Planet Home Lending and Your Credit Report: Who May Pull It, and Who Reports It Wrong

The only place Planet Home Lending's website discusses your credit report is the page where it asks permission to pull one. A form on the printable-forms index, headed Credit Report Authorization and Release, is the sole document mentioning a consumer report anywhere on planethomelending.com. The site says nothing about what happens when Planet reports one wrong: no credit-reporting page, no dispute address, no promise about how a transferred loan is furnished. That asymmetry is worth holding onto. The one federal enforcement action in the searchable public record concerned obtaining reports rather than reporting them. The two are not connected, and this page keeps them apart before telling you which channel actually creates a claim.

Planet Home Lending is a real company, and that is a different question

Planet Home Lending, LLC is real: a Delaware LLC registered in Connecticut on 3 October 2007 at 321 Research Parkway, Suite 303, Meriden, CT 06450, NMLS ID 17022, Connecticut licences ML-17022 and MS 17022, licensed in all fifty states and DC, and approved by FHA, Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, VA and USDA.

A real, regulated, federally approved company can still send a bureau a delinquency that never happened. The CFPB database holds 1,814 complaints matching the exact company string Planet Home Lending, LLC between 10 October 2012 and 23 July 2026, 165 coded to incorrect information on a consumer report. Complaints filed under a name variant or against an affiliate entity are not in that count. Each is an unadjudicated consumer allegation. That is how this page answers the question a review site answers with stars: with the enforcement record and the complaint record, each labelled for what it is.

Most people did not choose it. The book grew from roughly $18 billion in unpaid principal at the end of 2019 to roughly $154 billion at Q1 2026. That growth was bought, not written, and every purchase is a servicing transfer the borrower hears about afterwards. Planet is the eighth largest Ginnie Mae servicer, so the book is heavily FHA, VA and USDA.

For credit reporting the role that matters is furnisher: whoever transmits the tradeline, ordinarily the servicer rather than the investor that owns the loan, because 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 defines the duty by conduct, not job title. Planet is primary servicer, sub-servicer and special servicer by turns; it buys servicing rights, not loans.

Planet Home Lending, LLC furnishes; Planet Financial Group, LLC is its parent; Planet Loan Servicing and Planet Home Servicing are trade names of the same company; Planet Management Group, LLC is an asset-management affiliate, not the parent and not your servicer. NMLS 17022 and the Meriden address identify Planet whatever brand is on the letterhead. PHH Mortgage is a different company; and the portal runs on third-party software, so the brand on the login screen is not your furnisher.

The transfer, the fifteen-day notices, and the sixty days nobody told you about

If your loan arrived at Planet rather than starting there, the transfer is where the risk concentrates. Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.33(b)(3)(i) the servicer handing the loan over must notify you not less than 15 days before the effective date, and the servicer taking it not more than 15 days after. That outside date is not absolute: 1024.33(b)(3)(ii) extends it to not more than 30 days after the effective date where the transfer follows termination of the servicing contract for cause, the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings for the servicer, or the commencement of FDIC or NCUA conservatorship or receivership proceedings. Both notices carry the effective date, the new contact details and the date payments should go to the new servicer.

Separately, 1024.33(b)(2) exempts three kinds of transfer from the notice requirement altogether: between affiliates, on a merger or acquisition of servicers or subservicers, and between master servicers where the subservicer does not change. Every one of those three is conditioned on there being no change in the payee, the address to which payment must be delivered, the account number, or the amount of payment due. Change any one of the four and the notices are required. Where an exemption does hold, you can lose the servicer you had and receive nothing in the post.

Under 12 U.S.C. 2605(d) and 12 C.F.R. 1024.33(c)(1), during the 60-day period beginning on a transfer's effective date, a payment you sent to the old servicer on or before its due date cannot draw a late fee and cannot be treated as late for any other purpose. Neither text mentions credit reporting, so reading not late for any purpose to bar an adverse furnishing is an argument a lawyer can make, but not a protection to rely on as though it were written down.

Planet's transfer page says letters will arrive within 15 days, that the terms and conditions of your mortgage loan will not change, and that you should always make your payment on or before your due date. It nowhere contains the sixty-day rule. That describes a public page, not anyone's conduct; the most useful right a transferred borrower has is missing from it.

One predecessor is named. On 22 June 2023 Planet acquired servicing on roughly $10.0 billion across about 45,000 Ginnie Mae loans from Village Capital & Investment LLC of Henderson, Nevada. No other seller is publicly named, so do not assume a predecessor nobody has published.

