Diversified Adjustment Service

The complainant’s delinquent account in the amount of $was placed with our office for collection on July 26, On November 08, the complainant verbally disputed the account alleging that it had been paidWe did not then, and to date have not, received a proof of payment from the complainantOn November 15, we received a dispute letter from the complainant which simply stated that the account was disputed and validation requestedWe marked the account as disputed and although the statutorily mandated requirement period for providing verification of the debt had passed over ½ months prior to our receipt of the complainant’s written dispute we nonetheless sent verification of the debt to the complainant on November 16, On November 25, we received a second dispute letter from the complainantThis letter contained inaccurate verbiage regarding credit reporting responsibilities and requirementsNeither of these letters contained a proof of payment for the account.This complainant is simply incorrect as to the legal requirements contained in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Consumer Credit Protection ActWe see no reasonable basis for withdrawing any credit reporting on the complainant’s account

As the complainant is apparently threatening suit and requesting damages we will not fully respond in this forumWe will state that there have been no violations of statute, regulation, or standard in our collection activity on the complainant’s accountIf the complainant files suit based on the allegations in this complaint we would expect to recover our attorney fees and costs as sanctions for the filing of a frivolous and meritless lawsuit

It is impossible for the complainant to have proof that we are calling her because we are not calling herWhile we do understand the complainant’s frustration our original response is accurate in all respectsWe are not calling the complainant’s telephone number and we are not able to determine from where the forwarding of the calls is originatingAs a practical matter it would make no sense for us to call the complainant’s telephone numberThe complainant’s name is not in our databaseThe complainant’s telephone number is not in our calling database It would accomplish no valid purpose for us to call the complainant’s telephone numberThe actual culprit here is whoever it is who is forwarding our calls to the complainant’s telephone numberWe cannot be responsible for the negative actions of an unknown third party Additionally, I will simply note that we are in favor of requiring that when a call is forwarded that the forwarder’s phone also be notedThe technology would be simple but the regulatory powers did not choose to require thisHad this been implemented we would have no trouble identifying the forwarder of the calls and the complainant would no longer be receiving calls not meant for her

I am rejecting this response because: the information provided by the company regarding this complaint is and very untrueReceived a call on May 2, and returned the call to be told that the account was no longer in their officeHave disputed with all three credit bureaus and called regarding account several time during the last several months but have been hung up on or transferred to vm or the credit bureaus hotlineAnd still to the day has hire a credit company to send letters on my behalf regarding this accountAccount is still marked as a collection on experian credit reportNeed them to send an update to that credit bureaus to update status or remove from report

The complainant alleges in this complaint, and in an identical complaint he has filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that this office committed a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, specifically of USC 1692c(c)The complainant is wrongThe substance of the complainant’s allegation is that a cease letter he sent to this office in is effective as to a completely different account referred to this office in The law on this subject has been well settled for many, many yearsThe applicable section of the FDCPA reads: USC 1692c Communication in connection with debt collection (c) Ceasing communication If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, There is a significant body of law on this section of the statute and the holdings are all consistentThe Courts have consistently held that each referred debt is a separate matter under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and that any request from a consumer to cease communication is effective only as to debts that have been referred to the third party collector as of the time of receipt of the consumer’s request for a cessation of communicationThere is no right to a continuing eternal never-ending demand for a cessation of debt collection communicationThis is well settled lawA cease and desist notice from the complainant in on a completely separate account is not effective as to a different account placed in his name in August There is no violation of law hereEven if we take everything related in this complaint to be 100% true and accurate there is no violation of lawAccordingly, we do respectfully decline the complainant’s Desired Settlement as there is no basis for a claim that any law has been violated

Again, the complainant is simply wrong in her opinion as to the applicable laws and regulationsI suggest that rather than simply stating an unsupported opinion that the complainant cite to the statutory or regulatory authority supporting her position

I am rejecting this response because: fraud on my credit

Sometimes things would be easier if people read the contacts they signThe $is a charge added to the delinquent bill by [redacted] The specific applicable contract clause reads:If you fail to pay on time and we refer your account(s) to a third party for collection, a collection fee will be assessed and will be due at the time of the referral to the third partyThe fee will be calculated at the maximum percentage permitted by applicable law, not to exceed percentThe complainant did pay the amount that originally went delinquentThe contractual collection fee is assessed by [redacted] and not added by this companyThe $is due and owing from the complainant.I have listened to the call the complainant references and our employee was not rude to the complainantWe have verification protocols to prevent information from being given to a wrong party and legally required disclosures that we must giveThe complainant was rude and continually interrupted our employee during this required process

I am rejecting this response because: I am rejecting this response because:Shady business practicesI asked when will it be off? And she gave me a time frameShe didn't tell me it wasn't coming offWhy would anyone call to pay something off that would absolutely no affect? They know this so creative wording was used to give me an answer with out answeringIt's a violation to pay for delete? It wasn't a violation when I called back and was told it wasn't fully deleted because I didn't pay moreIt wasn't a violation when I was contacted to accept an offer either

