Fay Servicing on Your Credit Report: What the CFPB Orders Did and Did Not Fix

Fay Servicing, LLC is a special servicer: it rarely made the loan, it took the loan over, and the record supports the inference, an inference rather than a stated fact, that it arrives after somebody has decided the loan needs attention. Two Consumer Financial Protection Bureau consent orders bracket that business, one entered in June 2017 and one on August 21, 2024, and the second contains a finding that Fay violated the first. The 2024 order also contains the paragraph that matters most to a credit file: a direction to Fay to delete, update and correct foreclosure information it had reported to the credit bureaus. That paragraph has an edge, and where you fall relative to it decides whether the order did anything at all for your file.

A special servicer, a transfer nobody asked you about, and NMLS 88244

When statements arrive from a company you have never dealt with, the first question is whether it is real. It is, and that is checkable. Fay Servicing, LLC holds NMLS ID 88244 and is licensed in roughly eighty jurisdictions. Paragraph 8 of the 2024 consent order recites its principal place of business as 5426 Bay Center Drive, Suite 300, Tampa, Florida 33609, with branch offices in Chicago and Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois; Farmers Branch, Texas; and Lusaka, Zambia. Edward Fay is founder and chief executive. The parent is Fay Financial, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; what sits above it was not located in this research, so we name Fay Financial and stop. Fay was headquartered in Chicago when the 2017 action was announced.

An ordinary servicer takes payments, runs escrow and sends annual statements for a large book of mostly performing loans. A special servicer is retained for the loans that are not performing. Fay Financial holds a trademark registration for that description of services, special servicer of residential mortgage loans and related assets, and a 2015 agreement Fay filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission describes an investor buying nonperforming Mortgage Loans on a servicing-released basis and retaining Fay to subservice and provide management and disposition services. Those documents support an inference rather than a rule: by the time a loan reaches Fay it has usually been flagged as troubled already, and the transfer is itself the signal. No source states it as a general proposition, so it stays labelled an inference. You have no contract with Fay, and the party that owns your loan is often a trust whose name you have never seen.

None of that is a criticism. A licensed, examined, nationally active servicer can still send Equifax, Experian and TransUnion a tradeline that says something untrue about you. Being real and being accurate are unrelated questions.

Two names, one company. Fay also trades as Genstone Financial, written Fay Servicing, LLC, d/b/a Genstone Financial: same legal entity, same NMLS 88244, same Tampa address. If your statement says Fay and a letter says Genstone, that is one servicer, not two. Keep that distinct from Fay Financial as parent, from the Genstone-branded affiliates Fay's privacy notice lists, and from the trustees and named trusts appearing as co-defendants, one of which may be the name on your credit file.

How a servicing transfer turns into a credit reporting problem

Transfers are noticed, and the notices matter. Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.33(b)(3)(i) and 12 U.S.C. 2605(b) and (c), the servicer handing the loan over must send its notice not less than 15 days before the effective date of transfer, and the servicer taking it on 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. Those two letters fix the date every later dispute turns on.

Fay's guidance for incoming borrowers says A few days after the servicing transfer date, Fay Servicing will send you a Welcome Package with your new loan number and other important information, and warns that you may have two year-end 1098 statements, one from Fay and one from the previous servicer. A new loan number, a split reporting year and two furnishers each owning part of it set up what appears afterwards: the same mortgage reporting twice at balances that will not reconcile; a changeover-window payment credited by neither servicer; a delinquency history that restarts instead of carrying over. That is the mechanism, not a frequency claim.

A rule people reach for here does not say what they think. 12 U.S.C. 2605(d) provides that for 60 days after a transfer takes effect, no late fee may be imposed and the payment may not be treated as late for any purpose where you sent it on time to the old servicer. That is broad protective language, worth invoking but not an express credit reporting bar: neither 2605(d) nor 1024.33(c)(1) mentions consumer reporting agencies at all. The express bars are 12 C.F.R. 1024.35(i)(1), the 60-day bar on furnishing adverse information to any consumer reporting agency about the payment a notice of error concerns, and 12 U.S.C. 2605(e)(3) after a qualified written request. Those levers move only when you write.

Fay does furnish. Its privacy notice lists reporting to credit bureaus among the everyday business purposes a consumer is not permitted to limit, the only mention of credit reporting on the pages of its site we read. We cannot give you the string the tradeline carries, because no authoritative source confirms one and on trust-held loans the entry may read in the owner's name. Take the identification from the report: the name and address on the tradeline identify your furnisher, and that address is a valid destination for a written dispute.

