Crosstown Auto Body

Mr. [redacted] says on the complaint that he has a valid EZ PASS and the tolls should have been charged to his account.  A vehicle registered to Mr. [redacted] was captured using the tollway on 10/09/2015 and at that time, NYSTA did not detect a transponder.  The toll was invoiced and mailed on...

10/24/2015 to the registered address of the vehicle, [redacted] Bristol, CT 06010.  After two additional letters with no response, the account was referred to LGBS for collections.   LGBS mailed out collection letters to the registered address provide by our client.  When the firm did not receive a response after the 2nd notice, we attempted to locate a current address for Mr. [redacted].  The search provided the address to Mr. [redacted]’s parents which he states is not connected to him.  The account has been noted with the address error and it has been removed.  The balance is due in full.  We attempted to contact Mr. [redacted] at the number provide and left a voicemail.

I am responding to the consumer complaint filed with your office by [redacted]. Mr. [redacted]’s complaint regards unpaid tolls and fees owed to our client, the E470 Public Highway Authority (E470).On September 5, 2015, E470 recorded one toll incurred by a vehicle with Colorado license plate [redacted]...

registered to [redacted]. On October 9, November 9 and December 9, 2015, E470 mailed statements to the address provided by the DMV – [redacted].When no response was received to the three notices, the account was referred to the firm for collection.  Four notices were mailed to Mr. [redacted] on January 12, February 10, March 10 and April 11, 2016 for $28.45; which included a $20.00 collection fee. E470 mailed a Civil Penalty notice to Mr. [redacted] on May 9, 2016 for $53.45; which included a $25.00 Civil Penalty. E470 again mailed notices on June 9, July 9 and August 9, 2016; again for $53.45. E470 issued a Hearing Officer’s Final Order on September 9, 2016 for $73.45; which included a $20.00 Adjudication Fee. E470 mailed a final notice to Mr. [redacted] on October 9, 2016. Mr. [redacted] first contacted the firm on June 5, 2017 and was advised of the charges with E470. He stated that he would review his bank statements and send them in for review. When Mr. [redacted] called the firm again on September 28, 2017, he stated that he had paid an amount through the firm’s website to LGBS Northwest Parkway. On this call, the agent advised she did not see a payment made on his E470 account. She advised that he could dispute by sending in his proof of payment for review. Mr. [redacted] asked how we track his payment and the agent advised that she would be able to see it in our system notes, but that was the extent of her knowledge.  We do note that the agent should have advised Mr. [redacted] on the second call that the payment to Northwest Parkway would not have covered the amounts owed to E470.  We have reviewed the call with the agent for training purposes.Upon receipt of this complaint, we reviewed this account with E470.  The E470 also shows no record of payment for the toll and fees. We did confirm the payment to the delinquent Northwest Parkway account from June 2017. Northwest Parkway is a separate toll agency from E470.  A payment to Northwest Parkway would have no impact on any amounts owed to E470.  As of the date of this response, no payment for the above E470 account has been received by the firm nor E470. As Mr. [redacted] was properly noticed by both E470 and the firm, the amount of $73.45 remains due and owing.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response. The companies excuses are unacceptable. It took an entire week and for me to file a complaint to get a phone call from the company. And the fact that someone would use the excuse of me dialing the wrong number is absurd! This is not how you treat people especially military personnel. Thankfully for the Revdex.com someone called within the hour and I paid Jan 8th not the 12th. I am not the only person who had issues with this company. They need to be reviewed for misconduct. But that is all I have to say to this company.  
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com Complaint of [redacted], complaint #[redacted]   Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP collecting on behalf of The City of Galveston Municipal Courts   We are responding to your complaint received from Revdex.com on September 15, 2016.  According to the complain,t the collection...

letters addressed to Mr. [redacted] should not have been mailed to [redacted] (“Point Sur address”) or [redacted] (“San Antonio address”) From 2011-2016, monthly skip tracing efforts were made by our skip trace vendor in an attempt to locate a defendant named [redacted] referred to us by our client--The City of Galveston Municipal Court-- without the inclusion of date of birth, Social Security Number, or Driver’s License information.  Therefore, a birthdate comparison, which you describe having occurred when you called the Galveston Municipal Court Clerk would not have eliminated you as the defendant.  The skip trace vendor found the Point Sur address and a collection letter was mailed to that address on February 9, 2016.  After the letter was returned, the Point Sur addressed was removed from the account and additional skip tracing efforts were made utilizing a different skip trace vendor that resulted in finding the San Antonio address and a letter was mailed to that address on September 8, 2016.  Upon receipt of your complaint on September 15, 2016, from Revdex.com, collection letters were no longer mailed to the San Antonio address.  Furthermore, the addresses identified herein associated with this account have been removed from our system and we apologize for any inconvenience caused by the receipt of the letters.