Thirty-two CFPB complaints are coded to a loan sold or transferred, alleging missing transfer notices, delayed account setup, payments that failed after the handover, and accounts marked past due despite being current with the prior servicer. Allegations, not findings. No complaint narrative alleging a duplicate tradeline was located, so do not expect a transfer to leave two live tradelines on one debt; the pattern is a single delinquency that should not be there.

Forbearance, skipping a payment, and the duties that survived the pandemic

Can you skip a mortgage payment here? No. Most of the internet gives the pandemic answer. Section 4021 of the CARES Act added a rule at 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(a)(1)(F) requiring a furnisher to keep reporting an accommodated account as current. Its covered period ran to 120 days after the end of the COVID-19 national emergency; Congress terminated that emergency on 10 April 2023, so the period closed on 8 August 2023. The text remains in the statute books and reaches no new accommodation. The related supervisory statement was rescinded effective 1 April 2021, and Regulation X's temporary COVID provisions effective 15 July 2025.

Nothing replaced it. A forborne account is governed today by the accuracy obligation that governs every account, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2, with the bureaus carrying their own reasonable-procedures duty under 1681e(b). From that it can be argued that a loan performing under an agreed forbearance is not a loan the borrower stopped paying; that is an argument from a general duty, not a rule you can point a servicer to. Anyone telling you the law requires yours to show as current is quoting a rule that expired.

Planet's homeowner assistance page publishes three retention options: a repayment plan; forbearance, a temporary reduction or suspension of your monthly mortgage obligation; and a loan modification, a permanent change to your existing mortgage note. No partial claim and no deferral appear, though partial claims are a standard FHA tool and this book is heavily FHA. The page carries no credit-reporting language.

12 C.F.R. 1024.41 is privately enforceable through 12 U.S.C. 2605(f). The servicer must acknowledge a loss-mitigation application within five days and say whether it is complete, 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B); evaluate a complete application received more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale within 30 days, stating specific reasons for any denial, 1024.41(c)(1); make no first foreclosure filing until the loan is more than 120 days delinquent, 1024.41(f)(1); not dual track while a complete application is pending, 1024.41(g); and give an appeal right, 1024.41(h). Under 1024.41(k) a transferee inherits the transferor's timeframes.

Three complaints show the pattern, as allegations only: missed payments reported after a completed repayment plan, which the company is said to have acknowledged; an account reported late to all three bureaus after a recovery modification was signed; and bureaus notified of a delinquency during forbearance. The Bureau verifies none of it. The relief was granted; the tradeline never caught up.

Escrow, suspense, and the two clocks a late payment runs on

Escrow looks like a customer-service annoyance and works as a credit-reporting mechanism. 12 C.F.R. 1024.17 governs the account: the cushion may not exceed one sixth of estimated annual disbursements, 1024.17(c); the servicer must run an annual analysis and deliver the statement within 30 days of the computation year's end, 1024.17(i). The cascade is short: an escrow figure set too low produces a payment the borrower believes is correct and the servicer treats as short; a short payment is parked in suspense rather than applied; and an unapplied payment is, on the ledger, a payment never made, which becomes a delinquency months later.

12 C.F.R. 1026.36(c)(1) requires a servicer to credit a periodic payment as of the day it is received, and failing to apply an accepted payment as the loan terms require is a category of error you can raise under 1024.35(b)(3). The largest complaint category here is trouble during the payment process, 787 of the 1,814, 140 coded to escrow, taxes or insurance; one narrative alleges $1,500 unapplied because the payment was $150 short. Consumer allegations from December 2020 and later, not findings.

Planet's FAQ answers half the question. It states that a payment is considered late one day after the payment due date, and that late charges are assessed in accordance with the grace period as identified in your Mortgage Note. That is an answer about a fee, and says nothing about when a delinquency is transmitted to Equifax, Experian and TransUnion. We have no source for Planet's furnishing threshold and will not invent one. Ask in writing and keep the answer.

Three addresses, two regimes, and the one that is not published

Planet designates an exclusive Regulation X address in mandatory terms. Its contact page states that to assert an error or make an information request, you must contact us in writing using the following mailing address, and gives the Meriden P.O. Box. It makes 12 C.F.R. 1024.35(c) and 1024.36(b) operative: a servicer may require notices of error and information requests to go to a designated exclusive address.