What Regulation X requires of a servicer while you are behind

These rules matter here because the 2024 order's credit reporting remedy is defined by reference to conduct Regulation X prohibits. 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(f)(1) provides that a servicer shall not make the first notice or filing required for a foreclosure process unless the loan obligation is more than 120 days delinquent. That is where the 120-day figure comes from: a floor on the servicer's earliest first filing, not a grace period, not a count of payments you may miss, and not an answer about your state's foreclosure procedure.

Then the dual tracking pair. 1024.41(f)(2) blocks the first filing while a complete loss mitigation application received before it is pending. 1024.41(g) blocks a motion for judgment or order of sale, and the sale itself, where a complete application arrives after the first filing but more than 37 days before a scheduled sale, until it is resolved as the rule specifies. 1024.41(h) adds an appeal right, with 14 days to appeal a denied modification, a decision by different personnel, and 30 days for the servicer to answer.

For a servicer that acquires loans mid-stream, 1024.41(k) is the subsection to know. The transferee inherits the transferor's timeframes rather than restarting them: where the transferor missed the five-day acknowledgment, (k)(2) gives the transferee 10 days from the transfer date; where a complete application was pending at transfer, (k)(3) gives 30 days from transfer to finish evaluating it; (k)(4) preserves appeal rights and (k)(5) unexpired response periods. That forecloses the standard answer after a transfer, that the new servicer had to start fresh.

One distinction decides what is yours to enforce. 1024.41 is privately enforceable, because 12 U.S.C. 2605(f) gives a damages remedy for violations of section 2605 and its regulations. 12 C.F.R. 1024.38, the policies and procedures rule, is not; it is a supervisory standard of care. Not academic here: the 2017 order against Fay rested partly on 1024.38(a) and (b), precisely the sort of finding a consumer cannot turn into a lawsuit of their own.

What 3,952 complaints describe, and what the database fields do not decide

This page answers the review question with records rather than a rating: the enforcement record set out below, and the complaint record set out here. A star average compresses unlike experiences into one number nobody can check. The Bureau's public database instead records what people said the problem was and what the company said back, in countable fields. Queried on 27 July 2026, it held 3,952 complaints naming Fay Servicing, running from 11 April 2012 to 10 July 2026, of which 1,920 carry a published narrative. The distribution is lopsided toward the mortgage itself: 3,614 mortgage, 168 debt collection, 79 credit reporting or other personal consumer reports. The two largest issue categories are trouble during the payment process at 1,438 and struggling to pay the mortgage at 1,370.

The credit reporting slice is smaller and sharper. Incorrect information on your report accounts for 141, and the sub-issues are the part worth reading: account status incorrect, 63; account information incorrect, 43; information belongs to someone else, 11; information missing that should be on the report, 9; and old information reappears, 7. A further 33 are coded as a problem with the company's investigation and 18 as a problem with a credit reporting investigation. Each is an unadjudicated consumer allegation. None is a finding about Fay.

Sub-issue, product and state. Inside the 141 sits one more, public record information inaccurate, 7. A second product label, credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports, carries 68. By state: California 585, Florida 448, New York 320, New Jersey 231, Texas 207, Georgia 196, Maryland 184, Illinois 183, Pennsylvania 175, Virginia 117. Counted fields, not findings.

State the response fields precisely. Of the 3,952, the company response is recorded as closed with explanation in 3,946 cases, closed with monetary relief in 3, in progress in 2 and closed in 1; timeliness is timely in 3,846 and not timely in 106. That describes how the disposition fields are populated, not the merits of any complaint; and it does not mean the other 3,949 were unfounded.