I am rejecting this response because:Please call again as I would like to resolveDon't believe I am the correct person you are looking for

The complainant has collection accounts listed in our office either currently or in the recent past for different creditorsThis complainant is simply not being truthful in this complaintFor the account that the complainant did pay the account was reported as paid and the delete order was submittedWe have no control over how quickly the credit bureaus process updates but the process is certainly not immediateAs to the complainant’s invective language and threats of legal action we see no need for responseIn the event the complainant wishes to bring a baseless lawsuit we will respond appropriately

I have listened to the call recordings of our interactions with the complainant and the reality is far different from the accusationsThe complainant never mentioned a loan, a loan officer, or any parameter regarding any kind of a loan when she arranged payment of a reduced sum settlement of her delinquent account, a reduced sum that saved the complainant $The complainant was informed that paying the debt by check rather than credit or debit card would significantly delay issuance of a settlement payment confirmationThe complainant made a specific decision to pay by check rather than by credit or debit cardThe complainant did agree to resolve the reduced sum settlement in two paymentsFinal resolution was delayed when the complainant changed the date of the second payment to two weeks later than agreed.While we are sorry that the complainant is unhappy we have done our best to work with her within the parameters we haveWe were able to save the complainant 40% off of her debt and, although it was explained to the complainant at the time the payments were set up that there would be a significant delay in issuing a payment confirmation where payment is made by personal check the complainant made the decision to pay in that fashion.If the complainant had informed us that there was a home loan involved in her decision to pay her debt we would have strongly urged her to make the payment on the debt by credit or debit cardAdditionally, if the complainant had informed us of her home loan situation and still insisted on making payment by personal check we would have informed her that if she provided confirmation that the check payment had cleared her bank we would be able to issue the settlement payment confirmationUnfortunately this was information we did not have as the complainant did not disclose that information.The requested settlement payment confirmation has been issued and the complainant should have it by now

We stand with our original responseTo directly address the complainant’s allegations here:1) We do not do any credit reporting activity on behalf of [redacted] .2) The State of California does not require a collection agency to be specifically licensed in that StateWe are, however, licensed in the States, Territories, and municipalities that do require collection agency licensing.3) The original creditor is who actually sends the debts to us for collectionWe do not purchase debts.There is nothing of substance hereIf the complainant alleges possible fraud and yet makes no effort to address the issue, there is nothing that we can doIt is a choice the complainant is freely able to make

The account at issue here was an unpaid telecommunications account for the complainant’s business. The account would not be locatable under the complainant’s name. The account was not paid and was closed back to the creditor in April of 2015. Our credit reporting to Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion... was withdrawn when the account was closed back to the creditor. If Experian continues to show the account then the complainant must dispute that entry directly with the credit bureau. Each of the major credit bureaus has a simple process for disputing an allegedly incorrect entry. Here is the link for Experian: www.experian.com/disputes/main.html. The credit bureau will initiate an investigation and if an entry is found to be incorrect it will be removed.

We are puzzled by the filing of this complaintThe complainant paid the debt in full within six weeks of receiving a letter from our office notifying her that her outstanding account was delinquentWe issued a receipt letter to the complainant showing a zero balance for the accountWe do not credit report for this clientWe do believe that we have done everything necessary regarding this complainant’s delinquent accountWe are of the firm belief that this complaint is completely unwarrantedSincerely, Peter M***General Counsel

The complainant’s account was referred to this office for collection on November 23, The debt is for $1,for two leased smart phone for which the complainant violated the lease agreement and did not complete payment nor return the smart phonesA placement letter was issued on November 29, and sent to the same address listed on this complaintWe have not received any returned mailThe telephone number we have been calling in an attempt to resolve the complainant’s outstanding debt is the same telephone number the complainant has listed in this complaint and is also the same telephone number provided by our client when they placed the account with our office for collection.This complainant’s allegations appear to be inconsistent with the manner in which our operations are conductedAccounts may be accessed by name, telephone number, address, or the account number from the placement letter the complainant receivedWe have the correct name, telephone number and address here so I find it difficult to comprehend that the account was not accessible to any of our agents.Additionally, the complainant would not have been asked for his full social security numberThe full social security number is not visible to our agents, they are only able to view the last four numbers of the social security number and this, along with mailing address, are options given for secondary verification to ensure that we have the correct person prior to discussing personal financial informationThis would only occur if an agent had accessed the account which the complainant alleged never happenedThe complainant’s lack of cooperation may well have caused an agent to doubt that they had the correct person and choose to not discuss personal private information.There are simply too may anomalies here to give credence to the complainant’s allegationsWe will note the complainant’s desire to receive no further calls regarding his unpaid debt but I will also note that there has been no harassment here and no inappropriate activity on the part of our companyA simple resolution here would be for the complainant to remit the balance due on his delinquent debt

I see no value in a mutual exchange of vitriolWe stand with our original response