Progressive Financial Services, Inc.

Re: Complaint # *** *** *** Our AcctNo. *** To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding *** ***We received the complaint on/about January *** *** states that she did a
settlement in full (SIF) on the above-referenced account but Progressive did not send her a letter stating that the account was settled as she has requestedShe wants the promised SIF letter. Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant accountAlthough this consumer sent in a SIF payment on the account in October of last year, our client (the creditor) inexplicably denied the settlement when it was initially submitte4dAfter researching the issue, Progressive ran the SIF through a second time, and it did finally achieve approval from our client, ***. We apologize for the delay in getting the SIF letter mailed out to this consumerOur system notes indicate that it was requested on/about January Although we believe the consumer may already have received that letter, we are sending to her today under separate cover another copy of that SIF letterShould she still not have it after a few days, she should contact my office at *** and ask for *** ***She is familiar with this file. We certainly apologize for the delay in getting the SIF letter generated and out to this consumer. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, /s/ *** ** *** *** Corporate Counsel

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Their
reponse was total fiction, they have offices all over the U.Sthat routinely robo callHow could they not find my number? how could I not get a live agent ? Why didn't they get my over voice messages left on their anserwing machine? Clearly they are lying about the number of calls, carelessness in not verifying I wasn't the party they were trying to reach! Additionally I realize people complaintents embellish on things, such as my claims as to the number of calls outgoing to me...however my phone log clearly shows as many as calls in a single day, and voice messages left on my voice answering machine...these were only the calls I failed to answerAs of yesterday 2/3/15, I yet again received another call from them. They are the worst debt collectors in the countryI clearly allege they have violated both my civil rights, state and federal laws. They are lying in their response. covering up their actions. Bottom Line I'm not the party that owes the debt their attemptimg to collect! just an injured inoccent third party. I'll continue my complaint with state and federal agencies
Regards,
*** ***

Re: Complaint # *** *** *** Our AcctNo.*** To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding *** ***We received the complaint on/about January *** *** states that Progressive is calling his
phone regarding a debt that is not hisHe wants to calls to stop. Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive searched for an account on which his phone number (ending in ***) had been calledAlthough we found evidence of inbound calls to Progressive from that number, our records showed no outbound calls to the numberThe call recording from the inbound calls included discussions in which *** *** admitted that there was likely a second number associated with his phone, but he could not identify what that second number wasOur efforts of putting the *** number on our internal “do not call” list were ineffective in stopping the calls, because, as he admitted, there was another number linked to the phone that was causing it to ring. A member of my staff did some rather clever detective work from what she was able to discern about the inbound calls and with diligence and probably a little luck, she found calls to a number with the same area code at about the same time of *** ***’s inbound calls in which he often stated, “You JUST called me.” That extraordinary effort located a likely number (***) that showed a call history very closely analogous to the times of *** ***’s inbound callsAnd, when the staff member called that number, *** *** answered the phoneSo, with the mystery solved, we put that number (ending in 0441) on the internal “do not call” listAfter January when we located that second number, we are showing no further calls to *** ***. We certainly apologize for the misdirected calls to *** ***, and we regret the frustration caused by the two numbers that were ringing to his phonePlease let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, *** ** *** *** Corporate Counsel

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me We have spoken and they now understand that they have the wrong person, and they will no longer contact me
Regards,
*** ***

Re: Complaint # *** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding *** ***We received the complaint on/about February *** *** states that Progressive is
calling his place of employment (POE) and harassing him and in so doing violating his “protected privacy.” He wants no more communication from Progressive. Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant accountIn an attempt to reach this consumer, our staff called both a home number and what was identified as his work numberThe calls to his POE resulted in some cases where our staff reached an operator or assistant who tried to get the call to the right location for this consumerAt no time during any of the short conversations that our staff had with personnel at the POE did the agent ever disclose the purpose of the callOnly when asked directly where the agent was calling from would the agent disclose the company nameAll of these efforts to locate the consumer at his POE were done without any violation of the laws governing the industryThere were no breaches of any private information on the file. On/about February 2015, Progressive received a written request from *** *** to cease all forms of communication with himPursuant to that instruction, the account is currently in a “cease and desist” status and according Progressive has suspended all efforts to reach this consumer to set up voluntary repayment arrangementsIf this consumer wishes to get his loan(s) out of default and avoid any possible efforts by our client (Department of Education) to impose involuntary collection efforts to resolve the account, he should initiate contact with our collection staff. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, /s/ *** ** *** *** Corporate Counsel

To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding *** ***. We received the complaint on/about February *** *** states that she paid a balance in full last year but states that it is still appearing on one/more
of the credit reporting agenciesShe wants the mistake corrected and her credit report updated to show the account paid in full. Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant accountIndeed, our records show a payment in full posted on this account on July A few days later, we sent an electronic request to all three major credit reporting agencies to delete the trade lineUntil we received this complaint, we were unaware of any problem. We apologize for the problemEarlier this week, we processed a manual AUD form to have the credit reporting bureaus delete the trade lineWe are sending a copy of that form under separate cover to the consumer along with a copy of a payment in full (PIF) letterIf she continues to see the trade lines regarding this debt, she should contact the credit reporting agency that is reporting and present them with the delete request form (the AUD) as well as the PIF letterWhile we hope that our additional efforts will clear up any mistakes that still exist, we remain available to assist this consumer if she is not getting resolution with the credit reporting agencies directlyShe should contact me directly if she has any lingering issues Again, we certainly apologize for the delay in the credit reporting agencies getting the trade line deleted as requestedPlease let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, /s/ *** ** *** *** Corporate Counsel

