to proceed. Brief timeline of events: Disputed OC to all three reports, it came back verified although certain properties of tradeline are reporting differently to each report... Submitted 623 letter to OC requesting an investigation, twice. Each time I got a letter back saying the account was sold to Riverwalk Holdings and to contact them. The OC is the one reporting it though,.. after 2nd 623 letter came back same canned response, I submitted CFPB complaint. Their response was the same thing essentially. Here is an excerpt: " (OC) no longer owns the rights to this account, we are contractually obligated to forward your dispute to the owner for review and processing, and we are prohibited from releasing any further information. If you have conflicting payment dates, copies of the billing statements reflecting all transactions, payments, and balance history may be requested and disputed with Riverwalk Holdingns, LTD " Hrmm.. The OC reports the tradeline on my reports and not Riverwalk, its marked as charged off and not updating or anything. My question is.. whom did all three CRA verify the disputes with then? OC is telling me since they charged off the account and sold it, they are under no obligation to update and verify accuracy (or remove) the tradeline. Am I wrong in believing that OC must comply with section 623 and provide results of investigation? Side note: I was sued for this account by a separate JDB, not Riverwalk, and hired a lawyer, at which point said company was granted motion to dismiss without prejudice - we sued them back on grounds of fraudulent affidavit and settled, the debt itself is void and cant be transferred/sold/reported anywhere as part of settlement. So, not worried about this popping up as a collection anywhere, just trying to get OC to tell me why 3 sets of conflicting information came back as verified accurate on 3 different reports.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mortgage-tool-cfpb-100056659.html Direct Link to tool -> http://www.consumerfinance.gov/hmda/explore

What we all have been waiting for ! This is a Long Document 114 pages, and in each Section / Part there are a series of numbered questions, which you can comment on individually and should reference the # in your comments. http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201311_cfpb_anpr_debtcollection.pdf ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the Bureau) is seeking comment, data, and information from the public about debt collection practices. Debt collection affects a significant number of consumers and the Bureau is considering proposing rules relating to debt collection. Therefore, the Bureau is interested in learning through responses to this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) about the debt collection system, about consumer experiences with the debt collection system, and about how rules for debt collectors might protect consumers without imposing unnecessary burdens on industry. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) was passed in 1977 and the Bureau is the first Federal agency to possess the authority to issue substantive rules for debt collection under this statute. The Bureau may also address concerns related to debt collection using its authority under the Dodd-Frank Act to issue regulations concerning unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices and to establish disclosures to assist consumers in understanding the costs, benefits, and risks associated with consumer financial products and services. Parts II and III of the ANPR principally focus on the quantity and quality of information in the debt collection system. Part II solicits information on the transfer of information and access to information upon sale or placement of debts. Part III seeks information regarding validation notices, disputes, investigations, and verification of disputes. Parts IV, V, and VI primarily concern the conduct of collectors in interacting with consumers in trying to recover on debts through the collection process. Part IV requests information about collector communications seeking location information about consumers, interacting with consumers themselves, disclosing debts to third parties, and newer technologies. This part includes issues concerning sections 804 and 805 of the FDCPA. Part V asks for information about unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices, including issues concerning sections 806, 807, and 808 of the FDCPA. Part VI addresses issues relating to the collection of debts that are beyond the statute of limitations. Parts VII and VIII predominantly address debt collection activities that implicate issues relating to State law. Part VII requests information about debt collection litigation, most of which occurs in State courts. Part VIII raises questions about exemptions under Federal law for State debt collection systems under section 817 of the FDCPA, as well as for private entities that operate bad check diversion programs under contracts with State and local district attorneys under section 818 of the FDCPA. Finally, Part IX solicits information concerning recordkeeping, monitoring, and compliance ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2013-0033 or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 3170-AA41, by any of the following methods: • Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. ( which happens to be down at this moment in time..... ) • Mail/Hand Delivery: Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20552. Instructions : All submissions must include the agency name ( if you're a CA/JDB. ) and docket number or RIN. [Docket No. CFPB-2013-0033] RIN 3170-AA41 Please include the question number(s) to which your comment pertains. In general, all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/what-military-families-should-know-about-payday-loans/ Starting today, you can submit payday complaints to us. So this seems a good time to remind you that if you are a servicemember on active duty you, your spouse, and certain dependents have the protection of a special law called the Military Lending Act (MLA). The MLA says that you can’t be charged an annual percentage rate higher than 36 percent on certain types of consumer loans, and that includes certain payday loans as well as auto title loans and tax-refund anticipation loans

