Revdex.com,I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this does not resolve my complaintFor your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The response is not clear eitherIn part of the response they say the account has been paid in full and was reported to the credit bureaus as paid but yet I spoke to a lady on the phone that stated I still have amounts owing at armada one for $the other for $something, so do I still owe money or not and if so for what? Regards, [redacted]
An account for Ms [redacted] was assigned to collection 10-27-Following unsuccessful attempts to collect a Judgment was awarded on the balance 1-7-The initial debt, correctly stated by Ms [redacted] was $A written dispute was received from Ms [redacted] dated 5-5-In response to that dispute account information and a copy of the Judgment were sent to Ms [redacted] Additionally the credit file was updated on 5-11-with regard to her disputeArmada did not remove information from the report - it was an update of the dispute statusThe unpaid and validated debt was reported on her credit file in both May and June month closuresMs [redacted] 's account has been updated with regard to her continued dissatisfactionDocumentation will be provided to her by mail for her reviewThe Judgment remains unpaid and open
Subject: RE: Revdex.com COMPLAINT # [redacted] VS ARMADA CORP AKA COMMERCIAL COLLECTION SERVICESDear Ms [redacted] ,Both the complaint filed by Ms [redacted] and the account notes have been thoroughly reviewed.Ms [redacted] states that she had been making payment on a traffic violationShe did enter into an agreement to make monthly payments August 17, A failure to maintain that agreement resulted in communication with the Court August 8, 16.Ms [redacted] called for the balance of her account on September 7, There was no urgency noted in her request nor was there any indication that she was inquiring to stave off a suspension of her driving privilegeIt is protocol to encourage payment by “guaranteed” funds [cashier’s check or money order] or to pay at an office location in cash to avoid a delay in processing especially in matters considered time-sensitive to the consumerAll payments received are immediately documented and credited against the balance owingPayments made on court accounts are not communicated with the client, in this case days, to ensure that the funds have cleared all processing because of the audit scrutiny of those kind of accounts for the client [Court].Once the 21-day period had exhausted [October 7,2016] the client was notified of the cleared payment.The handling of the payment as presented was handled appropriately.Cindy G***General ManagerArmada Corp| Okanogan OfficePO Box | Okanogan, WA 98840o: x| d: | f: 509.422.1818e: [email protected] | w: armadacorp.comWenatchee | Okanogan | Moses Lake | Kennewick | Olympia | Las VegasWA: | OR: CA| ID: CCA| NV: CA| AZ: CA
I have reviewed the complaint submittedI can understand how the consumer could have been confused by the reports provided however they are accurate Attached you will see what was provided to Ms [redacted] dated January 6, These are reportsThe first report listed shows the account # [redacted] which is the account that was subject to the garnishment actionYou will note that the balance remaining "NET W/JMT" is $On this report you will also see data at the bottom that refers to the "JUDGMENT AMOUNT" that balance matches Page of the reports is an account that is owing # [redacted] in the amount of $There have been no payments applied to this accountThis account is not part of the foregoing judgment thus was not part of the garnishment actions Page is a list of the payments applied to # [redacted] as noted at the top of that pageThe total payments applied to the account balance on # [redacted] $ Page is the Judgment document which is the basis of the accountNote on the judgment document that $was applied to the judgmentthat amount is noted on the payment list [6-5-15] I believe that the confusion on the account is that the amount shown as paid on page [in the Judgment portion] doesn't match the payments received on that reportThe difference [$- 1379.92] is $150.00; the amount paid and noted on the Judgment document The only voluntary payment on this account was the $in June The other payments noted are from garnishment actions The first 60-day garnishment action began in September Following that garnishment the consumer called the office [1-05-16] and promised to pay the remaining $on 1-7-When that payment was not received contact was attempted prior to a second garnishment action which began on 1-27- The account is now paid in fullArmada C [redacted] updated the credit file on 12-31-with a zero balance owing on the underlying debtArmada C [redacted] doesn't place public record information [Judgment] on the credit fileThat data is collected and updated by the credit reporting industry directlyA satisfaction was filed by Armada C [redacted] at the close of the last garnishment action We use Columbia Ultimate Business software and recently embarked on entering these kind of judgments in a different process that will hopefully render reports that are more consumer friendlyWe endeavor to work with consumers to clarify information and to assist them in taking care of their collection debtI hope this information is helpful
