A legal or visit warning is not the same as a filed case or an actual visit

A May 2026 borrower posted a message claiming that a legal complaint and home/work visit were scheduled for a specific date. After that date, the same author reported that no visit occurred. In another branch, a person who received a warning naming a June visit date later also reported no visit. Neither account established a filed case, court record or law-enforcement action. Separate borrowers did report actual OLP visits. One described a visit after about three weeks overdue; another reported one after about two months and said the visitor mentioned returning if the balance remained unsettled. These are first-person public reports, not authenticated collector records, and neither supplies a later payment or repeat-visit outcome. Other endpoints differed again: one warned borrower had no visit as of the update, while another person reported paying after roughly two weeks overdue with no visit during that window. These accounts cannot establish a location rule, amount threshold or standard timetable. The 2026 joint DICT/NPC/SEC advisory says threats of action that cannot legally be taken and disproportionate personal-data use are prohibited. That general rule does not decide whether a particular message is genuine or whether a lawful case exists. Report message, verified sender, filed document, actual visit and later resolution as separate fields. Remove names, numbers, addresses, photos and screenshots from public comments.