Ms. [redacted] says on the rejection to our response that she has paid on the account and was only made aware of the balance in collection after the payment was made.We submitted the account for review to our client, the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA).  NYSTA states that no violations payments were received on this account.  The balance remains due in full.

Mr. [redacted] states on his complaint that he is currently stationed in Hawaii and he is not responsible for any toll usage on the [redacted] Tunnels.  We had our client review the account.  ERT has confirmed Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle was captured on the ERT a total of four times, twice...

on 12/4/2015 and twice on 12/5/2015.  The invoices were mailed to the registered address of the vehicle, [redacted] Honolulu, HI 96819.  Mr. [redacted] failed to  resolve the balance with ERT and the account was referred to our firm for collections on 4/13/16.We spoke with Mr. [redacted] and explained the balance is due in full.  Mr. [redacted] asked why he is responsible if he himself did not drive through the tolls.  We explained as the registered owner of the vehicle, he is responsible for payment of the tolls and fees in accordance to the Code of Virginia.  As a courtesy, we offered to resolve the balance at a reduced amount which Mr. [redacted] has accepted and paid.  The balance has been resolved.

Ms. [redacted]’s letter was received on June 13, 2016.  We mailed our response to Ms. [redacted] on June 27, 2016 which included copies of the statements sent to her by Northwest Parkway, a current account statement from Northwest Parkway, and a copy of a photo of the vehicle using the Northwest...

Parkway.  We have verified that the amount owed, $86.00 is valid as shown in the documentation provided.  Despite Ms. [redacted]’s claim that the vehicle is not drivable, the photos show that the license plate on the vehicle is clearly Colorado license plate [redacted] and the vehicle matches the description of Ms. [redacted]’s vehicle, an Infiniti I30.  The photos were not taken in a “parking lot”.  The vehicle was in motion when the pictures where taken; the technology is advanced enough to take a clear picture of a moving vehicle without it being blurred.  The statements show the date, time and location of Ms. [redacted]’s usage. In compliance with Ms. [redacted]’s request, we have only contacted her to respond directly to her letter – as requested - and to answer this complaint.  No other contact has been initiated by the firm.  There has been no violation of the FDCPA.

1 June 2016[redacted]RE: Revdex.com Case No. #[redacted]; Complaint of [redacted]Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP collecting on behalf of Clerk of Court forOrange County, FloridaMs. [redacted]:On behalf of Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP (“Firm”), I...