Where to write, and which Fay addresses will not do the job

A mortgage borrower has three written channels, each with its own address, deadline and remedy, and using the wrong one wastes a good dispute. The notice of error under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 attacks servicing errors and is the channel that carries the 60-day furnishing bar. The request for information under 1024.36 extracts documents and answers, including who owns the loan, and buys no reporting protection. The FCRA dispute attacks the accuracy of what was reported, direct to the furnisher and through the bureaus. What Fay publishes, sorted by what each address is for:

• Notice of error and request for information address (Regulation X): not published on the Fay Servicing website. We read the contact, help, payment, privacy and sitemap pages: no notice-of-error or dispute page. Check your monthly periodic statement, where servicers usually print it.
• Credit reporting dispute address: not published on the website either.
• General corporate correspondence: Fay Servicing, LLC, 5426 Bay Center Drive, Suite 300, Tampa, FL 33609.
• Payments only, not disputes: Fay Servicing, LLC, Payment Processing, PO Box 88009, Chicago, IL 60680-1009.
• Overnight payoffs and reinstatements only: Fay Servicing LLC, Attn: Payment Processing, 1601 LBJ Freeway Suite 150, Farmers Branch, TX 75234.
• Complaints department: Fay Servicing, LLC, Attn: Complaints Department, P.O. Box 815548, Farmers Branch, TX 75381. A customer service function, not a designated notice-of-error address; writing there starts no Regulation X clock.
• Telephone: 1-800-495-7166 residential, 1-888-201-3780 commercial. Useful for information, useless as a dispute record.

Sending a notice of error to the wrong place is not a technicality, it is the outcome. 1024.35(c) lets a servicer establish an exclusive address, and where one exists only a notice delivered there triggers the duties: the five-day acknowledgment under (d); the response under (e) within seven business days for a payoff error or 30 business days for most others, the latter extendable once by 15 days on written notice; and the 60-day furnishing bar under (i)(1). A letter to the lockbox or the complaints box buys none of it. Note the off-ramps at 1024.35(g): a notice the servicer reasonably determines is duplicative, overbroad or untimely can be declined in writing, switching off the 60-day furnishing bar with everything else.

On the FCRA side, the direct dispute duty at 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(a)(8) and 12 C.F.R. 1022.43 gives the letter three possible destinations. Under (c)(1) you may use 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) you may use an address the furnisher has clearly and conspicuously specified for direct disputes and provided to you in writing or electronically; Fay does not publish one, and the wording is deliberate, because not published on the website is a different statement from none exists, and one may appear on your statement or be supplied on request. Under (c)(3) you may use any business address of the furnisher, but only where the furnisher has not specified and provided an address under (c)(1) or (c)(2), which is what puts the Tampa corporate address in play. What that letter is worth: the 1681s-2(a) duties, direct disputes among them, are enforceable by regulators and certain public officials and not by you. There is no private right of action against a furnisher who handles a direct dispute badly. It creates a dated record, and never substitutes for the bureau channel.

People ask how to reach a person at Fay. The answer is legal rather than telephonic: 1024.35 and 1024.36 are written channels with fixed deadlines. Write it, date it, send it certified.

Two consent orders, six modifications, and one paragraph about credit reporting

The 2017 order. In File No. 2017-CFPB-0014 the Bureau entered a consent order against Fay in June 2017; its own documents give both 6 and 7 June 2017 as the filing date, a conflict we note rather than resolve. The Bureau found, as allegations Fay did not admit, that Fay failed to send timely loss mitigation acknowledgment and evaluation notices stating available relief and appeal rights, and advanced foreclosure against borrowers seeking help. The provisions cited were 12 C.F.R. 1024.41(f)(2) and (g), 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B), 1024.41(c)(1), and 1024.38(a) and (b), with the Consumer Financial Protection Act. It was not a credit reporting action, and the FCRA is not among the provisions cited. Under that June 2017 order Fay was to pay up to $1,150,000 in consumer redress, and the civil money penalty was none. Redress is compensation routed to consumers; a penalty is punishment paid to the government, and calling the 2017 figure a fine misstates both. Fay consented without admitting or denying any of the findings of fact or conclusion of law, except that Respondent admits the facts necessary to establish the Bureau's jurisdiction. The order was modified six times between February 2022 and August 2024. The February 2022 modification amended paragraph 106 so that the order would terminate on 6 June 2023 unless the Bureau had begun an action before that date, and the Bureau lists its status as expired, terminated or dismissed. Expiry on its own terms is not a finding that the allegations were wrong.

The 2024 order. File No. 2024-CFPB-0007, entered 21 August 2024. Fay was ordered to pay a $3,000,000 judgment for monetary relief, redress and damages into a Bureau-administered fund, and a separate $2,000,000 civil money penalty, and undertook at paragraph 72 that Respondent will invest at least $2 million to update its servicing technology and compliance management systems. It too was entered without admitting or denying any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law.