A letter elsewhere does not oblige the servicer to acknowledge within five days, 1024.35(d), to investigate and respond within 30 days with a possible 15-day extension, 1024.35(e), or to observe 1024.35(i)(1), which bars it for 60 days from furnishing adverse information to any consumer reporting agency about the specific payment your notice concerns. With 12 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3) for a qualified written request, that is the only express credit-reporting protection in this body of law.

Two refinements. 1024.35(g) lets a servicer decline a notice that is duplicative, overbroad or untimely, and that switches off the sixty-day furnishing bar with it, so send one specifically identified error with the account number and the dates. 1024.36 requests carry no analogue to 1024.35(i)(1): asking for your payment history buys no reporting protection, only speed on one question, because under 1024.36(d)(2)(i)(A), backed by 12 U.S.C. 2605(k)(1)(D), a servicer has 10 business days, no extension, to identify the owner or assignee of your loan in writing.

Planet designates a RESPA address and does not publish an FCRA direct-dispute address on its website. The domain was checked page by page and the sitemap contains no path with the word credit or dispute in it. Say it that way and no other way: not published on the website. 12 C.F.R. 1022.43(c) gives a direct dispute three destinations. Under (c)(1), the furnisher's address as the furnisher provided it and as it appears on your consumer report, which for most homeowners is the address printed beside the tradeline. Under (c)(2), an address the furnisher has clearly and conspicuously specified for direct disputes and provided to you in writing or electronically, so one could exist on a statement that never appears online; no specimen statement was obtained, so we do not know and will not assert it. Under (c)(3), any business address of the furnisher, but only where the furnisher has not specified and provided an address under (c)(1) or (c)(2). That last route is what makes the Meriden P.O. Box defensible, though it is not designated for Fair Credit Reporting Act purposes.

The direct-dispute duty sits at 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(a)(8), and 1681s-2(c) and (d) reserve enforcement of subsection (a) to regulators and certain public officials: no private right of action for a mishandled direct dispute. Sort the addresses by what each is for, remembering that a letter reaching a vendor has not reached your servicer and starts no clock:

• Regulation X notice of error or information request, the exclusive designated address: Planet Home Lending, LLC, P.O. Box 1001, Meriden, CT 06450. The only address that starts the 1024.35 clocks.
• Payment lockbox, never a dispute address: P.O. Box 69197, Baltimore, MD 21264-9197.
• Corporate and overnight post: 321 Research Parkway, Suite 303, Meriden, CT 06450.
• Insurance loss drafts, a third-party vendor: Planet Home Lending c/o PFIC, Loss Drafts, P.O. Box 5092, Troy, MI 48007-5092.
• Property tax correspondence, a third-party vendor: P.O. Box 9215, Coppell, TX 75019-9233.
• FCRA direct-dispute address: not published on the website. Under 1022.43(c)(3) any business address may be used, but only where the furnisher has not specified and provided an address under (c)(1) or (c)(2).
• Telephone: servicing 866-882-8187; homeowner assistance 855-884-2250.

140 complaints are coded to trying to communicate about a servicing problem. The answer is not a better phone number: 1024.35 and 1024.36 are written channels with statutory deadlines. Send a certified letter to the designated address and keep the receipt; every Regulation X deadline runs from receipt.

Permissible purpose: who is allowed to pull your report, and what the 2017 order was about

15 U.S.C. 1681b closes the list of permissible purposes for obtaining your file. The ones that reach a homeowner: a court order or subpoena, your written instructions, a credit transaction involving you, including review or collection of an account of yours, under 1681b(a)(3)(A), use by a potential investor or servicer to assess the credit or prepayment risks on an existing credit obligation under 1681b(a)(3)(E), employment with your written consent, insurance underwriting, a licence determination, and under 1681b(a)(3)(F) a legitimate business need in a transaction you initiated or in reviewing whether you still meet the account terms. A periodic review pull by the servicer of your loan will ordinarily rest on (a)(3)(A) or (a)(3)(F)(ii). That is the ordinary case, not a permission slip: the question is always whether a permissible purpose actually existed for the particular pull, and the 2017 order below is what it looks like when one did not.

The prohibition sits at 15 U.S.C. 1681b(f) and is written at the user, not the bureau: a person shall not use or obtain a consumer report unless it is obtained for a purpose authorised by that section and that purpose is certified to the agency. Marketing is not on the list. One narrow route reaches people who have not applied, the prescreened offer under 1681b(c), conditioned on a firm offer of credit or insurance under 1681b(c)(1)(B). Take away the firm offer and the exception collapses. You may elect out of prescreened lists under 1681b(e).

