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.
Thank you for the opportunity to address Mr. [redacted] complaint. Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) strictly adheres to the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). In 15 USC § 1692g(a)(4), the FDCPA states that “if the consumer notifies the debt...
collector IN WRITING that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the collector will obtain verification of the debt…” (emphasis added). During a telephone communication with Mr. [redacted] on 8/25/2015, PFC’s representative appropriately relayed that it is PFC policy to require a consumer to provide a written request to receive verification of the debt. PFC also appropriately marked Mr. [redacted] account as “disputed” immediately following this telephone call. PFC will treat Mr. [redacted] Revdex.com complaint as a written request for verification of the debt and has attached such verification to this response. PFC notes that according to the FDCPA and various courts’ interpretations of verification, "[v]erification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt." Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999). As such, PFC does not have a signed agreement as requested by Mr. [redacted] as it is not required to verify the debt. Original creditors, such as [redacted], often do not have signed consents from the patient directly, as their services are provided as part of a hospital or other facility visit. PFC looks forward to aiding Mr. [redacted] in resolving this dispute and is happy to answer any further questions regarding this matter.
Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) appreciates the opportunity to respond to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. PFC was assigned an account for collection from Mr. [redacted] on behalf of [redacted] (“[redacted]”) on 3/8/2013 and sent initial notice of the debt on or around 3/9/2013. ...
On 6/28/2013, PFC received a settlement offer from Mr. [redacted], offering to pay $55.00 for settlement in full. PFC rejected this offer and does not have authority from [redacted] to accept such an offer. On 1/25/2016, PFC received a letter from an attorney representing Mr. [redacted] (see attached). PFC appropriately notated that Mr. [redacted] was represented by this attorney and is now prohibited, pursuant to federal law, from communicating with Mr. [redacted] without authorization directly from Mr. [redacted]’s attorney. PFC appreciates that Mr. [redacted] is attempting to settle his account. However, PFC had already rejected Mr. [redacted]’s offer and PFC’s hands are now tied due to Mr. [redacted]’s attorney representation. Mr. [redacted] can either have his attorney communicate with PFC to resolve the account or have his attorney send PFC written authorization permitting PFC to speak directly with Mr. [redacted].
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 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.
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]Professional Finance Company, Inc. ("PFC") appreciates the opportunity to respond to Ms. [redacted]'s complaint. Ms. [redacted] previously submitted a similar complaint through the Revdex.com in August and has been in contact with PFC in the interim. Prior to PFC's receipt of this complaint, PFC spoke to Ms. [redacted] and agreed to refund a portion of Ms. [redacted]'s previous payment. Ms. [redacted] agreed to this arrangement. A document memorializing this arrangement has already been sent to Ms. [redacted]. PFC is happy to answer any follow up questions and is glad that this complaint was able to be resolved.
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.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because I have lived at the same apt complex for the last 5 years, verified my address with them and have received no such mail. I also called them and was told that they were still processing my information. My address is listed in my Revdex.com response and if they have given you said information, I would like that given to me so that I may compare it with the year of receipts that I have from [redacted] for the time in question. Regards,[redacted]
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I do not use the insurance provider, [redacted], which is in question from 2014, I think it unreasonable PFC request I initiate contact and spend personal time researching this issue. While I am still adamant the claim by ** is unfounded and they have not provided accurate documentation indicating patient responsibility in order to close this account with ** I would be willing to repay the amount of $138.88 which ** had refunded. If agreed upon I would ask a letter be provided by ** that account has been paid in full and no further action will be pursued to collect additional payment.