Midland FInancial is attempting to collect a debt from me that I really truly believe is not mine or is a mixup. This is an old tmobile account from many years ago, which as I understood it was no more then $200.00 (even with Tmobile's fees). Midland is collecting for $900.00. I sent a valdiation letter to them stating I disputed the item and they wrote back essentially with a lcover letter stating that they are collecting for this $900.00 then an attached list of fees, etc with a grand total that was $700.00. THe phone number that was associated with me on this list was never a number that I had with Tmobile. After hitting brick walls with Midland, I filed a complaint with the CFPB and attached all documentation and stated that the amounts that they are reporting, collecting for, and totalling up are three different amounts. It was like Midland completely ignored my complaint. This was their response: So basically they can just ignore your documentation and the original complaint? Because none of this addresses my complaint! Im not sure how to respond to re dispute this. Also their attorney who responded is not admitted in my state. Does that make a difference?!? Response Ms. ________, you express a concern that your validation requests have been ignored. [NOTE I NEVER SAID MY REQUESTS WERE IGNORED. I ATTACHED THEIR RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT I FILED STATING THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE INACCURATE] A review of Midland Credit's business records indicates that shortly after Midland Funding acquired the above-referenced account, on June 13, 2012, Midland Credit mailed you a validation letter, which informed you that Midland Funding had acquired the account, and informed you of your rights pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.) ("FDCPA"). Please note that the letter was mailed to you via the United States Postal Service, and was not returned as "undeliverable" - satisfying the requirements set forth within the FDCPA. Midland Credit's business records indicate that it did not receive any correspondence disputing the debt or requesting validation from you in response to the letter. A review of Midland Credit's business records indicate that it received the first correspondence requesting validation from you on November 20, 2013, which cannot be considered timely. [MY INITIAL LETTER WHICH THEY RESPONDED TO WAS ATTACHED TO THE COMPLAINT CLEARLY STATES I DISPUTE THIS DEBT IN ITS ENTIRETY] The FDCPA specifically states that, unless a consumer provides a debt collector with notice of such a dispute within 30 days of receiving the initial validation letter, "the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector." (15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3).) Because Midland Credit did not receive such a notice at the time, Midland Credit appropriately proceeded with efforts to contact you and collect the debt. Although the received correspondence of November 20, 2013 was not timely, verification information provided by the seller was mailed to you in response to your dispute on November 25, 2013. A copy of the verification information provided by the seller and previously mailed to you is enclosed. Please note that the verification information provided by the seller meets the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The original contract, complete payment history, and a full set of billing statements are not required under the FDCPA. Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999). Ms. _________, you also express a concern that the phone number indicated on the verification information was never yours. Midland Credit stands ready to assist you in clearing your record if you have been a victim of identity theft or fraud. If such is in fact the case, Midland Credit respectfully requests that you provide it with a copy of either a police report or affidavit of fraud showing that you reported the fraudulent activity. Please note that an affidavit of fraud can be found at www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/resources/forms/affidavit.pdf. If submitting an affidavit of fraud, you should complete the form and have the form notarized. You may forward appropriate documentation to Consumer Support Services at the address on this letterhead. Unless and until such documentation is received, based on the information provided by the seller, Midland Credit respectfully must conclude that the debt remains valid. A review of Midland Credit's business records indicate that it is accurately reporting the above-referenced account to the three major credit reporting agencies as required. If you are ready to settle this debt, you may qualify for a reduction in your account balance. Please call a Midland Credit account manager at (800) 825-8131 to help settle this account balance. Please see Midland Credit's comprehensive response, which is attached, for further details.