am responding to your complaint received from the Revdex.com on or about 1 June 2016. Your complaint is in regards to a speeding citation owed by [redacted] to our client, the Clerk of Court for Orange County, FL (“Clerk”).Your complaint alleges you paid this citation in full and attended driver’s school. The Clerk’s office hired our Firm pursuant to Florida Statute 28.246(6) for the collection of accounts receivables which have become delinquent. The Clerk’s office forwarded Citation No. [redacted] to my Firm as payment on the citation had become delinquent.The Firm has verified with the Clerk’s office that there is an outstanding balance on Citation No. [redacted]. I attach a copy of the citation for your records. To aid you in your investigation, I attach a copy of the online records search of this citation obtained from the Clerk’s website. You may view this case online via the Clerk’s website at [redacted] and search using the citation number. Based on the review, it appears the completion of the traffic school was never reported to the Clerk’s office, or in the alternative, reported after the due date. This added additional fees of $41.00 to the account. Pursuant to Florida Statute 28.246(6), the Clerk added a collection fee in the amount of $10.25 when the account was referred to my Firm for collections bringing the total owed to $51.25.Many of your requirements listed in the “Desired Settlement” section of the complaint refer to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). For the following reasons, Citation No. [redacted] is not subject to the FDCPA. The purpose of the FDCPA is to “eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). The FDCPA defines debt as:“any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily forpersonal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment.”15 U.S.C. § 1692(a)(5).Therefore, the question becomes whether or not the fines associated with Citation No. [redacted], a civil traffic case, is a debt that arose from a “transaction” as contemplated by the statute. “The FDCPA limits its reach to those obligations to pay arising from consensual transactions where parties negotiate or contract for consumer related goods or services.” Betts vs. Equifax Credit Info. Servcs., 245 F. Supp. 2d 1130, 1133 (W.D. Wash. 2003) citing Bass vs. Stopler, Koritzinsky, Brewster & Neider, S.C., 111 F.3d 1322, 1326 (7th Cir. 1997). “At a minimum, a ‘transaction’ under the FDCPA must involve some kind of business dealing or other consensual obligation.” Hawthorne vs. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367, 1371 (11th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, “when an obligation arises outside the scope of a consumer transaction, the obligation is not a “debt” under the FDCPA. Rector vs. City and County of Colorado, 122 P3d 1010, 1016 (Colo. App. 2005).As such, civil traffic violations fall outside the scope of the FDCPA. Furthermore, the civil traffic violation did not arise from “some type of business dealing between parties,” from a “consensual or contractual” arrangement, or under circumstances where your client and the Clerk’s office negotiated or contracted for “consumer-related goods or services.”” Hawthorne vs. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367, 1370-1371 (11th Cir. 1998).The United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit examined in great deal to determine whether fines are “debts” as contemplated by the FDCPA and confirmed that municipal fines are not “debts” as contemplated by the FDCPA.“Apparently the question whether fines are "debts" under the FDCPA has never arisen in a court of appeals (at least not in a precedential decision). Yet that issue has come up frequently in the district courts, which have concluded uniformly that a fine does not stem from a consensual transaction and thus is not a debt under the FDCPA. See Reid v. Am. Traffic Solutions, Inc., Nos. 10-cv-204-JPG-DGW & 10-cv-269-JPG, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134518, 2010 WL 5289108, at *4-5 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2010) (concluding that fines for traffic violations are not debts under FDCPA); Mills v. City of Springfield, Mo., No. 2:10-CV-04036-NKL, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92031, 2010 WL 3526208, at *15-16 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 3, 2010) (same); Durso v. Summer Brook Preserve Homeowners As'n, 641 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1264-65 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (concluding that fines assessed against homeowner by homeowners [**5] association did not create debts under FDCPA); Shannon v. ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc., No. 08-594(DSD/SRN), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43368, 2008 WL 2277814, at *1 (D. Minn. May 30, 2008) (holding that fines levied by county for parking violation and failure to register vehicle did not meet criteria for FDCPA debts); Williams v. Redflex Traffic Sys., Inc., No. 3:06-cv-400, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22723, 2008 WL 782540, at *5 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 20, 2008) (holding that unpaid traffic fine is not debt under FDCPA), aff'd on other grounds, 582 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2009); Yon v. Alliance One Receivables Mgmt., Inc., No. 07-61362-Civ, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89492, 2007 WL 4287628, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2007) (same); Harper v. Collection Bureau of Walla Walla, Inc., No. C06-1605-JCC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88993, 2007 WL 4287293, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 4, 2007) (same); Graham v. ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc., No. 0:06-cv-2708-JNE/JJG, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73973, 2006 WL 2911780, at *2 (D. Minn. Oct. 10, 2006) (concluding that unpaid parking tickets do not qualify as debts under FDCPA); Riebe v. Juergensmeyer & Assocs., 979 F. Supp. 1218, 1221-22 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (concluding that unpaid fine imposed for overdue library book is not debt under FDCPA). We agree with these decisions and, as did the district court, conclude that the municipal [**6] fines levied against Gulley cannot reasonably be understood as "debts" arising from consensual consumer transactions for goods and services. Accordingly, the allegations in his amended complaint state no claim under the FDCPA and were properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).” Gulley v. Markoff & Krasny, 664 F.3d 1073, 1075 (7th Cir. Ill. 2011).You next request verification the statute of limitations has not run in this case. Florida Statute 95.11(11) exempts the collection of courts costs, fees, or fines owed to the state from the statute of limitations. You next request verification the Firm is licensed to do business in Tennessee. You may find our license information via the Tennessee Secretary of State’s website, Business Information Search (https://tnbear.tn.gov/entitysearch/), using Control Number [redacted]. Lastly, we do not report traffic citations to the credit bureaus.I hope this will be sufficient to satisfy your inquiry. In the event you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. My direct dial is [redacted].Sincerely, [redacted]