The findings, again allegations Fay did not admit, turn on a defined term. Improper Foreclosure Activity means acting against a borrower entitled to the protections of 1024.41(f)(2) or (g) by (i) making a First Filing; (ii) Moving for Judgment; or (iii) conducting a foreclosure sale, over a Relevant Period the order defines as running from 7 June 2017 to the 21 August 2024 effective date. The recital From June 7, 2017 until early 2020 attaches to a single finding, that Fay failed to ensure protected borrowers were protected; the order separately finds violations later in the Relevant Period. Alongside it sit data integrity findings, that Fay's policies were not reasonably designed to give foreclosure counsel accurate and current information; private mortgage insurance findings; and late fee findings. The conclusions of law cite the Consumer Financial Protection Act, RESPA and Regulation X, TILA and Regulation Z, and the Homeowners Protection Act. The FCRA is not among them. It also finds the 2017 order was violated, across compliance monitoring, data maintenance and foreclosure hold protocols; both halves belong together, the Bureau made that finding and Fay did not admit it.

Paragraph 61(a), the credit reporting paragraph. It requires Fay, for Affected Loss Mitigation Consumers identified by the Bureau to Respondent and where it has not already done so, to delete, update, and correct any information related to Improper Foreclosure Activity that Respondent reported to any consumer reporting agency, including requesting that any information related to a First Filing, Moving for Judgment, or a foreclosure sale be removed, and refrain from verifying the debt, and that opening clause is the whole boundary of the remedy: it runs to the consumers the Bureau identified to Fay, and to nobody else. Neither the size of that group nor whether the corrections happened was located in this research. If the Bureau never identified you to Fay, paragraph 61(a) did not touch your file, and a federal regulator ordering credit reporting corrections in your servicer's case does nothing for you unless you obtain your own.

Status. The Bureau terminated the 2024 order on 1 July 2025 under 12 U.S.C. 5563(b)(3), reciting that Fay has fulfilled several obligations under the Consent Order, and waiving any alleged noncompliance. Termination is not a finding that the allegations were wrong, it is not exoneration, and it restores nothing to a consumer whose report is still wrong. Rust Consulting administers redress distribution, with the Bureau's payments page listing it from 6 March 2026 and ongoing.

Massachusetts. Fay separately entered an assurance of discontinuance with the Massachusetts Attorney General, filed in Suffolk Superior Court on 17 August 2022, providing $2.7 million in direct borrower relief through principal forgiveness and $500,000 to the Commonwealth. The allegations it resolved without adjudicating included modifications requiring large upfront payments without an affordability analysis and failing to provide hundreds of borrowers with required debt validation notices. Nothing was admitted and no court found any of it proven.

The dispute that actually creates a duty someone can be sued over

Everything in the previous section happened to Fay, not to your credit file. The mechanism that reaches your file is 15 U.S.C. 1681i, and it starts with a letter to Equifax, Experian and TransUnion.

Each agency must reinvestigate free of charge, ordinarily within 30 days, extended to 45 where you supply further information during the period, and must forward what you sent to the furnisher. That forwarding triggers 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b), which obliges the furnisher to investigate, review all relevant information, and correct, complete or delete anything inaccurate, incomplete or unverifiable at every agency it supplied. Section 1681s-2(b) is the furnisher duty a consumer can enforce in court, which is why the bureau step is never optional however thorough the letter to Tampa was. Against the agencies themselves, 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b) requires reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, a separate claim with a separate defendant.

Pull all three reports first, from AnnualCreditReport.com. Federal law guarantees one free report from each nationwide agency every 12 months under 15 U.S.C. 1681j(a)(1)(A); the weekly free access described everywhere online is a voluntary bureau programme, not a statutory right. Take all three, because servicing errors propagate unevenly and a discrepancy between two files about one loan is worth showing them.

Write at the level of the field. Not that the account is wrong, but that the payment status for a named month reads 60 days late when the enclosed transfer notice shows the loan moved to Fay that month and the enclosed bank record shows the payment reached the prior servicer before the due date. Not that the escrow is a mess, but that the balance includes an advance for insurance the enclosed declarations page shows was in force. Attach the transfer notices, the statements either side of the changeover, the payment proof and the marked report page. Our credit dispute letter guide sets out the structure.

If the item returns verified and unchanged with no sign anyone read your documents, the reinvestigation has become the problem rather than the underlying error. If a deleted item reappears, reinsertion is regulated: it may be reinstated only on a certification of accuracy from the furnisher, and the agency must notify you within five business days.