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-orders-american-express-to-pay-59-5-million-for-illegal-credit-card-practices/ The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today ordered American Express to refund an estimated $59.5 million to more than 335,000 consumers for illegal credit card practices. These practices included unfair billing tactics and deceptive marketing with respect to credit card “add-on products” such as payment protection and credit monitoring. American Express will pay an additional $9.6 million in civil penalties to the CFPB. •The benefits of the payment protection products: Some consumers were led to believe that if they bought the Account Protector product, their minimum monthly payment would be cancelled if they experienced a qualifying life event. In reality, the benefit payment would be limited to 2.5 percent of the consumer’s outstanding balance, up to $500. In many cases, that amount was less than the minimum payment due. •The length of coverage of the payment protection products: Consumers were led to believe that the benefit periods for Account Protector would last up to 24 months. In fact, only two of the 13 qualifying events with benefit periods had benefit periods of up to 24 months. The other 11 qualifying events had benefit periods of only one, two, or three months. •The fees associated with payment protection products: American Express or its vendors would claim that there would be no fee if the balance in the account was paid off every month, without disclosing that the account balance had to be paid off before the end of the billing cycle, which was an earlier date than the consumer’s statement due date. •The terms and conditions of the Lost Wallet product: American Express used telemarketing sales calls conducted in Spanish to enroll the vast majority of Puerto Rico consumers in this product. Yet American Express did not provide uniform Spanish language scripts for these enrollment calls, and all written materials provided to consumers were in English. As a result, American Express did not adequately alert consumers during the calls about the steps necessary to receive and access the full product benefits. Unfair Billing and Other Illegal Practices American Express also engaged in unfair billing practices related to its “identity protection” add-on products. These products supposedly include a service to monitor the card members’ credit information. To obtain credit monitoring services, consumers generally must provide written authorization. American Express, however, charged many consumers for these products without or before having the written authorization necessary to perform the monitoring services. As a result, the company: •Billed consumers for services they did not receive: Consumers were charged fees as soon as they enrolled in identity protection add-on products, even when American Express or its vendors had not yet obtained the authorization necessary to begin monitoring the consumers’ credit information. American Express did not inform consumers that they needed to complete a second step in the enrollment process to obtain all of the advertised benefits. Approximately 85 percent of consumers who enrolled in the identity protection products paid the full product fee without receiving all of the advertised benefits. In some cases, consumers paid for these services for several years without receiving all of the promised benefits. •Unfairly charged consumers for interest and fees: The unfair monthly fees that customers were charged sometimes resulted in customers exceeding their credit card account limits. This then led to additional fees for the customers. Some consumers also paid interest charges on the fees for services that were never received. •Failed to inform consumers about their right to a free credit report: Federal law requires that when telemarketing sales calls are made that include offers of free credit reports, the call must include a disclosure about the consumer’s right to a free credit report from a federally authorized source. In some solicitations, American Express did not make the required disclosure

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-orders-ge-carecredit-to-refund-34-1-million-for-deceptive-health-care-credit-card-enrollment/ Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions engaging in unfair and deceptive practices. To ensure that consumers harmed by the inadequate disclosures and deceptive enrollment processes are appropriately compensated, and that consumers are no longer subject to these unfair practices, the CFPB’s order requires that GE Capital Retail Bank and CareCredit: •Create a $34.1 million reimbursement fund: Consumers who incurred charges in connection with their credit cards will be notified by CareCredit that they may file a claim seeking reimbursement. Claims will be reviewed by an independent adjudicator. More than 1.2 million consumers will have access to this independent review process and the reimbursement fund. The company will pay all expenses related to the administration of the fund. •Enhance consumer disclosures: CareCredit will also be required to enhance the disclosures provided to consumers during the application process and on billing statements. The new disclosures will include improved descriptions of the deferred-interest product, and consumers will be warned in advance when the promotional period is ending. Representatives will contact most CareCredit consumers within 72 hours of the initial transaction to explain the product to them over the phone. In addition, for certain transactions of more than $1,000, consumers will enroll directly through a CareCredit representative and not through the doctor or dentist office representative. •Improve consumer experience with service providers: CareCredit providers will be required to follow new transparency principles, including mandatory training for staff who market the CareCredit card to consumers. They will also be required to provide plain-language disclosure forms to ensure that consumers receive adequate information before signing up for a card

