Browse Companies

Explore all 145.5K companies with CFPB consumer complaints

145,512 companies

Sort by: Name Most Complaints Timely Response Most Recent
Company Complaints
which was the United States XXXX XXXX and they responded with the letter again on XX/XX/XXXX 1
which was the worst thing I have ever experienced. She never really paid attention to me and blamed me for everything related to the thief on my Wells Fargo account. She also promised that by XXXX XXXX Wells Fargo would return the money that had been stolen from me 2
which was the XX/XX/XXXX payment. 1
which was the XXXX and I reached out to the waiver program 1
which was the {$150.00} owed plus {$10.00} tax. I was also told by XXXX XXXX that they would notify TD Bank DBA XXXX XXXX that the balance they had been billing me was incorrect. 1
which was the {$150.00} owed plus {$10.00} tax. I was also told by XXXX XXXX that they would notify XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that the balance they had been billing me was incorrect. 1
which was then and remains at 8.5 % ^ [ 1 ]. It was explicitly stated that Bethpage does not employ a prime + points '' structure for loans. 1
which was then disclosed without the plaintiffs consent 1
which was then misused for fraudulent address reporting. 3
which was then notarized by the XXXX XXXX 1
which was then switched to a 10.99 % rate WITHOUT ANY NOTICE OF ANY KIND about the new rate. I did receive confirmation emails from USAA 1
which was to be taken away when the vendor ( XXXX ) refunded the disputed amounts. XXXX XXXX. informed me to speak with XXXX Fraud directly 1
which was too late to prevent negative balances. 1
which was two days after the deadline. Additionally 1
which was unequivocally false. In reality 1
which was unfair and dishonest. I now have to start all over and work even harder so that my children and grandchildren could have something that they could have as their own.,,GATEWAY FIRST BANK,TX,76020,Servicemember,Consent provided,Web,2017-11-07,Closed with explanation,Yes,N/A,2723022 1
which was unjustly denied without explanation. 1
which was untrue since no additional documentation was required. All they would offer is a XXXX forbearance 1
which was untrue. When I pointed out the that the first line in the letter I included with the documentation stated that the account was fraudulent 1
which was very frustrating given the time I had spent dealing with this situation through Chase Bank. 1
which was very hard to believe. 1
which was very reassuring. She then transferred him to another department 1
which was very unpleasant 1
which was waiting just a decision after us sending documents for almost a whole year 1
which was was indorsed and stamped per 31 CFR 1
which was what we were asked to do Shellpoint. 1
which was where I learned the extent to which this was happening ( I could not get into my account prior because the perpetrator changed my password and pin 1
which was why I couldn't log in. However 1
which was why the account became dormant. I asked for the rules in writing 1
which was why the bill was never received. XXXX removed the late charge from my account and informed me that I would need to go directly to the bureau for the removal of the late flag notification for the month of XX/XX/XXXX. He told me to give a reference number of XXXX 1
which was worse 1
which was XXXX 1
which was XXXX at the time I paid and XXXX the following day when Western Union paid my recipient. 1
which was XXXX mpg ( Exhibits 2 1
which was XXXX XXXX 1
which was XXXX XXXX. He needed further information to continue with the loan process. XXXX then called me on XX/XX/XXXX and advised of everything they needed to finish my file was complete. She followed up with an email to confirming this as well. We continued on with the process and appraisal. USAA then required me on XX/XX/XXXX to pay ( IN FULL ) my home insurance policy for the entire first year. Usually that is covered when closing 1
which was XXXX XXXX. XXXX asked the Moneygram agent if I should go back to the store on XXXX XXXX. She did not get an answer. XXXX tried to assist me by asking the Moneygram agent what she should tell me. She was placed on old. Worried that I would not get my money 1
which was zero help : hXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. 1
which was {$38.00} 1
which was {$41.00} to be paid by XX/XX/XXXX. In an effort to keep them from calling and harassing me 2
which was {$460.00} short. Unfortunately 1
which was {$60.00} and assured me that she would resolve the issue. The dispute letter from Elan Financial Services Stated that the payment was return to me as a GESTURE OF OUR APPRECIATION FOR YOUR BUSINESS. ( which you can go back and request the phone conversation 1
which was {$80.00} higher. As I was already struggling to make the payment 1
which was {$860.00}. I told the representative on the phone that I could not afford that payment 1
which wasn't appropriate for two reasons. The first being that 2
which wasn't easy to do. It turned out the XXXX is an UNSECURED XXXX against someone else whose social security # was totally different than my mother 's. ( The XXXX clearly shows the debtor 's social 1
which wasnt much the police could do again because a crime didnt occur they couldnt help us. I had spent money on a hotel in XXXX 1
which we advised the health and safety risks and they misled us to start work when they said an insurance claim will be opened with their insurance dept. But we were misguided the entire time that loan depot would make this right. This has also caused a lot of emotional distress as we have not had anyone guide us or help advocate for us during this loss.,,LD Holdings Group 1
which we again 1
which we applied for. 1

What this index shows

This is the master index of every company that appears in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Consumer Complaint Database, mirrored on PlainComplaint and grouped by institution so a single company page rolls up every complaint filed against that company across every product, state, and year since 2011. The CFPB began collecting consumer complaints when it was established under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and has published them as a public dataset to give consumers, researchers, and journalists a window into how U.S. financial-services firms respond to customer concerns.

The default view is alphabetical by company name and paginated 50 companies per page. Use the sort controls to re-order by total complaint volume (highest first), timely-response percentage (best response track record first), or most recent complaint activity (companies with the freshest reports). Each row links to a dedicated company page showing year-over-year complaint trends, the top complaint products, complaint issues, top states by volume, and a year-by-year breakdown of complaint counts and response timeliness.

How to compare companies fairly

Raw complaint volume is a function of two things: how many customers the company serves, and how it handles those customers. A nationwide bank with tens of millions of accounts can show six-figure complaint counts simply because of its scale; a smaller regional lender with a few hundred complaints may actually have a higher per-customer complaint rate. The "Timely Response %" column shows the share of complaints the company answered within the CFPB's deadline, a stronger comparable metric across firms of different sizes. Pair it with the volume column to form a fuller picture, and dig into the company page for the breakdown by product so you can see whether issues are concentrated in a single line of business (for example, credit reporting) or spread across the entire firm.

Complaint records are consumer-submitted narratives. The CFPB does not adjudicate or verify the facts in each report before publishing; companies are given the opportunity to respond, dispute, or resolve. Many complaints are resolved with monetary or non-monetary relief. The strength of the dataset is in its scale, millions of records spanning every major U.S. consumer financial category, and its neutrality: it reports what consumers said, regardless of the company's perspective. Treat individual records accordingly, and lean on aggregate patterns (top issues, year-over-year trends, state distribution) when drawing conclusions.

What the dataset covers

The CFPB Consumer Complaint Database covers complaints against banks, credit-card issuers, mortgage servicers, debt collectors, payday lenders, student-loan servicers, money-transfer companies, prepaid-card issuers, credit bureaus, auto-finance lenders, and other financial products and services regulated by the agency. Complaints are categorized by product (the broad financial-services category) and sub-product, and again by issue (the specific consumer concern, e.g. "incorrect information on your report") and sub-issue. Year-by-year coverage runs from 2011 to present, with monthly refreshes published by the CFPB.

PlainComplaint refreshes from the agency's public release on a regular cadence and re-derives all aggregate counts, rankings, and trend lines on each refresh, so the page you're reading reflects the latest snapshot of the public database. See the methodology page for the full data pipeline, dedup rules, and the refresh schedule, or browse by other dimensions: issues, products, or states.