We take all complaints seriously, and as the Managing Partner of the office that works on our contract with the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC), I have personally investigated the matter.  I apologize for the delay in responding; we had requested information from the OTC to address the...

complainant's allegations, and we just received the information. In reviewing the information from the complainant and the cliient, she is correct that a payment was previously made to the OTC.  Unfortunately, while we received updates from the client and a downward adjustment was made, we still showed a balance was due and we were not advised to close the file as a payment in full.  I apologize for the inconvenience caused to the complainant; she should not have had to deal with that. Moreover, I have reviewed the recording of the conversation between the complainant and Mr. [redacted] from my office.  Although he broke no laws and immediately requested backup information from the client as he said he would do, when the complainant asserted she had made payment he should have immediately stated he would check on that and politely end the call.  By staying on the call longer he created an unecessary inconvenience for the complainant, and I apologize.  We have engaged in corrective action with our employee, and I am quite confident it will not happen again.  As to the complainant's allegation that the OTC does not use outside vendors, I can only respond that said person from the OTC is terribly mistaken, we have been representing the OTC for a number of years, and I will be happy to provide her with contact information so she can verify the same.  In conclusion, I again apologize for any inconvenience caused to the complainant, we have adjusted our records to show the account is resolved, and she will receive no further contact from us on this matter.  If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.  thank you. [redacted]

Mr. [redacted], I have reviewed the City of Chicago system.  There are no documents received, nor notes indicating that you called in and provided information regarding a stolen vehicle.  The Illinois Secretary of State records reflect that you were the registered owner of a 2004...

Chevrolet which was the vehicle cited on the tickets.  You first registered the vehicle in 2/2005.  You submitted two address changes to the title information.  In 12/2007, you changed the address from a Park City, IL address to [redacted].  Then again in 9/2008 an address change to [redacted]  was made.  A salvage title was issued by the Illinois Secretary of State to [redacted] on 12/11/2008.  The tickets were issued prior to [redacted]'s ownership of the vehicle.  In fact, you had entered into a payment plan agreement on 8/6/2008 for some of the outstanding tickets.  You requested an in person hearing on two tickets; you were found liable for failure to appear.I found that you have four outstanding tickets with the City of Chicago.  Three tickets issued to Plate [redacted] and one ticket issued to Plate [redacted].  I have attached print outs from the City of Chicago system for you.You may contact me directly at [redacted], if you have any questions.  Thank you,[redacted]Director of CollectionsLinebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP

We received a copy of the Vehicle Salvage Log from the insurance company on August 11, 2016, after the filing of our initial response.  The Log states the vehicle was considered a loss on September 25, 2014, prior to the violations occurring.  We were able to clear Mr. [redacted]’s violations with the documentation provided.  Mr. [redacted] no longer has a balance in collections.

I am responding to the consumer complaint filed with
your office by [redacted].  Ms. [redacted]’s
complaint regards unpaid tolls and fees owed to our client, the E-470 Public
Highway...

Authority (E470).  Ms. [redacted]
claims that she paid the amounts owed by money order to E470 prior to referral
of the account to the firm and that she was treated poorly by the collectors she
spoke to in the firm.
On December 24, 2014, E470 mailed Mr. [redacted] a
statement for $15.70; the amount of the tolls incurred on E470.  When no response was received a second
invoice was mailed January 25, 2015 for $20.70 which included a $5.00 late
charge.  When no response was received to
that statement, a third statement was mailed on February 25, 2015; again for $20.70.  All three notices were mailed to the
registered address for the vehicle, [redacted] – the same address
Ms. [redacted] referenced as her address in the complaint.
E470’s system does show a call to their office on
January 20, 2015 during which the late fee was waived if paid. Ms. [redacted] did
not make payment on that date and the late fee was reapplied.
On February 25, 2015, E470 received payment for $15.00,
which covered a portion of the original toll amount, leaving a $5.70 balance.
As the balance remained outstanding, the account was referred to the firm for
collection.  A notice was mailed to Mr.
[redacted] on March 26, 2015 for $25.70 which included a $20.00 collection
fee. 
Our collectors were not rude to Ms. [redacted].  As Ms. [redacted]’s name is not listed on
the account in our system or E470’s system, our agents properly advised her that
we would have to have Mr. [redacted]’s authorization to discuss the account.  Apparently on April 8, 2015 Ms. [redacted] also called
E470 and cursed at their agent and refused to pay any more on the account.
If there is another payment by Ms. [redacted] besides the
$15.00 processed on February 25, 2015, we request she provide documentation of
that payment.  Otherwise, the balance of
$25.70 remains due and owing.
I hope that this response will be sufficient to satisfy
your inquiry as well as to assist the complainant in moving this matter toward
resolution.
Respectfully,
[redacted]