Four score and seven disputes ago our creditors brought forth on this continent, a new tradeline, conceived in my wallet, and dedicated to the proposition that all charge offs are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great dispute war, testing whether that tradeline, or any tradeline so conceived and so full of errors, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that we call the Internet. We have come to dedicate a portion of our sanity, as a final resting place for those who here gave up their credit scores so that that my wallet might live on. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget how many times we told Capital One to F-off. It is for us the credit poor, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task of destroying Experian -- that we here highly resolve that these tradelines not have died in vain -- that this nation, under CFPB, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that the credit scores of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not continue to vanish from the earth. Sir Abraham Funkiehouse

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-takes-action-against-payday-lender-for-robo-signing/ http://www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/our-first-enforcement-action-against-a-payday-lender/ ( Cash America destroyed records in advance of a CFPB audit.... Fools. ) Impeded the CFPB exam: During a routine examination of Cash America that began in July 2012, the company, among other things, carelessly destroyed records relevant to the Bureau’s onsite compliance examination. Specifically, Cash America’s online lending subsidiary, Enova Financial: Instructed employees to limit the information they provided to the CFPB about their sales and marketing pitches; Deleted recorded phone calls with consumers; Continued to shred documents after the CFPB told them to halt such activities; and Withheld a report related to robo-signing practices. Enforcement Action Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions for violations of federal consumer financial protection laws. To ensure that all impacted consumers are repaid and that consumers are no longer subject to these illegal practices, Cash America has committed to: · Refund consumers: Cash America has already voluntarily paid back roughly $6 million to military borrowers and victims of the robo-signing practices. Through today’s CFPB order, they have committed to offer an additional $8 million to consumers, for a total refund of up to $14 million. Consumers who were subject to debt collection lawsuits in the state of Ohio from 2008 through January 2013 are eligible. More information is available at: www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/our-first-enforcement-action-against-a-payday-lender · Dismiss pending collections lawsuits: Within months of the CFPB discovering the robo-signing, Cash America dismissed pending collections lawsuits, terminated all post-judgment collections activities, cancelled all judgments obtained, and corrected information it furnished to credit bureaus for the nearly 14,000 wrongful cases filed in Ohio. · Pay a $5 million fine: Cash America will pay a $5 million civil money penalty in connection with these serious violations. Cash America’s preemptive refunds to consumers and other actions after the Bureau discovered the conduct were considered when determining the civil money penalty amount. · Improve internal compliance systems: Cash America will develop and implement a comprehensive plan to improve its compliance with consumer financial protection laws, including the Military Lending Act. Who is eligible for a refund? You may be eligible for a full refund if you paid money because of a collections lawsuit from January 1, 2008 through October 1, 2012 to any of the following companies: Ohio Neighborhood Finance, Inc., d/b/a Cashland Cash America Pawn, Inc. of Ohio Cashland Financial Services, Inc. Cash America Net of Ohio, LLC Ohio Neighborhood Credit Solutions, Inc. CNU of Ohio, LLC.

I've been tackling an account on my wife's credit for years now. It was an old joint 2nd mortgage. Long story short: I filed BK, she didn't, it wasn't reaffirmed, we stayed and paid for a few years. Originally it was reported as IIB on her credit. I disputed with all three an it fell off TU and EX. EQ updated it to the current balance/payment and as open, which was correct at the time. Fast forward a year and I ended up settling the account with the mortgage company in exchange for releasing the lien and marking the account paid/closed. We sold the property 8 months later and moved on with our lives. So I noticed that the account was no longer being updated. It was still showing the balance/payment from the original dispute. I disputed with EQ and it came back as a charge-off. While this may be technically correct it was not in line with our agreement and would be a disaster for our new mortgage aspirations. I disputed again with EQ and it came back again verified as charge-off. I decided to take it to the next level and complain to the CFPB. I've not had much luck with their assistance on other issues in the past but it was worth a shot. I sent them a summary of the issue and disputes. I didn't clearly spell out the settlement part (didn't want to drag that company into this in case it made things worse for us) but did insist that per the OC the account was paid/closed and I sent them a copy of the supporting docs filed with the county. Finally last week we received a response from CFPB that EQ had completed their investigation. I checked the details and they said they researched it and would update it to IIB again. I immediately updated the dispute again. Meanwhile, I pulled MPM and noticed the tradeline was gone. I backdoored EQ and confirmed it was gone. It's been about a week now and still gone. We didn't get a letter yet from them and I know they usually come pretty fast. So I checked EQ's dispute status online and it was waiting for online viewing. I checked and the letter confirmed that this item has been deleted! I think I might frame it. Thanks CFPB. I guess I won't talk too bad about you anymore.