The accounts currently in collection total $Of that $is principal and $is interestThe list dates of the accounts range from 8-11-to 2-21-Notices, upon listing were generated to the address of recordThere has never been a formal request made with Armada to
validate the accounts until this complaint was receivedIn response to the complaint a request for statements has been made The status of the accounts will be updated to Disputed with the credit reporting agencies we list with [Equifax and TransUnion]. Upon receipt of the statements from our client(s) they will be made available to the consumer as a matter of resolveRecords do indicate that a request for validation was made to the credit reporting agency on 5-10-for two accounts ##*** and ##***They were validated through that systemInterest is accessed on the unpaid principal portion of debt at the rate of 12% per year
In response to the secondary complaint:
April 12,
It is noted in the initial response dated 3-31-16, that there were two account balances recognized on reports provided to Ms*** on 1-6-
The $balance had been owing on an active judgmentThat balance has been paid in full by way of a garnishment[Account number ***]
The other balance noted on the report from 1-6-that is still owing is $for an East Wenatchee Municipal court account reference by number ***/WHSThe Armada account number or this account is ***Records indicate that Ms*** was in contact with a Representative regarding this balance on 3-15-
I have researched the database and find no additional accounts owing at this time for Ms*** besides the $[***]
This information is accurate and current
[redacted]DOCUMENT ATTACHED[redacted]
Subject: RE: Revdex.com COMPLAINT #[redacted] VS ARMADA CORPORATIONDear Ms. [redacted],Ms. [redacted] rejection of the resolve of 11-14-16 pertains only to her lack of knowledge about asking for a consolidation of the debts owed. Attached is a scan of the message received from Ms. [redacted] dated 12-1-15 that addresses this issue directly.This scan is the message in its entirety. If you would like I will forward you the original e-mail message.The actual debts were previously validated directly to Ms. [redacted].Thank you for this opportunity to bring further clarity and closure to this issue.Regards,Cindy G[redacted]General ManagerArmada Corp. | Okanogan OfficePO Box 71 | Okanogan, WA 98840o: 509.884.8000 x1205 | d: 509.422.1200 | f: 509.422.1818e: [redacted]@armadacorp.com | w: armadacorp.comWenatchee | Okanogan | Moses Lake | Kennewick | Olympia | Las VegasWA: 048005724 | OR: CA49215 | ID: CCA7776 | NV: CA03085 | AZ: CA0935330
[redacted]SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY Revdex.com[redacted]
Subject: RE: Revdex.com COMPLAINT #[redacted] VS ARMADA CORP AKA COMMERCIAL COLLECTION SERVICESDear Ms. [redacted],Both the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] and the account notes have been thoroughly reviewed.Ms. [redacted] states that she had been making payment on a traffic violation. She...
did enter into an agreement to make monthly payments August 17, 2015. A failure to maintain that agreement resulted in communication with the Court August 8, 16.Ms. [redacted] called for the balance of her account on September 7, 2016. There was no urgency noted in her request nor was there any indication that she was inquiring to stave off a suspension of her driving privilege. It is protocol to encourage payment by “guaranteed” funds [cashier’s check or money order] or to pay at an office location in cash to avoid a delay in processing especially in matters considered time-sensitive to the consumer. All payments received are immediately documented and credited against the balance owing. Payments made on court accounts are not communicated with the client, in this case 21 days, to ensure that the funds have cleared all processing because of the audit scrutiny of those kind of accounts for the client [Court].Once the 21-day period had exhausted [October 7,2016] the client was notified of the cleared payment.The handling of the payment as presented was handled appropriately.Cindy G[redacted]General ManagerArmada Corp. | Okanogan OfficePO Box 71 | Okanogan, WA 98840o: 509.884.8000 x1205 | d: 509.422.1200 | f: 509.422.1818e: [email protected] | w: armadacorp.comWenatchee | Okanogan | Moses Lake | Kennewick | Olympia | Las VegasWA: 048005724 | OR: CA49215 | ID: CCA7776 | NV: CA03085 | AZ: CA0935330
Revdex.com,I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The response is not clear either. In part of the response they say the account has been paid in full and was reported to the credit bureaus as paid but yet I spoke to a lady on the phone that stated I still have 2 amounts owing at armada one for $125.11 the other for $200 something, so do I still owe money or not and if so for what? Regards,[redacted]
I have reviewed the complaint submitted. I can understand how the consumer could have been confused by the reports provided however they are accurate.