We stand by our previous response.  The registration information was provided by Kansas DMV at the time of the transactions.  Further, neither HCTRA nor the firm have received any documentation showing that Mr. [redacted] was not the owner at the time the tolls were incurred. While we appreciate Mr. [redacted]’s frustration with the situation, HCTRA does require valid proof of non-ownership to be able to remove the tolls from his name.

Ms. [redacted] says on the complaint that she had an active EZ Tag account in good standing at the time of the tolls and should not be responsible for the fees associated with the invoice.  Ms. [redacted] opened the EZ-Tag account with the Harris County Toll Road Authority on 4/14/2016, almost three months after the violations on the Fort Bend Grand Parkway had occurred.Fort Bend County Toll Road captured a vehicle registered to Ms. [redacted] on the FBGP a total of five times from 01/22/2016 through 01/27/2016.  The tolls were not charged to a toll tag account.  FBCTRA invoiced the tolls and mailed two notices to the registered address of the vehicle with no resolution.  The invoice states if you have any issues with your toll tag, they have to be addressed with your toll tag provider but the violations have to be addressed with FBCTRA prior to collections.  The violations were not address with FBCTRA and the account was referred to the firm on 5/16/16.  In accordance with FBCTRA policy, the balance would be due in full, thus no reimbursement will be provided to Ms. [redacted].We attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] at the number provided to discuss but received no answer.

Please see the attached file for our response.We are in receipt of your complaint filed with the Revdex.com dated February 8, 2016 regarding a notice you received from our law firm concerning payment on several outstanding citations owed to the City of Fort Worth. Please be advised this...

firm represents the City of Fort Worth in the collection of delinquent court fines and fees. We have researched the information on the defendant, [redacted] and found three outstanding citations. The oldest violation is dated September 30, 2010, for a Minor Curfew-Parent Permit in the amount of $548.60. The next two offenses occurred on July 20, 2011 and include fines and court costs for Failure to Maintain Financial Responsibility $548.60, and for an illegal turn in an intersection, with fees and court costs of $370.50.  The total amount owed to our client is $1,457.30.Skip trace efforts were made in December 2011 to contact and notify Ms. [redacted] of the outstanding amount on these citations. Continued efforts were made to locate Ms. [redacted], resulting in bad address mail returns.In January of 2016 we got the current address, which prompted our latest notice. The fine amounts and court costs remain unpaid. We have verified with the court that the case is still active. Ms. [redacted] may contact our office to discuss payment on these outstanding citations.

We initially received this account for collection on July 7, 2011.   In communications with complainant, proof of payment was requested in 2011.   Our office never received any proof of payment or other communication from Mr. or Ms. [redacted] to document payment or other resolution...

of the matter.   Following recent communications, we did receive proof of payment on May 16, 2016.   We transmitted that information to our client, and we have closed this account in our system.  We consider this matter closed.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I have had the EZ pass through the Elizabeth tolls for over two years and the inception of the toll system in the Hampton roads area. If I was billed by plate it would still show via my EZ pass. I would like to see the two times we were billed for the date in question. I do have documentation proving my vehicle in question did not travel through the toll on the date in question. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted] – [redacted] Linebarger Reference: [redacted] SP Plus Violation #: [redacted] Violation Date: 12/29/2012 Violation Type: No payment Violation Location: [redacted] Vehicle Make/Model: Hyundai/Accent LP #: [redacted] LP State: Colorado On 3/22/2016,...

we received violation number [redacted] from [redacted] for collection. We traced the provided LP# [redacted] to [redacted] of Centennial, Colorado. On 4/4/2016, we mailed our first collection notice and attempted calls to the residence on 4/20, 4/27, and 5/3/2016. On 5/9/2016, we mailed our second collection notice. On 5/17/2016, we received Revdex.com Complaint # [redacted]. This triggered a review of the evidence provided by [redacted]. As a result, we discovered that the photographic evidence showed a different license plate number than that of the text record received. We immediately stopped the collection process and we are correcting the license plate number and will contact the correct Debtor. Since [redacted] is not the owner of the vehicle with the corrected license plate, we have determined [redacted] in not the responsible party for violation [redacted].

