Start here
The free tool below runs entirely in this browser — no account, nothing stored or transmitted. Redact anything you would not want kept before you type it.
Open the companion tool →Which route applies depends on who did the checking
When verification is run by a consumer-reporting agency, the dispute rights attach and the vendor must have a process; when it is the institution's own check, the escalation is the institution's complaints process and then its regulator. Naming the vendor in the log is what decides which of the two this is.
The record also carries the alternative route: an in-person verification at a government office, a different document class, or a manual review requested in writing — all of which are usually available and rarely offered.
The protocol
- Log the refusal: what you were applying for, the date, the channel, and the exact message you received.
- Identify the vendor if one is named, and whether it is acting as a consumer-reporting agency.
- Ask in writing for the specific reason, the document or data point that failed, and the manual-review route.
- Prepare the alternative: an in-person verification slot, a different document, or a supervisor review.
- If the vendor is a consumer-reporting agency, file the dispute; otherwise escalate to the institution and then to its regulator.
What the tool does
Turn an automated identity-verification refusal into a written reason request, a manual-review route, and a dispute if a consumer-reporting agency is involved. It runs locally in this browser and sends nothing.
Limit first: This is a planning and referral aid, not legal or financial advice. It cannot enrol you in a programme, connect a service, or guarantee that free help is available where you live.
Open the companion tool →Cost and free path
Cost: Free: one complete run in this browser, no account. Optional $4 one-time unlock allows unlimited runs of this tool on this browser. The free path and safety guidance never require payment.
Rule status (mixed route): structural: automated identity verification is governed by the vendor's contract, by the FCRA dispute route when a consumer-reporting agency is used, and by the institution's own complaints process otherwise; the route depends on which of those applied, which is why the vendor has to be named in the record. Reviewed 2026-10-03 (FCRA §611 dispute route).
Automated decision this documents: automated identity verification and face-match thresholds that refuse a real applicant
Free path, in order (no cost):
- CFPB — submit a complaint and check consumer-reporting rights (consumerfinance.gov/complaint)
- FTC — identity theft and consumer-report guidance (identitytheft.gov)
- 211 — local in-person verification and document help (211.org)
What this cannot do: It cannot enrol you in a programme, connect a service, or guarantee that free help is available where you live.
Sources checked 2026-10-03 · source bank reviewed against the live pages listed in metadata.
One human next step
Ask the institution in writing for the specific failed data point and a manual-review route, and file a dispute with the verification vendor if it is a consumer-reporting agency — both routes exist and neither requires paying anyone.
Research log and safety checks
AI-assist path: not used for a verdict. This builder organises the reader's own documents and names an independent source; it does not infer authenticity, eligibility, or legal rights. §6.9/§6.10/§6.11 disclosed in the batch report; §6.12 status line carried in metadata as `status_line`.
§0.5 protection result: category is access-and-digital-affordability; crisis-adjacent: no; fear/urgency/scarcity toolkit used: no. The protective function is free and the paid feature is convenience only.