Payliance

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced consumer complaintPer the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), a debt collector is required to send notice of a debt in collections within days of initial communication with the consumerThe debt collector is not required under the FDCPA to establish actual receipt by the consumerAs demonstrated by the previously submitted June 1, dunning notice, Payliance mailed to Ms*** the required notice of her outstanding collections accountPayliance mailed the notice via United States Postal Service First-Class mail to the ** *** *** *** *** ** *** address printed on the consumer’s bounced checkBecause Payliance’s contact information for the consumer is limited to the information provided on the returned check, the ** *** *** address was the only address Payliance had obtained for Ms***Per Ms***’s April 19, Revdex.com complaint #*** this address currently remains a valid address for the consumerAttached with this complaint is a copy of a validation letter mailed today to the consumer via the United States Postal Service to the ** *** *** *** *** ** *** provided by the consumer in this complaintThis validation letter explains the outstanding balance as well as provides a copy of the returned check in disputePayliance has marked Ms***’s account as “disputed” in response to this complaint and have sent notices to Equifax, Experian, and Transunion to have the account’s status updated to reflect the disputed status on Ms***’s credit reportPayliance denies Ms***’s request to delete the account from her credit history as Payliance has remained in compliance with the established rules and regulations for collection practicesUpon receipt of the validation letter, Ms*** may contact the Payliance Disputes Department at ###-###-#### should she wish to dispute this matter further

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Regards,
*** ***

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced consumer complaintThis complaint is in regards to four returned checks placed in collections with Payliance under the consumer’s name made payable to *** *** PizzaCheck #*** was sent to Payliance for collections on December
20, and a dunning notice for the outstanding balance was mailed to the consumer’s attention on the same dayCheck #*** was sent to Payliance for collections on January 14, and a dunning notice for the outstanding balance was mailed to the consumer’s attention the same day as wellBoth dunning notices for checks #*** and #*** were mailed to the *** *** St, La Place, LA address associated with the checksCheck #*** was received by Payliance for collections on February 10, and a dunning notice for this check was mailed the same day to the consumerCheck #*** was received by Payliance for collections on February 11, and a dunning notice was mailed the same dayBoth dunning notices for checks #*** and #*** were mailed to the *** *** Dr, La Place, LA address associated with the returned checksIn her complaint, the consumer alleges Payliance has ignored direct requests for validation of her four accountsPayliance has no record of any communication directly with the consumer concerning the four collection accounts (other than the initial dunning notices mailed for each account)Payliance does have record of receiving inquiries for each account from the credit bureaus concerning disputes the consumer had filed directly with themIn response to each inquiry, Payliance verified the information reported and marked the consumer’s accounts as “disputed”In response to this complaint, validation letters and copies of the returned checks in dispute were mailed to the consumer at the address listed in her complaint on July 17, Attached with this response are copies of these July 17, validation lettersShould the consumer determine the checks do not belong to her and were reported to her credit in error, are the result of fraud/forgery, or have been previously resolved with *** *** Pizza, the validation letters contain instructions for what is required for proof of such determinationAs stated above, each of the four collections accounts are currently in a disputed status and the disputed statuses have previously been updated to the credit bureaus

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced consumer complaintUpon receipt of the consumer’s initial complaint, Payliance contacted *** *** Family Practice (a subsidiary of Lexington Medical referenced by the consumer) to confirm the presence of the return check policy notice posting at the point-of-salePayliance was originally informed by *** *** Family Practice that there was the proper notification on display at the businessIn response to the consumer’s rejection, Payliance has contacted the individual named LeeAnn referenced by the consumerPayliance was informed that *** *** Family Practice does not have the returned check notice displayed within the businessThis directly contradicts what Payliance was informed during our initial research into this matter in regards to the consumer’s original complaintDue to the contradicting information Payliance has received regarding the presence of the return check policy notice, we have canceled the consumer’s collections account and have forwarded the outstanding balance back to *** *** Family PracticeAlthough Ms***’s balance was paid-in-full at the time of our initial response and her check payment was mailed back to her, Ms***’s bank has since reversed the funds Payliance had collected via electronic presentmentTherefore, if Ms*** wishes to resolve the outstanding balance, she will have to contact *** *** Family Practice as Payliance is no longer handling this matterPayliance has also processed a credit in the amount of $to reimburse Ms*** for the overdraft fee she incurred as a result of Payliance’s failed re-presentment attempt for the $face amount of her returned check on August 26, as referenced on her bank statementWe ask that Ms*** allow up to business days for these funds to appear in her accountIn response to the consumer’s original complaint submission, Payliance contacted *** *** Family Practice and was informed that the returned check policy notice was in placeThis notice was purportedly posted at the point-of-sale and authorizes Payliance to electronically re-submit the balance of a returned check to the check writer’s bank accountUpon receipt of the consumer’s rejection, Payliance’s re-investigation into the presence of the return check policy proved inconclusiveIn response, we have mailed *** *** Family Practice the appropriate return check notices so they may be properly displayed going forward