Attached you will see what was provided to Ms. [redacted] dated January 6, 2016. These are reports. The first report listed shows the account...
#[redacted] which is the account that was subject to the garnishment action. You will note that the balance remaining "NET W/JMT" is $125.11. On this report you will also see data at the bottom that refers to the "JUDGMENT AMOUNT" that balance matches.
Page 2 of the reports is an account that is owing #[redacted] in the amount of $234.21. There have been no payments applied to this account. This account is not part of the foregoing judgment thus was not part of the garnishment actions.
Page 3 is a list of the payments applied to #[redacted] as noted at the top of that page. The total payments applied to the account balance on #[redacted] $1529.92.
Page 4 is the Judgment document which is the basis of the account. Note on the judgment document that $150.00 was applied to the judgment. that amount is noted on the payment list [6-5-15].
I believe that the confusion on the account is that the amount shown as paid on page 1 [in the Judgment portion] doesn't match the payments received on that report. The difference [$1529.92 - 1379.92] is $150.00; the amount paid and noted on the Judgment document.
The only voluntary payment on this account was the $150.00 in June 2015. The other payments noted are from garnishment actions.
The first 60-day garnishment action began in September 2015.
Following that garnishment the consumer called the office [1-05-16] and promised to pay the remaining $125.11 on 1-7-16. When that payment was not received contact was attempted prior to a second garnishment action which began on 1-27-16.
The account is now paid in full. Armada C[redacted] updated the credit file on 12-31-15 with a zero balance owing on the underlying debt. Armada C[redacted] doesn't place public record information [Judgment] on the credit file. That data is collected and updated by the credit reporting industry directly. A satisfaction was filed by Armada C[redacted] at the close of the last garnishment action.
We use Columbia Ultimate Business software and recently embarked on entering these kind of judgments in a different process that will hopefully render reports that are more consumer friendly. We endeavor to work with consumers to clarify information and to assist them in taking care of their collection debt. I hope this information is helpful.
An account for Ms. [redacted] was assigned to collection 10-27-14. Following unsuccessful attempts to collect a Judgment was awarded on the balance 1-7-16. The initial debt, correctly stated by Ms. [redacted] was $907.15. A written dispute was received from Ms. [redacted] dated 5-5-17. In response to that...
dispute account information and a copy of the Judgment were sent to Ms. [redacted]. Additionally the credit file was updated on 5-11-17 with regard to her dispute. Armada did not remove information from the report - it was an update of the dispute status. The unpaid and validated debt was reported on her credit file in both May and June month closures. Ms. [redacted]'s account has been updated with regard to her continued dissatisfaction. Documentation will be provided to her by mail for her review. The Judgment remains unpaid and open.
The consumer has made contact with us on several occasions with regard to these debts that date back to 2-19-15. The most recent request from the consumer dated 12-16-15 was a request to consolidate and settle which seems to contradict the allegation that nothing was known about the underlying...
debt.
The debt remains unpaid. The complaint via the Revdex.com has been reviewed and the documentation to validate the debt mailed to the consumer.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist [redacted] in addressing this issue.