Regards,
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I am no longer represented by this lawyer; this account is going on four years now and is less than $200.00 why continue to keep this account open when we can settle the account and move on seems foolish
Regards,
[redacted]
Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) appreciates the continued opportunity to respond to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. PFC did speak with Mr. [redacted] on 12/29/2016, acknowledged that it had received his dispute, and confirmed that Mr. [redacted] has not yet retained an attorney regarding this dispute. In response to Mr. [redacted]’s dispute and request for information, PFC has obtained a narrative explanation of the account, an Explanation of Benefits, and a transactional history from [redacted]. All of these have been attached to this response through the Revdex.com portal. PFC has complied with Mr. [redacted]’s request for information, has fully supported the debt through the attached documentation, and has confirmed with [redacted] that the account is due and owing. Given that Mr. [redacted] has implied that involvement of his attorney is likely, PFC would prefer further correspondence or discussion of this matter take place only in writing or through the Revdex.com’s complaint portal.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business, and though I still dispute that they made legitimate attempts to contact me by my actual phone number, I feel I've exhausted my attempts to get PFC to provide a list of those incorrect numbers to the Revdex.com or [redacted]. I am now dropping this complaint. I would like the upper management at PFC to use this case to determine if better business practices can be put in place in the future. Thank you for considering this situation and for your responses to my concerns. Regards,
[redacted]
Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) appreciates the continued opportunity to respond to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. PFC has provided [redacted]’ position regarding Mr. [redacted]’s account and has provided the documentation supporting that position. [redacted] believes that the account is owed and is unable to control when or why a health insurance provider may request a refund of previously remitted funds. Mr. [redacted] may want to consider discussing this issue and [redacted]’ account with his insurer to determine if there is any relief they may be willing to provide. PFC has marked Mr. [redacted]’s account as disputed, will cease communication on the account as is required when a consumer expresses their refusal to pay an account, and will proceed accordingly under [redacted]’ direction.
Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) appreciates the continued opportunity to discuss Ms. [redacted]’s complaint. PFC understands Ms. [redacted]’s frustration, but does feel that the facts and evidence provided by PFC explains what occurred in collecting Ms. [redacted]’s account. Specifically, PFC previously attached the recording of the phone call and voice message left for Ms. [redacted] on 8/26/2016. PFC has again attached this recording below. To close, PFC reiterates that it gains nothing by having to use the courts to enforce a judgment that a consumer was voluntarily paying. Instead, such enforcement only increase the odds that PFC will lose both time and money. When Ms. [redacted]’s payment was declined on 8/26/2016, PFC telephoned her twice and waited 30 days for Ms. [redacted] to reach out to PFC. When she did not, PFC requested a valid and legal garnishment through the courts to ensure that its client would be made whole. While PFC disagrees with Ms. [redacted]’s version of these events, PFC is grateful for the feedback and for the opportunity to respond.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Not so much rejecting, but asking for more proof of contact.Since the mail was not certified, I cannot prove I did not receive something from them. Only my word. However, they say they contacted me via my correct phone number of [redacted] when their representative told me the call in late February to my cell was the first time they'd used that number after exhausting numerous other "bad" numbers (she listed at least 5 other numbers that did not belong to me).I would ask for proof of the dates they supposedly called me since September 2016 so that I might cross reference them with my cell phone bill.Please provide the number that would have been on the caller ID.Thank you.
Regards,
[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.
Good morning, Professional Finance Company, Inc. ("PFC") appreciates the continued opportunity to resolve this dispute. On 1/12/2016, PFC received a call from [redacted]. During this call, Ms. [redacted] paid $270.85 to PFC on behalf of [redacted]. This satisfies the judgment entered by the [redacted] County Court. All fees and costs related to the judgment were approved by the [redacted] County Court as reflected on the issued Writ of Garnishment that was previously provided in response to this dispute. Upon receipt of payment, PFC deleted all credit reporting it had submitted for [redacted], filed a Release of Garnishment, and filed a Satisfaction of Judgment. PFC has confirmed with [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted] that it is reporting no accounts for Mr. [redacted]. Proof of these actions taken has been attached to this response. PFC has also included a copy of a paid-in-full letter as requested by Ms. [redacted]. At this time, it appears this matter is closed and PFC has taken all actions requested. PFC is happy to answer any remaining questions regarding this matter and appreciates the opportunity to resolve this matter amicably.
Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) has again communicated with its client, [redacted] (“[redacted]”) and feels that it is imperative to relay the following: [redacted] bills insurance as a professional courtesy to its patients and that billing is incumbent upon the insured providing necessary and accurate insurance information at the point of service. [redacted] has provided its own system notes, which show that Ms. [redacted] failed to provide the necessary billing information in a timely fashion. On the date of service, 4/17/2015, [redacted]’s notes reflect that Ms. [redacted] failed to stop at the discharge office to provide her demographic and insurance information to [redacted]. As a result, [redacted] had neither Ms. [redacted]’s contact information, nor her insurance information. [redacted] attempted to mail Ms. [redacted] a notice, but received return mail on 5/8/2015. [redacted] then attempted to reach Ms. [redacted] by telephone on 5/11/2015, but found that it had no valid contact information on file. [redacted] assigned Ms. [redacted]’s account to PFC for collections on 8/4/2015. On two separate occasions, Ms. [redacted] was reached telephonically by PFC (on 9/10/15 and again on 9/17/15), but refused to cooperate in PFCs efforts to verify her identity and proceed with the call. Had she cooperated on either of these two occasions, Ms. [redacted] might have benefitted from the information she would have received and, at the very least, could have engaged her insurance carrier at that point. Being unable to discuss the account with Ms. [redacted] due to her refusal, PFC was forced to initiate legal action on [redacted]’s behalf to collect the account. Ms. [redacted] decided to cooperate only upon the initiation of legal proceedings and it appears that any opportunity for Ms. [redacted] to exert her rights under her insurance contract have expired. Ms. [redacted] did contact [redacted] directly on 5/6/2016 and informed them that she had moved three times recently. As a courtesy, [redacted] agreed to attempt to bill her insurance. [redacted] was informed that insurance denied such billing as out of timely filing and that the account was Ms. [redacted]’s responsibility. After a review of [redacted]’s account notes and information, PFC disagrees with Ms. [redacted]'s assertions that insurance denial is the result of any inaction of [redacted] -- [redacted] had no knowledge of Ms. [redacted]'s coverage with [redacted] until May 6, 2016. Even at that point, [redacted] attempted to bill insurance as a courtesy. It is [redacted] and PFC’s position that Ms. [redacted]’s failure to provide the insurance information or update her address to [redacted] resulted in denial of insurance coverage for out of timely filing. As such, [redacted] has supported PFC’s initiation of legal action and denies that [redacted] or PFC is responsible for Ms. [redacted]’s bill. PFC is happy to honor the stipulation that Ms. [redacted] has entered into and urges Ms. [redacted]r to continue to work with her insurance company to see if she is eligible for any reimbursement for payments made on the account.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me, BUT, when I tried calling the number provided, twice, it went to a voice mail(maybe a time difference?). Is there a way to pay online? Or is there a better time to reach someone, so I can make this payment?
Regards,
[redacted]
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.
Thank you for the opportunity to address Mr. [redacted] complaint. Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) strictly adheres to the requirements of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). In 15 USC § 1692g(a)(4), the FDCPA states that “if the consumer notifies the debt...
collector IN WRITING that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the collector will obtain verification of the debt…” (emphasis added). During a telephone communication with Mr. [redacted] on 8/25/2015, PFC’s representative appropriately relayed that it is PFC policy to require a consumer to provide a written request to receive verification of the debt. PFC also appropriately marked Mr. [redacted] account as “disputed” immediately following this telephone call. PFC will treat Mr. [redacted] Revdex.com complaint as a written request for verification of the debt and has attached such verification to this response. PFC notes that according to the FDCPA and various courts’ interpretations of verification, "[v]erification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt." Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999). As such, PFC does not have a signed agreement as requested by Mr. [redacted] as it is not required to verify the debt. Original creditors, such as [redacted], often do not have signed consents from the patient directly, as their services are provided as part of a hospital or other facility visit. PFC looks forward to aiding Mr. [redacted] in resolving this dispute and is happy to answer any further questions regarding this matter.
Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) appreciates the opportunity to respond to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. PFC was assigned an account for collection from Mr. [redacted] on behalf of [redacted] (“[redacted]”) on 3/8/2013 and sent initial notice of the debt on or around 3/9/2013. ...
On 6/28/2013, PFC received a settlement offer from Mr. [redacted], offering to pay $55.00 for settlement in full. PFC rejected this offer and does not have authority from [redacted] to accept such an offer. On 1/25/2016, PFC received a letter from an attorney representing Mr. [redacted] (see attached). PFC appropriately notated that Mr. [redacted] was represented by this attorney and is now prohibited, pursuant to federal law, from communicating with Mr. [redacted] without authorization directly from Mr. [redacted]’s attorney. PFC appreciates that Mr. [redacted] is attempting to settle his account. However, PFC had already rejected Mr. [redacted]’s offer and PFC’s hands are now tied due to Mr. [redacted]’s attorney representation. Mr. [redacted] can either have his attorney communicate with PFC to resolve the account or have his attorney send PFC written authorization permitting PFC to speak directly with Mr. [redacted].