I set up payments before they put those accounts on my credit fileThey knew I made payments arrangements next day the put those accounts on credit fileI still want them deleted
Regards, *** ***

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the
above-referenced consumer complaint
This complaint is in regards to three accounts
[redacted]
Corporation forwarded to Payliance for collections on January 15, All
three accounts are in regards to failed debits [redacted] attempted to withdraw
from the consumer's bank account on January 9, and January 10, These
debit attempts were in regards to balances owed to [redacted] which the
consumer authorized [redacted] to debit via an agreement all new Tupperware
agents sign with [redacted] upon creation of their [redacted] accountsThis
authorization states that [redacted] will debit the consumer's account for the
goods/services purchased with the consumer's ECheck [redacted] cardThe
agreement further states that if a debit returns unpaid, the consumer
authorizes attempts to re-present the original debit amount as well as a
state-allowable return feePayliance is under contract with [redacted] to
process these re-presentments on their behalf
On January 19, 2016, Payliance re-presented the original
returned debit amounts of the three accounts as well as the returned fees to
the consumer's bank account for a total amount of $1,This transaction
cleared the consumer's bank account and was posted to the three outstanding
accounts on January 22, Currently, all three accounts are paid-in-fullPayliance
has confirmed with both [redacted] and [redacted] that the balances for these
three accounts were outstanding when forwarded to Payliance
In the complaint, Mrs[redacted] states Payliance had
withdrawn a total amount of $1,As stated above, $1,was the total
amount Payliance had withdrawn from the consumer's bank accountIf the
consumer believes that Payliance did draft the $1,794.46, we ask that she
provide Payliance with a copy of her bank statement demonstrating such
We would also like to advise Mrs[redacted] that there is an
additional, fourth account for an [redacted] debit in the amount of $($
+ $return fee) that was forwarded to Payliance on February 4, This
debit was dated January 28, and was returned to [redacted] for insufficient
fundsThis account has not yet been re-presented to the consumer's bank account;
however, Mrs[redacted] should expect a debit attempt for the $balance within
the next two weeksIf Ms[redacted] believes she does not owe the balance for
this additional account, she may contact the Payliance Disputes Department at ###-###-####
to dispute the item
Please feel free to contact us if we can be of further
assistance

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced consumer complaint. This complaint is in regards to collections accounts for 3 returned checks (#########) that were made payable to [redacted] on June 7, 2016, June 8, 2016, and June 9, 2016. Payliance is under contract with [redacted]...