The firm has been referred unpaid tolls for two different [redacted] vehicles. License Plate [redacted]:The [redacted] make a payment of $18.85 to Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise which was received on August 16, 2015.  The account shows as paid in full.  They also made a payment for THEA tolls...

for $25.70 which was received February 19, 2015.  That account also shows as paid in full.License Plate [redacted]:We show no payment by the [redacted] for tolls owed to THEA for the vehicle with license plate [redacted].  The unpaid tolls owed were first referred to the firm in August, 2014.  Because no payment has been received, a hold was placed on the registration in October 2015.  The current amount owed is $63.14.Once the $63.14 is paid, the hold on the vehicle registration will be released.

I am responding to the consumer complaint filed with your office by [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] complaint regards an account for unpaid tolls and fees owed to our client, the Northwest Parkway (NWP). From May 31 to June 14, 2017, NWP recorded four tolls incurred by a vehicle with...

Colorado license plate [redacted] registered to [redacted]. On July 1, 2017, NWP mailed Mr. [redacted] a statement for $17.65; the amount of the tolls incurred. On August 1, 2017, NWP mailed Mr. [redacted] a new statement for $26.80; which included two newer tolls and an additional $0.65 mail fee. A Late Bill was mailed by NWP on September 1, 2017 for $37.45; which included four $2.50 late fees and an additional $0.65 mail fee. A Past Due Notice was mailed on October 1, 2017 for $133.10; which replaced each of the four late fees with a $25.00 Past Due Fee and added an additional mail fee. The notices were mailed to the registered address of the vehicle which is the same address noted in the complaint – [redacted].  When no response was received to these notices, the account was referred to the our law firm for collection on November 1, 2017.  The firm mailed one notice on November 6, 2017 for $153.10; which included a $20.00 collection fee.  Mr. [redacted] contacted the firm on November 13, 2017 and spoke with an agent who provided details of the toll usage. Mr. [redacted] stated that he never received notices prior to the firm’s collection notice sent on November 6, 2017, and the agent provided Mr. [redacted] with the information for submitting a dispute if he disagreed with the charges.  Mr. [redacted] rejected the agent’s offer to resolve the amount owed, and asked to speak to a manager.  Mr. [redacted] confirmed his address for the manager, the same address included above, and asked for confirmation that the statements mailed by NWP were sent to the correct address. The manager explained that four notices were mailed and that Mr. [redacted] should be able to obtain the mail tracking for those notices mailed on or after July 1st by submitting a dispute, and provided the information on how to do so again.  Mr. [redacted] asked the manager to guarantee that the statements were sent to the correct address, and the manager explained that he could not guarantee the address to which NWP sent its statements, however he explained that when NWP sends our firm an account listing only one address, it is likely the same address used in their mailing process.  Then the manager explained again that the process in place in order to obtain more information about NWP’s actions in mailing the four statements, is to dispute the bill, and the information to do so.   As the call was coming to a close, Mr. [redacted] said that he would take steps to dispute the bill and “would just have his lawyers deal with it” if he had further trouble. In response to this comment, the manager asked why Mr. [redacted] hadn’t involved them in the first place, and Mr. [redacted] took offense and accused the manager of being sarcastic with him. The manager said that was not his intent, yet in the remaining 10 seconds of the call, the combative tone escalated, and the manager ended the call with Mr. [redacted] as he spoke over him, saying he needed to end the call, and to have a nice day.  We make every effort to provide assistance to callers that become combative with our staff in a professional manner and a neutral tone.  In reviewing the recorded call, we acknowledge that the manager participated in the escalation of the conversation by Mr. [redacted].  We have discussed this call with the manager for training purposes. Upon receipt of this complaint, we reviewed this account with NWP. NWP was able to confirm via mail tracking that the four notices were properly mailed to Mr. [redacted] at the registered address from the time of the toll. As of the date of this letter neither the firm nor NWP have received payment on this account and the amount of $153.10 remains due and owing.