What the court record shows, what a claim is worth, and what waiting costs

Roughly a hundred federal dockets name Fay Servicing, most outcomes unverified, and among those we have, the pattern is defence wins. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed for Fay in Ellery v. Fay Servicing, LLC, No. 24-12564, in an unpublished decision on 25 March 2026, holding that a merits-based challenge to a loss mitigation evaluation is not a covered error, in an individual action with no class certified. The Fourth Circuit affirmed for Fay in Hayes v. Fay Servicing, LLC, No. 23-1962, in an unpublished decision on 20 March 2024. District courts granted Fay summary judgment or dismissal in Thompson, No. 3:18-CV-00362-BT in the Northern District of Texas, on 14 November 2019, including on the FCRA claim, and in Nelson, No. 3:22-cv-01911-HZ in the District of Oregon, on 15 September 2023, where plaintiffs could not establish successor liability for a prior servicer's errors.

One consumer merits win stands out. In Odsather v. Fay Servicing, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00289 in the Western District of Washington, the court granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment on 20 December 2018, holding that Fay violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to tell the credit bureaus the debt was disputed, and rejecting the bona fide error defence, which does not cover a mistaken legal interpretation. Note what it is and is not: it rests on the FDCPA, the FCRA furnisher claim under 1681s-2(b) was pleaded but never reached, and it was an individual action dismissed with prejudice on 6 February 2019 after a mediated settlement. It is still the most useful decision here for anyone whose disputed mortgage account reports without a dispute notation, and our debt validation letter guide covers the FDCPA machinery around it. Often miscited alongside it is Lamirand v. Fay Servicing, LLC, No. 20-14286, 38 F.4th 976, decided by the Eleventh Circuit on 1 July 2022, not the Eighth: a pleading-stage reversal holding a TILA periodic statement could also be a debt collection communication, deciding nothing about liability. No certified FCRA class action against Fay was located.

One clock runs in your favour, and it is narrower than the internet suggests. 15 U.S.C. 1681c(a)(4) keeps an account placed for collection or charged to profit and loss off the report after seven years, and 1681c(c)(1) starts that clock at the delinquency immediately preceding the collection or charge-off, plus 180 days. The scope is the catch: that seven-years-plus-180-days measure reaches only 1681c(a)(4) and 1681c(a)(6). Late payments on a mortgage you brought current fall under 1681c(a)(5) instead, seven years from the date of the entry.

Damages come from two statutes with different arithmetic. Under the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681o gives actual damages plus fees and costs for negligent noncompliance, and 15 U.S.C. 1681n gives actual or statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation, punitive damages and fees for wilful noncompliance. Under RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 2605(f) gives actual damages plus costs and fees, and additional damages up to $2,000 only on a pattern or practice of noncompliance, a real threshold. The 12 U.S.C. 2609(d) penalty for escrow statement failures is assessed by the Secretary and never comes to you. Actual damage decides cases, because of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021): no concrete harm, no standing in federal court. On a mortgage that means the denial letter, the refinance that repriced, the credit line reduced, the deposit demanded.

The deadlines are unequal and the RESPA one is harsher. 15 U.S.C. 1681p allows two years from discovering the violation and no more than five years from when it occurred. 12 U.S.C. 2614 allows three years from the date of the occurrence for section 2605 violations, with no discovery rule at all, so a servicing violation can expire before you learn of it.

No regulator is on the way. Both consent orders are terminated, the redress fund is a fixed pot for a defined group, and paragraph 61(a) reached only the consumers the Bureau named, while the tradeline reports every month and the RESPA clock runs whether or not you know about it. Doing nothing is a decision with a price, and the price is usually the claim itself.

How The Kim Law Firm handles Fay Servicing problems

We act for consumers only. Never for servicers, never for investors, never for credit bureaus. The Fay Servicing matters that become cases have a recognisable shape: the transfer patterns above, escrow advances or force-placed premiums driving a balance no statement supports, and foreclosure information still reporting on a file paragraph 61(a) never reached.

We cannot remove accurate information and will not take a case premised on it. If the payments were genuinely late, if the loan genuinely defaulted, and the tradeline records that correctly, no lawyer can lawfully make it disappear, and you should hear that on the first call. A grievance about how a loss mitigation review went, or about the terms of a modification, may be a real claim, but it is not a credit reporting claim.