[redacted] to collect on returned checks and payments made payable to [redacted] locations. Each [redacted] location has, at the point of sale, a returned check policy notice that states any returned checks will incur a $40.00 returned-check fee and are subject to electronic re-presentments of both the face amount of the returned check and the return fee. All three of the consumer’s checks were sent to Payliance for collections on June 23, 2016 and collections notices for each account were mailed to the consumer’s attention on June 23, 2016 to [redacted] Payliance re-presented the original face amounts of each check on June 23, 2016 and all three re-presentments successfully paid. Payliance then attempted to re-present the $40.00 return check fees for each account on June 28, 2016. These re-presentment attempts failed and were returned unpaid by the consumer’s bank due to insufficient funds. Currently, the $40.00 fees remain outstanding for all three accounts. Per the returned check policy notice positing at [redacted], in return for accepting a consumer’s check, the consumer acknowledges and authorizes both the face amount of the check and the return check fee to be electronically re-deposited to their account should the check return unpaid after the initial presentment. While Payliance did mail Ms. [redacted] collection notices for each of her accounts, the return check notice clearly states what will happen in the event of a returned check. These return check notices are within compliance of rules and regulations for re-presentment authorization requirements on returned checks. It is Payliance policy to send collection notices as soon as an account is received for collections, as well as re-present the outstanding balances to the consumer’s bank account. On July 6, 2016, Ms. [redacted] called the Payliance Collections Dept. and arranged a post-dated payment to occur on July 15, 2016 in the amount of $120.00 to cover the remaining balances. Due to this post-dated arrangement, Payliance will not attempt to re-present the fees for these accounts until July 15, 2016.  Please feel free to contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Dear [redacted]
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the
above-referenced consumer complaint
In this complaint, the
consumer states that Payliance has
debited his account without his prior authorization and he has no idea what the
debits are in regards to
One of the services Payliance provides to our clientele is electronic
debiting for businesses and entities that do not possess the ability to process
electronic payments/debits from their customersWhen these debits are administered,
a check image is generated and the transaction is then processed as if it were
a physical checkPayliance is authorized to conduct these transactions through
our agreements with our business clients and their subsequent arrangements with
their own customers
This particular transaction was done on behalf of [redacted] and is not related to credit card accounts [redacted] may have with a [redacted]Instead, [redacted] is the banking institution that the
electronic checks are processed through and returned to if they are returned
unpaid for any reason (as stated on the back of the generated check image)If
[redacted] would like to dispute these charges or his arrangement with [redacted], he will need to resolve the issue directly with them as Payliance is only
the processor of transactions on [redacted]'s behalf
Please feel free to contact us if we can be of further
assistance

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced consumer complaint. Per the consumer’s request, Payliance’s surety bond for the state of Maryland is #[redacted] and the business license number is #[redacted]. The state of Maryland does not require collection agencies to acquire collection licenses at this time. Attached with this response are pictures of returned check notices on display at the US Post Office check #[redacted] was accepted at. These notices state that returned checks made payable to the [redacted] will incur a return check fee and are subject to submission to a collection agency for recovery of the outstanding balance. When Payliance received check #[redacted] for collections, a collections notice was mailed to the consumer’s address on the check on February 8, 2016. After the collections account remained outstanding and undisputed for an excess of 45 days, the account was eventually reported to the credit bureaus on April 8, 2016. On October 5, 2016, Payliance received from the consumer a request to validate this collections account. A letter of validation was mailed the same day to the consumer’s attention at [redacted], North East, MD 21901. Payliance also has several records of inquiries/disputes the consumer had filed directly with the credit bureaus. In response to each inquiry, Payliance verified that the reported information was accurate and reported the account as disputed to the credit bureaus. The consumer’s account has been marked and reported as disputed since September 23, 2016. In his initial complaint, Mr. [redacted] did not request the information he is currently alleging Payliance has failed to provide in the initial answer. In response to each credit bureau inquiry, the October 5, 2016 validation request, and the initial complaint #[redacted], Payliance verified that the information was accurately reporting and complied with the duties outlined under FCRA Section 623. The [redacted] has stated the consumer’s balance remains past due and confirmed they have no record of the consumer’s previous allegation the debt had been repaid and settled. Payliance respectfully denies the consumer’s request to delete the outstanding balance from his credit history.

Year 2014 Paid, 2015 Paid, 2016, Paid.   Transaction number is: [redacted]:   Thank you.
I am rejecting this response because:  Year 2014-2015, paid in full until December 31, 2015 for year 2016, Year 2016 paid with confirmation [redacted]2. Payalliance is requested to please delete all complaints to: Equifax, Experian, and Transunion. Thank you.
Regards, [redacted]

I do not owe this debt and therefore refuse to pay a debt I do not owe.  The debt is not able to...

be collected because the limitations are up and I will continue to fight to have it removed from my credit although there is only 1 year left for you to legally report this debt.
Regards, [redacted]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced consumer complaint. This complaint is in regards to 9 outstanding collections accounts for [redacted] and [redacted]. Each account concerns a returned check made payable to [redacted] that was forwarded to...