Regards,
Cindy G[redacted]
General Manager
Armada Corp
Revdex.com,I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this does not resolve my complaintFor your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The response is not clear eitherIn part of the response they say the account has been paid in full and was reported to the credit bureaus as paid but yet I spoke to a lady on the phone that stated I still have amounts owing at armada one for $the other for $something, so do I still owe money or not and if so for what? Regards, [redacted]
An account for Ms [redacted] was assigned to collection 10-27-Following unsuccessful attempts to collect a Judgment was awarded on the balance 1-7-The initial debt, correctly stated by Ms [redacted] was $A written dispute was received from Ms [redacted] dated 5-5-In response to that dispute account information and a copy of the Judgment were sent to Ms [redacted] Additionally the credit file was updated on 5-11-with regard to her disputeArmada did not remove information from the report - it was an update of the dispute statusThe unpaid and validated debt was reported on her credit file in both May and June month closuresMs [redacted] 's account has been updated with regard to her continued dissatisfactionDocumentation will be provided to her by mail for her reviewThe Judgment remains unpaid and open
Subject: RE: Revdex.com COMPLAINT # [redacted] VS ARMADA CORP AKA COMMERCIAL COLLECTION SERVICESDear Ms [redacted] ,Both the complaint filed by Ms [redacted] and the account notes have been thoroughly reviewed.Ms [redacted] states that she had been making payment on a traffic violationShe did enter into an agreement to make monthly payments August 17, A failure to maintain that agreement resulted in communication with the Court August 8, 16.Ms [redacted] called for the balance of her account on September 7, There was no urgency noted in her request nor was there any indication that she was inquiring to stave off a suspension of her driving privilegeIt is protocol to encourage payment by “guaranteed” funds [cashier’s check or money order] or to pay at an office location in cash to avoid a delay in processing especially in matters considered time-sensitive to the consumerAll payments received are immediately documented and credited against the balance owingPayments made on court accounts are not communicated with the client, in this case days, to ensure that the funds have cleared all processing because of the audit scrutiny of those kind of accounts for the client [Court].Once the 21-day period had exhausted [October 7,2016] the client was notified of the cleared payment.The handling of the payment as presented was handled appropriately.Cindy G***General ManagerArmada Corp| Okanogan OfficePO Box | Okanogan, WA 98840o: x| d: | f: 509.422.1818e: [email protected] | w: armadacorp.comWenatchee | Okanogan | Moses Lake | Kennewick | Olympia | Las VegasWA: | OR: CA| ID: CCA| NV: CA| AZ: CA
I have reviewed the complaint submittedI can understand how the consumer could have been confused by the reports provided however they are accurate Attached you will see what was provided to Ms [redacted] dated January 6, These are reportsThe first report listed shows the account # [redacted] which is the account that was subject to the garnishment actionYou will note that the balance remaining "NET W/JMT" is $On this report you will also see data at the bottom that refers to the "JUDGMENT AMOUNT" that balance matches Page of the reports is an account that is owing # [redacted] in the amount of $There have been no payments applied to this accountThis account is not part of the foregoing judgment thus was not part of the garnishment actions Page is a list of the payments applied to # [redacted] as noted at the top of that pageThe total payments applied to the account balance on # [redacted] $ Page is the Judgment document which is the basis of the accountNote on the judgment document that $was applied to the judgmentthat amount is noted on the payment list [6-5-15] I believe that the confusion on the account is that the amount shown as paid on page [in the Judgment portion] doesn't match the payments received on that reportThe difference [$- 1379.92] is $150.00; the amount paid and noted on the Judgment document The only voluntary payment on this account was the $in June The other payments noted are from garnishment actions The first 60-day garnishment action began in September Following that garnishment the consumer called the office [1-05-16] and promised to pay the remaining $on 1-7-When that payment was not received contact was attempted prior to a second garnishment action which began on 1-27- The account is now paid in fullArmada C [redacted] updated the credit file on 12-31-with a zero balance owing on the underlying debtArmada C [redacted] doesn't place public record information [Judgment] on the credit fileThat data is collected and updated by the credit reporting industry directlyA satisfaction was filed by Armada C [redacted] at the close of the last garnishment action We use Columbia Ultimate Business software and recently embarked on entering these kind of judgments in a different process that will hopefully render reports that are more consumer friendlyWe endeavor to work with consumers to clarify information and to assist them in taking care of their collection debtI hope this information is helpful