That is the provision the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau applied to Planet in 2017. The consent order, File No. 2017-CFPB-0007, 31 January 2017, entered on Planet's consent without any admission or denial, recited that Planet had purchased trigger leads from a credit bureau, lists identifying consumers, including its own servicing customers, who had recently had a mortgage-related inquiry, and had used those reports for marketing without a firm offer of credit. The order names FCRA section 604(f), which is 15 U.S.C. 1681b(f).

Hold the shape: a permissible-purpose case is about a company obtaining your report; a furnishing case is about a company sending information about you to a bureau. The 2017 order contains no finding about the accuracy of anything Planet reported.

Planet's printable-forms index carries a Credit Report Authorization and Release, and it runs the opposite way from a dispute channel: it authorises Planet to obtain consumer reports and to share information. As read, it does not mention the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state a permissible purpose, or mention any dispute right. That describes a public document, not present conduct, and the 2017 order is over, terminated 22 September 2025. Planet's general Concerns and Inquiries form does list Credit Reporting among the categories you can select, but a web form is not a designated address under 1022.43 and that form gives no address.

You can audit the other side. A file disclosure under 15 U.S.C. 1681g includes the identification of each person that procured a report about you, so your inquiry section records who looked; a willful violation of 1681b(f) is actionable like any other. We cannot tell you what string identifies this furnisher on your report, because no reliable source confirms one and we will not guess; it may read as the full name, a trade name, or a predecessor servicer. Work from the name and address printed on the tradeline, which is also a valid destination for a direct dispute under 1022.43(c)(1).

The dispute that creates a claim, and the two that do not

Three ways to complain about a mortgage tradeline produce three legal results. A Regulation X notice of error to the designated address gets deadlines, a written answer, the sixty-day furnishing bar in 1024.35(i)(1) and a private right of action under 12 U.S.C. 2605(f); it never reaches the bureaus. A direct dispute to the furnisher under 1681s-2(a)(8) gets an investigation with no private enforcement behind it. A dispute filed with Equifax, Experian and TransUnion is the only one triggering the furnisher duty a consumer can sue on. Send the first and the third; the second is a supplement, not a substitute.

Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i an agency must reinvestigate free within 30 days, extendable to 45 where you supply more information during the first thirty, forward what you sent to the furnisher within five business days, and give you the results within five business days of finishing.

That forwarded notice switches on 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b), the only furnisher duty consumers enforce themselves: investigate, review all relevant information the agency provided, report the results back, and where the item is inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable, modify, delete or permanently block it, then tell every agency it supplied. Write to Planet alone and no 1681s-2(b) duty arises.

Pull the reports first, from AnnualCreditReport.com. Federal law gives one free file disclosure every twelve months from each nationwide agency under 15 U.S.C. 1681j(a)(1)(A); the weekly free reports the bureaus offer are a voluntary programme, not a statutory entitlement. Pull all three; they frequently disagree and a disagreement is itself evidence. Then write the dispute the way a furnisher has to engage with: identify the field, state what it should say instead, state why, attach the proof. Our credit dispute letter guide sets out the structure.

Of the 1,814 complaints, 95 allege an incorrect account status and 62 across two taxonomy versions a mishandled investigation. 1,692 closed with an explanation, one with monetary relief, none with non-monetary relief. Database fields recording outcomes, not evidence about the merits.

Two clock rules. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681c(a)(4) read with 1681c(c)(1), an account placed for collection or charged to profit and loss may be reported for seven years plus 180 days from the date it first became delinquent, and paying it later does not restart that clock. Individual late payments on a loan brought current fall under 1681c(a)(5): seven years from the item, no 180-day addition. Where an account is the product of identity theft rather than a servicing error, 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 requires a bureau to block it within four business days of receiving proof of identity, an identity theft report, an identification of the specific information and a statement that it does not relate to any transaction you made.

What the record shows: three lawsuits, one order, and whose money is whose

Search for a lawsuit here and three unrelated things arrive merged. First, the data-security matter: on 15 November 2023 the LockBit group reached loan files through a Citrix vulnerability; Planet's notification letter of 24 January 2024 lists names, Social Security numbers and financial account numbers. The consolidated litigation, In re Planet Home Lending, LLC Data Breach and Mathis v. Planet Home Lending, LLC, D. Conn. No. 3:24-cv-00127, pleaded negligence, breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment and settled for a $2.42 million non-reversionary fund payable by Planet, finally approved 18 November 2024, no admission of liability. A data-security case, not a servicing or credit-reporting claim.