The sequence is the one this page describes: a notice of error under 1024.35, certified, to whatever exclusive address your periodic statement gives, the step that carries the 60-day furnishing bar; a request for information under 1024.36 where you need the loan's owner, answerable as to owner identity within 10 business days; a direct dispute to the address on the tradeline; then a documented dispute to all three bureaus, the one that creates a duty enforceable by you.

Bring six things to the first call: the 1024.33 transfer notices from both servicers, every monthly statement and payment record for the period in dispute, every annual escrow account analysis, the loss mitigation correspondence, your dispute letters with the certified mail receipts, and the reinvestigation results the bureaus sent back. The last two convert a complaint into a claim. Because the FCRA shifts fees to a prevailing consumer, we work on contingency, and there is no fee unless we win.

Our FCRA lawyer guide walks through how one of these cases runs, and the credit reporting errors overview covers the reporting patterns we see most. Other companies in this industry are collected on our mortgage servicers page. When you are ready, contact us for a free review of your report.

Frequently asked questions

What does Fay Servicing do?

Fay Servicing, LLC is a special servicer of residential mortgage loans, operating under NMLS ID 88244 from a principal office in Tampa, Florida. Rather than servicing a large book of performing loans, it is retained for loans that are delinquent or otherwise troubled, often after an investor has bought them on a servicing-released basis. It collects payments, administers escrow, evaluates loss mitigation applications and reports the account to the credit bureaus, usually on behalf of a trust or investor that owns the loan. It also trades as Genstone Financial.

Did the CFPB order Fay Servicing to fix credit reports?

In part. Paragraph 61(a) of the August 21, 2024 consent order, File No. 2024-CFPB-0007, requires Fay to delete, update and correct information it reported to any consumer reporting agency relating to improper foreclosure activity, and to stop verifying the debt, but only for the affected loss mitigation consumers the Bureau itself identified to Fay. Consumers outside that identified group were not covered and keep only the ordinary FCRA and Regulation X remedies. The Bureau terminated the order on July 1, 2025, so no continuing supervisory obligation remains to rely on, and termination is not a finding that the allegations were wrong.

What are common complaints about Fay Servicing?

As of July 27, 2026 the CFPB database held 3,952 complaints naming Fay Servicing, dating back to April 2012. The largest issue categories are trouble during the payment process, at 1,438, and struggling to pay the mortgage, at 1,370. Within credit reporting, 141 complaints allege incorrect information on a report, led by account status incorrect, 63; account information incorrect, 43; information belongs to someone else, 11; and information missing that should be reported, 9. These are unadjudicated consumer allegations rather than findings, and they are not a rating of the company.

Where do I send a dispute about a Fay Servicing account on my credit report?

Fay does not publish a credit reporting dispute address or a notice-of-error address on its website, so check your monthly periodic statement first, because that is where servicers usually print the exclusive Regulation X address. For an FCRA direct dispute, 12 C.F.R. 1022.43(c)(1) lets you use the furnisher address printed beside the tradeline on your report, and 12 C.F.R. 1022.43(c)(3) lets you use any business address of the furnisher, but only where the furnisher has not specified and provided an address under (c)(1) or (c)(2). Send it certified. Then dispute separately with Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, because only that route creates a duty you can enforce.

Is there a class action against Fay Servicing?

No certified FCRA class action against Fay Servicing was located in the public record. The only class resolution we can confirm is Strickland v. Carrington Mortgage Services, No. 1:16-cv-25237-JG in the Southern District of Florida, a lender-placed insurance settlement naming Fay among several defendants; a class settlement resolves claims without any adjudication of liability. Two appellate decisions involving Fay, Ellery in the Eleventh Circuit on March 25, 2026 and Hayes in the Fourth on March 20, 2024, were unpublished individual actions rather than class actions, and both were affirmed in Fay's favour. The two CFPB consent orders were administrative enforcement actions, not class litigation. The Bureau terminated the 2024 order on July 1, 2025; the 2017 order ended earlier, because its February 2022 modification set termination at June 6, 2023.

Where you live does not limit who can represent you. The Kim Law Firm acts for consumers nationwide in Fair Credit Reporting Act matters from our offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. If a mortgage that transferred to Fay Servicing now reports twice, shows a delinquency that restarted at the transfer, or still carries foreclosure information the 2024 consent order never reached, send us the report and the transfer notices and we will tell you what the file supports.