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 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.
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]Professional Finance Company, Inc. ("PFC") appreciates the opportunity to respond to Ms. [redacted]'s complaint. Ms. [redacted] previously submitted a similar complaint through the Revdex.com in August and has been in contact with PFC in the interim. Prior to PFC's receipt of this complaint, PFC spoke to Ms. [redacted] and agreed to refund a portion of Ms. [redacted]'s previous payment. Ms. [redacted] agreed to this arrangement. A document memorializing this arrangement has already been sent to Ms. [redacted]. PFC is happy to answer any follow up questions and is glad that this complaint was able to be resolved.
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.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because I have lived at the same apt complex for the last 5 years, verified my address with them and have received no such mail. I also called them and was told that they were still processing my information. My address is listed in my Revdex.com response and if they have given you said information, I would like that given to me so that I may compare it with the year of receipts that I have from [redacted] for the time in question. Regards,[redacted]
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I do not use the insurance provider, [redacted], which is in question from 2014, I think it unreasonable PFC request I initiate contact and spend personal time researching this issue. While I am still adamant the claim by ** is unfounded and they have not provided accurate documentation indicating patient responsibility in order to close this account with ** I would be willing to repay the amount of $138.88 which ** had refunded. If agreed upon I would ask a letter be provided by ** that account has been paid in full and no further action will be pursued to collect additional payment.
Regards,
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I am no longer represented by this lawyer; this account is going on four years now and is less than $200.00 why continue to keep this account open when we can settle the account and move on seems foolish
Regards,
[redacted]
Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) appreciates the continued opportunity to respond to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. PFC did speak with Mr. [redacted] on 12/29/2016, acknowledged that it had received his dispute, and confirmed that Mr. [redacted] has not yet retained an attorney regarding this dispute. In response to Mr. [redacted]’s dispute and request for information, PFC has obtained a narrative explanation of the account, an Explanation of Benefits, and a transactional history from [redacted]. All of these have been attached to this response through the Revdex.com portal. PFC has complied with Mr. [redacted]’s request for information, has fully supported the debt through the attached documentation, and has confirmed with [redacted] that the account is due and owing. Given that Mr. [redacted] has implied that involvement of his attorney is likely, PFC would prefer further correspondence or discussion of this matter take place only in writing or through the Revdex.com’s complaint portal.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business, and though I still dispute that they made legitimate attempts to contact me by my actual phone number, I feel I've exhausted my attempts to get PFC to provide a list of those incorrect numbers to the Revdex.com or [redacted]. I am now dropping this complaint. I would like the upper management at PFC to use this case to determine if better business practices can be put in place in the future. Thank you for considering this situation and for your responses to my concerns. Regards,
[redacted]
Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) appreciates the continued opportunity to respond to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. PFC has provided [redacted]’ position regarding Mr. [redacted]’s account and has provided the documentation supporting that position. [redacted] believes that the account is owed and is unable to control when or why a health insurance provider may request a refund of previously remitted funds. Mr. [redacted] may want to consider discussing this issue and [redacted]’ account with his insurer to determine if there is any relief they may be willing to provide. PFC has marked Mr. [redacted]’s account as disputed, will cease communication on the account as is required when a consumer expresses their refusal to pay an account, and will proceed accordingly under [redacted]’ direction.
Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) appreciates the continued opportunity to discuss Ms. [redacted]’s complaint. PFC understands Ms. [redacted]’s frustration, but does feel that the facts and evidence provided by PFC explains what occurred in collecting Ms. [redacted]’s account. Specifically, PFC previously attached the recording of the phone call and voice message left for Ms. [redacted] on 8/26/2016. PFC has again attached this recording below. To close, PFC reiterates that it gains nothing by having to use the courts to enforce a judgment that a consumer was voluntarily paying. Instead, such enforcement only increase the odds that PFC will lose both time and money. When Ms. [redacted]’s payment was declined on 8/26/2016, PFC telephoned her twice and waited 30 days for Ms. [redacted] to reach out to PFC. When she did not, PFC requested a valid and legal garnishment through the courts to ensure that its client would be made whole. While PFC disagrees with Ms. [redacted]’s version of these events, PFC is grateful for the feedback and for the opportunity to respond.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Not so much rejecting, but asking for more proof of contact.Since the mail was not certified, I cannot prove I did not receive something from them. Only my word. However, they say they contacted me via my correct phone number of [redacted] when their representative told me the call in late February to my cell was the first time they'd used that number after exhausting numerous other "bad" numbers (she listed at least 5 other numbers that did not belong to me).I would ask for proof of the dates they supposedly called me since September 2016 so that I might cross reference them with my cell phone bill.Please provide the number that would have been on the caller ID.Thank you.