Second, two putative class actions, neither certified. Solis v. Planet Home Lending, LLC, D. Conn. No. 3:21-cv-00159, filed 8 February 2021, alleged breach of contract and California unfair competition over property-inspection fees; it pleads no federal consumer-credit statute, and no ruling and no settlement could be located. Gleespen v. Planet Home Lending, LLC, D. Conn. No. 3:25-cv-00751, filed 9 May 2025, is pending and uncertified; Planet answered with affirmative defences on 25 July 2025, so no dismissal was granted. The docket does not state the statute pleaded and the complaint could not be obtained, so we do not name one. A putative class is not a certified class, and a settlement without an admission is not a finding.

Third, two results to set aside. Kuck and Juliano v. Planet Home Lending, LLC, E.D.N.Y. No. 2:17-cv-04769, is a wage-and-hour claim by loan officers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law; on 7 December 2018 the court denied the motion to dismiss on reconsideration, which is not a finding of liability. Overtime pay, not borrowers. The appellate matter searchers meet went Planet's way. In Planet Home Lending, L.L.C. v. Keyes, 2026-Ohio-521 (Ohio Ct. App., 11th Dist., Lake County, 17 February 2026), the court affirmed summary judgment for Planet in a foreclosure, standing established through a note indorsed in blank; the slip opinion must be retrieved and read before any of its language is quoted. No court has found Planet Home Lending liable to a consumer under the FCRA, FDCPA, RESPA or TILA.

Now the enforcement action, each figure attached to its payer. File No. 2017-CFPB-0007, 31 January 2017, named Planet Home Lending, LLC with Green Planet Servicing, LLC and Planet's trade names. Statutes: RESPA section 8(a), 12 U.S.C. 2607(a), for referrals under a services agreement with Prospect Mortgage, LLC from December 2012 to October 2014; FCRA section 604(f), 15 U.S.C. 1681b(f), for the trigger leads in section six; and CFPA section 1036. Relief: $265,000 in consumer redress, paid by Planet, and no civil money penalty at all in that order. Planet consented without admitting or denying any finding. The Bureau terminated the order on 22 September 2025 after determining its obligations were met; termination speaks to compliance, not exoneration. Two corrections. The $3.5 million civil money penalty circulating alongside this matter belongs to Prospect Mortgage, LLC, a different company, under its own consent order File No. 2017-CFPB-0006 of the same date; it is not Planet's money. The Bureau's enforcement page tags the product as Mortgage Origination, not servicing: it was never about how Planet furnishes tradelines, contains no section 1681s-2 finding, and says nothing about dispute handling.

Remedies. Under 15 U.S.C. 1681o a negligent violation supports actual damages with costs and fees; under 15 U.S.C. 1681n a willful violation supports actual or statutory damages of $100 to $1,000, punitive damages and fees, recklessness counting as willfulness. 12 U.S.C. 2605(f) gives actual damages, with additional damages up to $2,000 only on a pattern or practice. Deadlines: 15 U.S.C. 1681p allows the earlier of two years from discovery or five years from the violation, while 12 U.S.C. 2614 gives three years from the occurrence for a section 2605 claim, courts having generally declined to read a discovery rule into it.

More claims die here than on any statute. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), holds that a plaintiff needs a concrete injury to sue in federal court, and an inaccuracy sitting in a file nobody outside the bureau ever saw is not it. Dissemination is the hinge, making the mortgage denial and the lender's explanation letter the most valuable documents you own.

How The Kim Law Firm handles Planet Home Lending problems

We act for consumers only, never for servicers, investors or credit bureaus. The Planet matters that become cases have a shape: a delinquency reported during or after a forbearance, repayment plan or modification already granted; a payment sent to the previous servicer inside the sixty-day window after a transfer and then treated as missed; an escrow figure that moved, a short payment, funds in suspense, and a late mark that followed. And the commonest claim: a dispute routed through a bureau, an account verified as accurate anyway, and a tradeline that did not move.