The accounts currently in collection total $Of that $is principal and $is interestThe list dates of the accounts range from 8-11-to 2-21-Notices, upon listing were generated to the address of recordThere has never been a formal request made with Armada to
validate the accounts until this complaint was receivedIn response to the complaint a request for statements has been made The status of the accounts will be updated to Disputed with the credit reporting agencies we list with [Equifax and TransUnion]. Upon receipt of the statements from our client(s) they will be made available to the consumer as a matter of resolveRecords do indicate that a request for validation was made to the credit reporting agency on 5-10-for two accounts ##*** and ##***They were validated through that systemInterest is accessed on the unpaid principal portion of debt at the rate of 12% per year
In response to the secondary complaint:
April 12,
It is noted in the initial response dated 3-31-16, that there were two account balances recognized on reports provided to Ms*** on 1-6-
The $balance had been owing on an active judgmentThat balance has been paid in full by way of a garnishment[Account number ***]
The other balance noted on the report from 1-6-that is still owing is $for an East Wenatchee Municipal court account reference by number ***/WHSThe Armada account number or this account is ***Records indicate that Ms*** was in contact with a Representative regarding this balance on 3-15-
I have researched the database and find no additional accounts owing at this time for Ms*** besides the $[***]
This information is accurate and current
[redacted]DOCUMENT ATTACHED[redacted]
Subject: RE: Revdex.com COMPLAINT #[redacted] VS ARMADA CORPORATIONDear Ms. [redacted],Ms. [redacted] rejection of the resolve of 11-14-16 pertains only to her lack of knowledge about asking for a consolidation of the debts owed. Attached is a scan of the message received from Ms. [redacted] dated 12-1-15 that addresses this issue directly.This scan is the message in its entirety. If you would like I will forward you the original e-mail message.The actual debts were previously validated directly to Ms. [redacted].Thank you for this opportunity to bring further clarity and closure to this issue.Regards,Cindy G[redacted]General ManagerArmada Corp. | Okanogan OfficePO Box 71 | Okanogan, WA 98840o: 509.884.8000 x1205 | d: 509.422.1200 | f: 509.422.1818e: [redacted]@armadacorp.com | w: armadacorp.comWenatchee | Okanogan | Moses Lake | Kennewick | Olympia | Las VegasWA: 048005724 | OR: CA49215 | ID: CCA7776 | NV: CA03085 | AZ: CA0935330
[redacted]SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REDACTED BY Revdex.com[redacted]
Subject: RE: Revdex.com COMPLAINT #[redacted] VS ARMADA CORP AKA COMMERCIAL COLLECTION SERVICESDear Ms. [redacted],Both the complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] and the account notes have been thoroughly reviewed.Ms. [redacted] states that she had been making payment on a traffic violation. She...
did enter into an agreement to make monthly payments August 17, 2015. A failure to maintain that agreement resulted in communication with the Court August 8, 16.Ms. [redacted] called for the balance of her account on September 7, 2016. There was no urgency noted in her request nor was there any indication that she was inquiring to stave off a suspension of her driving privilege. It is protocol to encourage payment by “guaranteed” funds [cashier’s check or money order] or to pay at an office location in cash to avoid a delay in processing especially in matters considered time-sensitive to the consumer. All payments received are immediately documented and credited against the balance owing. Payments made on court accounts are not communicated with the client, in this case 21 days, to ensure that the funds have cleared all processing because of the audit scrutiny of those kind of accounts for the client [Court].Once the 21-day period had exhausted [October 7,2016] the client was notified of the cleared payment.The handling of the payment as presented was handled appropriately.Cindy G[redacted]General ManagerArmada Corp. | Okanogan OfficePO Box 71 | Okanogan, WA 98840o: 509.884.8000 x1205 | d: 509.422.1200 | f: 509.422.1818e: [email protected] | w: armadacorp.comWenatchee | Okanogan | Moses Lake | Kennewick | Olympia | Las VegasWA: 048005724 | OR: CA49215 | ID: CCA7776 | NV: CA03085 | AZ: CA0935330
Revdex.com,I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The response is not clear either. In part of the response they say the account has been paid in full and was reported to the credit bureaus as paid but yet I spoke to a lady on the phone that stated I still have 2 amounts owing at armada one for $125.11 the other for $200 something, so do I still owe money or not and if so for what? Regards,[redacted]
I have reviewed the complaint submitted. I can understand how the consumer could have been confused by the reports provided however they are accurate.
