Downtown Automotive

It appears that Mr. [redacted] has experienced frustration with medical billing in the past.  Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) understands that and does sympathize with Mr. [redacted] in that regard.  PFC did forward Mr. [redacted]’s concerns to [redacted].  However, [redacted] is unable to discuss any prior billing issues or services provided to Mr. [redacted] with PFC due to privacy laws.  [redacted] did state that the amount placed with PFC, as shown on the previously provided itemized statement, was billed correctly and is owing.  PFC is unable to act as an intermediary between Mr. [redacted] and [redacted] regarding other accounts and other billing disputes, as it is limited to the minimum information necessary to collect the sole account placed with PFC by law.  PFC has marked the account as disputed and is happy to work with Mr. [redacted] to resolve his dispute regarding this particular account.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Ms. [redacted] complaint.   Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) has received an account for collection from Ms. [redacted] on behalf of [redacted] on 5/29/2014 for a debt incurred on 1/24/2014.  PFC’s records reflect that...

initial notice of the debt was mailed to Ms. [redacted] on 5/30/2014, as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).  On 6/5/2014, PFC was able to speak with Ms. [redacted] regarding the account.  During this communication, Ms. [redacted] stated that she would contact [redacted] and disconnected the call.  On 6/19/2014, [redacted] informed PFC that they had received a partial direct payment of the account and PFC accurately reduced the balance owed.  PFC attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] regarding the remaining balance owed as reported by [redacted] and was finally able to speak with Ms. [redacted] on 8/14/2014.  During this communication, Ms. [redacted] stated that she had already paid the remaining balance to [redacted].  PFC contacted [redacted] and was informed on 8/14/2014 that the account was paid in full.   As a result, PFC agreed to delete the account from Ms. [redacted] credit, as it had been paid directly to [redacted].  On 8/14/2014, PFC submitted a deletion request for Ms. [redacted] account to all three credit bureaus.  PFC mailed Ms. [redacted] a letter confirming that it had agreed to delete credit reporting of the account on 8/29/2014.   PFC did not hear from Ms. [redacted] until 5/20/2015, when Ms. [redacted] called and explained that the account was still reflecting on her credit report.  PFC confirmed that its records reflected account deletion had been submitted to the credit reporting agencies and explained this to Ms. [redacted].  Out of caution, PFC submitted a manual deletion of the account to the credit bureaus a second time on 5/21/2015.  PFC was able to confirm that the account was deleted from the credit report as of 6/1/2015.  Although PFC had previously submitted the deletion request, it is possible that one or more of the credit reporting agencies did not reflect PFC’s deletion request.  Tradeline reporting reviews have been attached to this response, evidencing that the account is not being reported by PFC.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
I appreciate the prompt attention to this matter and accept this response conditioned on PFC removing the negative trade line from all three credit reporting agencies, I understand that can take some time please just ensure it is done within the next reporting cycle.
Regards,
[redacted]

Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) appreciates the continued opportunity to resolve Ms. [redacted]’s complaint and understands her frustration in the collection process.  PFC is required to conduct collections pursuant to Federal and State law.  The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires that a collection agency send an initial notice of the debt and not take any action that overshadows the consumer’s 30-day window to dispute the debt.  PFC waits at least 60 days from the date the initial notice is sent prior to credit reporting any account.  However, according to Federal case law, a collection agency may begin credit reporting an account without any notice to the consumer.  PFC believes all consumers should be provided an opportunity to pay the debt prior to it impacting their credit, and thus, its standards surpass those required by law.  Additionally, the law limits the number and manner of contacts that a collection agency may initiate to a consumer.  These rules and regulations make it difficult to balance PFC’s duty to its creditor clients while ensuring that consumers are not harassed by a barrage of communications.  PFC also has a very consumer friendly policy towards deleting a collection account for credit reporting after a consumer has paid the account, as PFC understands the importance of a consumer’s credit report.  PFC received no response to its initial notice, then began credit reporting the account and attempting to reach Ms. [redacted].  PFC still received no response from Ms. [redacted] for 6 months.  However, upon payment, PFC deleted credit reporting of the account for the benefit of Ms. [redacted].  PFC believes Ms. [redacted]’s account was handled ethically, professionally, and by the letter of the law, while still preserving [redacted] Imaging’s right to withheld funds.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Ms. [redacted] complaint.  Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) did receive a letter of dispute by fax from Ms. [redacted] on 3/13/2015.  Upon receipt of that correspondence, PFC requested an itemized statement of the debt from [redacted]....

 In the meantime, PFC mailed Ms. [redacted] a letter on 3/16/2015 confirming receipt of her dispute and stating that an itemized statement would be following under a separate mailing.  On 3/30/2015, PFC received mail return on the letter mailed to Ms. [redacted] (attached).  PFC then received the itemized statement from [redacted] on 4/10/2015, but was unable to send this to Ms. [redacted] as the address in PFC’s records had mail return.  PFC has enclosed the itemized statement from [redacted] in response to this complaint and is happy to further address any concerns of Ms. [redacted].

Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) appreciates the opportunity to respond to Ms. [redacted]’s complaint.  First, PFC apologizes that Ms. [redacted] had to wait for an available representative to take her call upon answering the phone.  This was not PFC’s intention.  PFC also...

understands Ms. [redacted]’s frustration regarding PFC’s need to verify her personal information.  While it may seem odd, the basis for questions to verify identity is to protect a consumer’s personal and private information.  By law, PFC is required to only disclose the reason for calling after verifying it has reached the correct person.  PFC attempts to make this as easy as possible by providing certain portions of information, such as citing a street name and request that the consumer complete the house number and city of their address or previous addresses.  This is done to show that PFC has already obtained certain information and is simply trying to verify that it is correct.  Again, PFC understands this is frustrating, as it is frustrating for PFC as well, but these steps are required to ensure private information is only discussed with the correct party.  If Ms. [redacted] is willing to call PFC and provide information on a possible previous address on [redacted]., PFC would be happy to disclose the purpose of its call.  We look forward to assisting Ms. [redacted] in resolving this matter.