Payliance for collections. In the complaint, Mr. [redacted] alleges that Payliance reported the outstanding accounts to the credit bureaus after payment arrangements were made for the outstanding balances. Payliance records for each account are as follows. Account #[redacted] was received by Payliance for collections on August 12, 2011 and was initially reported as outstanding to the credit bureaus on October 24, 2011. Account #[redacted] was received by Payliance on July 31, 2012 and was initially reported on October 8, 2012. Account #[redacted] was received by Payliance of August 13, 2012 and was initially reported on October 24, 2012. Account #[redacted] was received by Payliance on September 12, 2012 and was initially reported on November 26, 2012. Account #[redacted] was received by Payliance on September 18, 2012 and was reported on November 26, 2012. Account #[redacted] was received by Payliance on March 25, 2013 and was reported on May 28, 2013. Account #[redacted] was received by Payliance on September 3, 2013 and was reported on November 8, 2013. Account #[redacted] was received by Payliance on June 2, 2015 and was reported on August 7, 2015. Account #[redacted] was received by Payliance on June 8, 2015 and was reported on August 7, 2015. Collection notices were mailed upon Payliance’s receipt of each account to the consumers at the address associated with each returned check. On September 16, 2016, [redacted] called the Payliance Collections Department and arranged one $50.00 post-dated partial payment to occur on October 4, 2016 and a second $50.00 post-dated partial payment to occur on November 4, 2016. On September 20, 2016, [redacted] called Payliance asking why Payliance had reported the accounts to her credit history after she had made the September 16, 2016 payment arrangements. The Payliance representative informed [redacted] that arranging a post-dated partial payment would not remove an outstanding account that had been previously reported. On September 30, 2016 [redacted] called and canceled the October 4, 2016 post-dated payment. On October 11, 2016, [redacted] again called in to complain that Payliance had reported the outstanding accounts after she had arranged the September 20, 2016 post-dates. The collection supervisor attempted to explain to [redacted] that Payliance initially reported the accounts to the bureaus well before the arrangements were made but [redacted] terminated the call before the supervisor could finish. On October 26, 2016 [redacted] called Payliance and moved her November 4, 2016 post-dated payment to December 2, 2016. As stated above, Payliance initially reported the consumers’ outstanding accounts to the credit bureaus before the consumers contacted Payliance to arrange payments. To date, Payliance has yet to receive any payments concerning this matter. Should the consumers’ December 2, 2016 post-date payment clear their account, Payliance will ensure the adjusted balance is reported to the credit bureaus.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: 11799250
To: Kathleen McLaughlinIn reference to Complaint#11799250We have paid Check #229 and Check#588My son Will C Washington IV wrote these checks he is bipolar and mentally ill. We do not want topress charges. A year ago my son tried to kill his self due to his condition we are paying the checks off.I had requested for Payliance to delete these checks from the credit file after they have been paid.But so far they only update the 2 accounts with 0 balance. My husband did not write these checks wewant the pald accounts be deleted as we pay them from the credit file asap.Will and Mary Washington

As stated in Payliance’s initial response, Payliance mailed the consumer a collection notice on December 14, 2016 and no payment was received for the matter until March 10, 2017. Because the account had remained outstanding and undisputed in collections for an excess of 45 days, the balance was eventually reported to the consumer’s credit history on February 24, 2017. It is Payliance policy to report outstanding collections accounts to the credit bureaus once they remain undisputed and unpaid in collections for a period of at least 45 days. The [redacted] notified the consumer of the returned check and outstanding balance in their November 2, 2016 letter which also stated if payment was not received within 3 weeks, the matter would be turned over to a collection agency. When the balance was placed in collections with Payliance, a collections notice was mailed to the consumer on December 14, 2016. The consumer was therefore notified on two separate occasions of the outstanding balance due and a total of 72 days occurred between Payliance’s December 14, 2016 notice and the reporting of the account to the credit bureaus on February 24, 2017. Further, a total of 87 days occurred between the December 14, 2016 Payliance collections notice and the receipt of the consumer’s payment on March 10, 2017. Payliance respectfully denies the consumer’s request to delete the account from his credit history. It is not Payliance policy to delete previously-reported collections accounts once they are paid-in-full; instead accounts are updated to accurately reflect the paid status.

I reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find the resolution is satisfactory to me.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced consumer complaint. This complaint concerns a debt placed in collections under the name [redacted] by [redacted] in the amount of $69.00. The debt was placed in collections on July 21, 2015 and a dunning notice was mailed to the...

consumer’s attention on July 27, 2015 to [redacted] Rd, Cincinnati, OH 45247. Eventually, the account was credit reported on September 25, 2015. In response to the consumer’s complaint, Payliance has reached out to [redacted] to obtain a copy of the contract the consumer would have signed with [redacted] authorizing the transaction which created the outstanding balance in collections. [redacted], however, has been unable to provide a copy of the consumer’s contract with them. Therefore, Payliance has canceled the consumer’s account from collections all collection activity concerning this matter has been ceased. Notices have been sent to Equifax, Experian, and Transunion to have the account deleted from the consumer’s credit history—we ask that the consumer please allow up to 15 days for this action to be reflected upon her credit report.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced consumer complaint. To clarify our previous response, Payliance did not have any contact information for the consumer when the outstanding balances for her returned checks were forwarded to Payliance for collections. [redacted]’s stores utilize check scanners at the point-of-sale which read the routing and account numbers at the bottom of the check as well as the face value the check is written for. These scanners then electronically present the scanned information to a consumer’s bank for payment. Therefore, when [redacted]’s #[redacted] forwarded the consumer’s outstanding accounts to Payliance, Payliance only received the consumer’s bank account and routing numbers for each returned check as well as the outstanding balance. Because Payliance did not have contact information for the consumer, no direct attempt to notify her of her outstanding balances could be made. When the consumer called Payliance and arranged payment on July 8, 2016, she provided Payliance with her address and telephone number. The consumer’s accounts were then updated with the provided information and the accounts were successfully reported as paid-in-full items utilizing the consumer’s newly acquired contact information. As stated in our initial response, as of June 1, 2016, [redacted]’s is sending their new returned checks to a different collection agency. However, the consumer’s checks were sent to Payliance for collections in April and May of 2016. Any accounts Payliance received from [redacted]’s before June 2016 remain legitimate collections accounts at Payliance unless recalled by [redacted]’s. Currently, all five of the consumer’s accounts have been paid-in-full per her arrangements she set up with the Payliance Collections Department on July 8, 2016 and August 5, 2016. Notices were previously sent to Equifax, Experian, and Transunion to have these five accounts deleted from the consumer’s credit report. If not already removed, these accounts should be deleted from her credit history within the next 25 days.

Payliance has placed 9 return checks on my credit file my name is [redacted] my son name is [redacted] my son is mentally ill he wrote some checks to Payliance on the 3 credit file Payliance placed the checks on my credit file and my son credit file.I want these checks deleted from my credit files.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced consumer complaint. This complaint concerns a returned check placed into collections at Payliance by the US Postal Service (USPS). When the consumer’s check returned, the USPS charged a $30.00 returned check fee in addition to the...

original amount the check was written for. At each USPS location, there is a returned check notice posted at the point-of-sale stating any returned checks will incur the $30.00 fee. The notice further states that returned checks may be re-submitted to the consumer’s bank account via an electronic debit attempt. When the USPS placed the check in collections with Payliance on January 10, 2018, Payliance attempted to re-present the $7.84 face amount of the check as well as the $30.00 returned check fee to the bank account associated with the returned check. The January 10, 2018 presentment attempts failed to clear the consumers account and an additional attempt to present the $30.00 fee to the customer’s account was initiated on January 16, 2018. The January 16, 2018 presentment attempt did not successfully clear the consumer’s account and the total $37.48 balance remains outstanding for this matter. Per the posted returned check notice, the consumer was informed what would happen in the event her check payment returned. Payliance has only attempted to present the $7.84 face-amount of the returned check and the $30.00 returned check fee for this matter—in her complaint the consumer states the $120.00 in fees were bank fees charged and refunded by her bank. In response to this complaint, all future attempts to present the outstanding balance to the consumer’s account have been halted. For questions or payment options, the consumer may contact the Payliance Collections Department at ###-###-####. If the consumer would like to discuss this matter directly with the USPS, they may be reached at ###-###-####.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced consumer complaint. This complaint is in regard to a collections account forwarded to [redacted] by a company called [redacted] for an outstanding balanced owed on a Credit Plus debit card. This matter was forwarded to [redacted] for...

collections on April 18, 2011 and a dunning notice was mailed to the consumer’s attention on April 20, 2011 to [redacted]. Eventually, the outstanding balance was reported to the consumer’s credit history on June 24, 2011. In response to this complaint, we have reached out to [redacted] requesting validating proof of the outstanding balance in the consumer’s name. However, [redacted] has been unable to provide the requested proof. In light of this, [redacted] has agreed to comply with the consumer’s request and the collections account has been canceled. Notices have been sent to [redacted] to have the account deleted from the consumer’s credit history. We ask that the consumer please allow up to 30 days for this action to be reflected upon their credit report.