Attached you will see what was provided to Ms. [redacted] dated January 6, 2016. These are reports. The first report listed shows the account...
#[redacted] which is the account that was subject to the garnishment action. You will note that the balance remaining "NET W/JMT" is $125.11. On this report you will also see data at the bottom that refers to the "JUDGMENT AMOUNT" that balance matches.
Page 2 of the reports is an account that is owing #[redacted] in the amount of $234.21. There have been no payments applied to this account. This account is not part of the foregoing judgment thus was not part of the garnishment actions.
Page 3 is a list of the payments applied to #[redacted] as noted at the top of that page. The total payments applied to the account balance on #[redacted] $1529.92.
Page 4 is the Judgment document which is the basis of the account. Note on the judgment document that $150.00 was applied to the judgment. that amount is noted on the payment list [6-5-15].
I believe that the confusion on the account is that the amount shown as paid on page 1 [in the Judgment portion] doesn't match the payments received on that report. The difference [$1529.92 - 1379.92] is $150.00; the amount paid and noted on the Judgment document.
The only voluntary payment on this account was the $150.00 in June 2015. The other payments noted are from garnishment actions.
The first 60-day garnishment action began in September 2015.
Following that garnishment the consumer called the office [1-05-16] and promised to pay the remaining $125.11 on 1-7-16. When that payment was not received contact was attempted prior to a second garnishment action which began on 1-27-16.
The account is now paid in full. Armada C[redacted] updated the credit file on 12-31-15 with a zero balance owing on the underlying debt. Armada C[redacted] doesn't place public record information [Judgment] on the credit file. That data is collected and updated by the credit reporting industry directly. A satisfaction was filed by Armada C[redacted] at the close of the last garnishment action.
We use Columbia Ultimate Business software and recently embarked on entering these kind of judgments in a different process that will hopefully render reports that are more consumer friendly. We endeavor to work with consumers to clarify information and to assist them in taking care of their collection debt. I hope this information is helpful.
An account for Ms. [redacted] was assigned to collection 10-27-14. Following unsuccessful attempts to collect a Judgment was awarded on the balance 1-7-16. The initial debt, correctly stated by Ms. [redacted] was $907.15. A written dispute was received from Ms. [redacted] dated 5-5-17. In response to that...
dispute account information and a copy of the Judgment were sent to Ms. [redacted]. Additionally the credit file was updated on 5-11-17 with regard to her dispute. Armada did not remove information from the report - it was an update of the dispute status. The unpaid and validated debt was reported on her credit file in both May and June month closures. Ms. [redacted]'s account has been updated with regard to her continued dissatisfaction. Documentation will be provided to her by mail for her review. The Judgment remains unpaid and open.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: I have no knowledge of asking for a consolidation Of these debts.Sincerely,[redacted]
The consumer has made contact with us on several occasions with regard to these debts that date back to 2-19-15. The most recent request from the consumer dated 12-16-15 was a request to consolidate and settle which seems to contradict the allegation that nothing was known about the underlying...
debt.
The debt remains unpaid. The complaint via the Revdex.com has been reviewed and the documentation to validate the debt mailed to the consumer.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist [redacted] in addressing this issue.
Regards,
Cindy G[redacted]
General Manager
Armada Corp