Regards,
[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.
Good morning, Professional Finance Company, Inc. ("PFC") appreciates the continued opportunity to resolve this dispute. On 1/12/2016, PFC received a call from [redacted]. During this call, Ms. [redacted] paid $270.85 to PFC on behalf of [redacted]. This satisfies the judgment entered by the [redacted] County Court. All fees and costs related to the judgment were approved by the [redacted] County Court as reflected on the issued Writ of Garnishment that was previously provided in response to this dispute. Upon receipt of payment, PFC deleted all credit reporting it had submitted for [redacted], filed a Release of Garnishment, and filed a Satisfaction of Judgment. PFC has confirmed with [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted] that it is reporting no accounts for Mr. [redacted]. Proof of these actions taken has been attached to this response. PFC has also included a copy of a paid-in-full letter as requested by Ms. [redacted]. At this time, it appears this matter is closed and PFC has taken all actions requested. PFC is happy to answer any remaining questions regarding this matter and appreciates the opportunity to resolve this matter amicably.
Professional Finance Company, Inc. (“PFC”) has again communicated with its client, [redacted] (“[redacted]”) and feels that it is imperative to relay the following: [redacted] bills insurance as a professional courtesy to its patients and that billing is incumbent upon the insured providing necessary and accurate insurance information at the point of service. [redacted] has provided its own system notes, which show that Ms. [redacted] failed to provide the necessary billing information in a timely fashion. On the date of service, 4/17/2015, [redacted]’s notes reflect that Ms. [redacted] failed to stop at the discharge office to provide her demographic and insurance information to [redacted]. As a result, [redacted] had neither Ms. [redacted]’s contact information, nor her insurance information. [redacted] attempted to mail Ms. [redacted] a notice, but received return mail on 5/8/2015. [redacted] then attempted to reach Ms. [redacted] by telephone on 5/11/2015, but found that it had no valid contact information on file. [redacted] assigned Ms. [redacted]’s account to PFC for collections on 8/4/2015. On two separate occasions, Ms. [redacted] was reached telephonically by PFC (on 9/10/15 and again on 9/17/15), but refused to cooperate in PFCs efforts to verify her identity and proceed with the call. Had she cooperated on either of these two occasions, Ms. [redacted] might have benefitted from the information she would have received and, at the very least, could have engaged her insurance carrier at that point. Being unable to discuss the account with Ms. [redacted] due to her refusal, PFC was forced to initiate legal action on [redacted]’s behalf to collect the account. Ms. [redacted] decided to cooperate only upon the initiation of legal proceedings and it appears that any opportunity for Ms. [redacted] to exert her rights under her insurance contract have expired. Ms. [redacted] did contact [redacted] directly on 5/6/2016 and informed them that she had moved three times recently. As a courtesy, [redacted] agreed to attempt to bill her insurance. [redacted] was informed that insurance denied such billing as out of timely filing and that the account was Ms. [redacted]’s responsibility. After a review of [redacted]’s account notes and information, PFC disagrees with Ms. [redacted]'s assertions that insurance denial is the result of any inaction of [redacted] -- [redacted] had no knowledge of Ms. [redacted]'s coverage with [redacted] until May 6, 2016. Even at that point, [redacted] attempted to bill insurance as a courtesy. It is [redacted] and PFC’s position that Ms. [redacted]’s failure to provide the insurance information or update her address to [redacted] resulted in denial of insurance coverage for out of timely filing. As such, [redacted] has supported PFC’s initiation of legal action and denies that [redacted] or PFC is responsible for Ms. [redacted]’s bill. PFC is happy to honor the stipulation that Ms. [redacted] has entered into and urges Ms. [redacted]r to continue to work with her insurance company to see if she is eligible for any reimbursement for payments made on the account.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me, BUT, when I tried calling the number provided, twice, it went to a voice mail(maybe a time difference?). Is there a way to pay online? Or is there a better time to reach someone, so I can make this payment?
Regards,
[redacted]