We cannot help you remove accurate negative information, and you should hear that on the first call rather than after a retainer: if a payment was genuinely missed and the entry records it correctly, no lawyer can lawfully delete it. A grievance about a servicer's manners or an escrow shortage is real but is not by itself a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim. What makes it one is an inaccuracy, a dispute that put the furnisher on notice through a bureau, and a failure to fix it.

The order we recommend is the one this page describes: a specific notice of error to the designated Meriden box, sent certified, if the servicing problem is still live; a dispute to all three bureaus with the documents attached, the only channel that creates a duty you can enforce; and a direct dispute alongside it for the dated record. Then, if the entry survives, a conversation about a claim.

Bring these to the first call. Both transfer notices under 1024.33, with their dates. Every statement and payment record for the period in dispute, from both servicers. The escrow analyses. All loss-mitigation correspondence, including the five-day acknowledgment and any denial letter. Your dispute letters with the certified-mail receipts, and the bureaus' reinvestigation responses. And every adverse action notice or credit denial since, because after Ramirez those prove the harm was real.

Our FCRA lawyer guide explains how a case runs from the first call to resolution, and the credit reporting errors overview covers the patterns we see most often. Other companies in this industry appear on our mortgage servicers page. When you are ready, contact us for a free review of your report.

Frequently asked questions

Is Planet Home Lending legitimate?

Yes, and that is not the question that decides anything. Planet Home Lending, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company registered in Connecticut on 3 October 2007, carries NMLS ID 17022, is licensed in all fifty states and the District of Columbia, and is approved by FHA, Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, VA and USDA. Those numbers are checkable. Being licensed says nothing about whether the tradeline on your credit file is accurate. The public record also holds 1,814 CFPB complaints matching the exact company name between 10 October 2012 and 23 July 2026, name variants and affiliate entities excluded, and one federal enforcement action, from 2017. Legitimate and error-free are separate claims.

Is there a class action lawsuit against Planet Home Lending?

Three different matters get merged under that heading. A data-security class settlement over the November 2023 ransomware incident was finally approved on 18 November 2024, a $2.42 million fund paid by Planet with no admission of liability, claims closed on 25 September 2024. Solis, No. 3:21-cv-00159 in Connecticut federal court, is a putative class that was never certified, over property-inspection fees. Gleespen, No. 3:25-cv-00751, is pending and uncertified. A putative class is not a certified class, and no court has found Planet liable to a consumer under the FCRA, FDCPA, RESPA or TILA.

Who is Planet Home Lending owned by?

Two layers, and most answers stop at the first. Planet Home Lending, LLC sits under Planet Financial Group, LLC, its parent holding company. The beneficial owner is MHR Fund Management LLC, a private investment firm, which has held Planet through affiliated funds since it was founded in 2007. Planet Management Group is an affiliate, not the parent. A different question is who owns your loan, as opposed to who services it, and that one has a legal answer: under 12 C.F.R. 1024.36(d) a servicer must identify the owner or assignee in writing within 10 business days of a written request.

Can you skip a mortgage payment with Planet Home Lending?

No. There is no right to skip a payment, and the pandemic rule that once made this question have a good answer is gone: the CARES Act credit-reporting provision stopped applying to new accommodations on 8 August 2023. What exists instead is loss mitigation, and Planet publishes exactly three options, a repayment plan, forbearance and a loan modification. No partial claim and no deferral appear on that list, and the page says nothing about credit reporting. The duties around your application are real: a five-day acknowledgment, a thirty-day evaluation, a 120-day floor before a first foreclosure filing, and an appeal right under 12 C.F.R. 1024.41.

Is the CFPB order against Planet Home Lending still in effect?

No. The Bureau terminated File No. 2017-CFPB-0007 on 22 September 2025. The order was issued on 31 January 2017, carried $265,000 in consumer redress and no civil money penalty at all, and Planet consented without admitting or denying the findings. It was never a credit-reporting-accuracy case. It concerned FCRA section 604(f), 15 U.S.C. 1681b(f), trigger leads used for marketing without a firm offer of credit, plus a RESPA section 8(a) referral arrangement, and the Bureau tags it as a mortgage origination matter. The $3.5 million penalty circulating alongside it belongs to Prospect Mortgage, a different company.

Distance is not an obstacle. The Kim Law Firm represents consumers nationwide in Fair Credit Reporting Act matters, from our offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. If Planet Home Lending is reporting a delinquency that arrived with a servicing transfer, survived a forbearance you were granted, or outlived a dispute you already won, send us the report and the paperwork and we will tell you what we see.