To Whom It May Concern:I have been asked to respond to Ms. [redacted]’s additional comments/questions that she posed after Progressive sent its initial response to the above-referenced Revdex.com compliant. She continues to assert that she has no balance owed to [redacted] and uses the VOD documentation to try to support that position. She is wrong.When [redacted] “writes off” an overdue amount, that write of goes to collections, and it cause the “current balance” to show as zero. Once an amount is written off and the customer’s overdue amount is in the collections pipeline, it is still owed to [redacted], but the account may be assigned out to a third party debt collection company like Progressive. Progressive is only one of the vendors that collects on [redacted] debt. There may have been other agencies collecting on the debt prior to it being placed with Progressive. Or the debt may have been worked internally at [redacted] before it was placed with Progressive.Regardless, the debt is still owed – not to Progressive but to [redacted]. We do not own the account and never represented to Ms. [redacted] that the debt was owed to Progressive. Although payment(s) can be made to Progressive, the debt belongs to [redacted]. When the debt was reported by Progressive to the credit bureaus,the trade line listed [redacted] as the creditor – not Progressive. Nothing about the debt that was reported to the credit bureaus was improper. The trade line has been reported as disputed but will not be deleted just because Ms. [redacted] misunderstands the nature of her debt.We are sorry that [redacted] representatives may have unintentionally given Ms. [redacted] inaccurate information. But, because Ms. [redacted] states that she has VOD in hand, she is in a position to understand what services or equipment the debt is related to. If she has questions, there is a contact phone number on the cover letter that was sent to her with the VOD documents. She can call that number, speak to one of our agents and learn about how she can resolve the overdue amount. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.Sincerely,Barbara A. H[redacted], Esq.Corporate Counsel

To Whom It May Concern:I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Ms. [redacted]. We received the complaint on/about 23 June 2016. Ms. [redacted] states that she found a trade line listed for a debt owed to [redacted] that was being reported by Progressive to the credit...

bureaus. She further states that she spoke with a [redacted] account/billing representative who reportedly told her that she did not have a balance owing on her account. She states that she has twice requested debt validation(VOD) but has not received anything from Progressive. Promptly upon receipt we found the associated account for this consumer. Let me state at the outset that as the discussion below indicates, one of the problems with the consumer’s account is that we have had multiple addresses associated with the file. Apparently the VOD was previously mailed to the consumer but to an address that turned out to be not the consumer’s current address.The account was placed with Progressive on/about 5 January 2012. We did not hear from the consumer, however, until 18 April 2016 (more than 4 years later) when the consumer disputed the debt via the credit bureau reports (CBR). Progressive reports account for [redacted] to all three major credit reporting agencies – [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted]. In response to the CBR dispute, Progressive marked the trade line that had been reported as “disputed” with all three agencies. The CBR dispute information that came to Progressive in April noted that the consumer’s current address was in Decatur,GA. Correspondence that was attached to the CBR dispute listed her address to be in Kenneshaw, GA,however. Progressive presumed that the CBR document, which listed the Kenneshaw address as a former residence was correct, so VOD was obtained and mailed out to Ms. [redacted] on 26 April 2016 to the Decatur address. We have no record of that mail being returned. An identical dispute from the consumer was received via CBR on/about 19 May 2016, but nothing further was provided as VOD had previously been sent.Our records show that on 14 June 2016, Progressive received written correspondence from Ms.[redacted] dated 6 June 2016. In that letter, which asked for additional information about the debt, Ms.[redacted] listed her current address as being in Washington, DC. She claimed to have spoken to [redacted] and stated that she did not owe the debt and asked for the trade line to be deleted. Because she questioned whether she had signed a contract with [redacted], Progressive sent her a letter advising her that if she believed that she never signed a contract with [redacted], she should contact [redacted] and file a fraud claim. That letter was dated 17 June 2016 and was sent to her Washington DC address. Her Revdex.com complaint did not mention receiving that letter, but it was sent to same address as what she listed on the Revdex.com complaintWe have confirmed that all three credit reporting agencies are reporting the trade line as disputed. We have requested further information from our client about the consumer’s allegations that she spoke to someone who told her she had no balance listed on the account in Progressive’s office. We have not received an answer to that inquiry, and our limited access to some of [redacted]’s internal notes do not include a reference to any such conversation with the consumer.While we wait for [redacted] to clarify if the account in our office is displaying the correct balance, we are going to resend (under separate cover) to Ms. [redacted] the VOD packet that was initially sent to her atthe end of April. We will send that to her Washington DC address. When we get information about the balance from [redacted], we will reach out to Ms. [redacted] to advise her of the status of the account. The trade line will not be deleted unless/until the account leaves our inventory – which happens when [redacted] recalls the account from our agency. Recall occurs, for example, when an account is paid or settled in full, when certain legal activity happens such as when the debt was/is included in a bankruptcy petition, or when the client closes and recalls an account that may have been placed in error. None of that currently is showing on the account. We apologize for the confusion about her current address during the course of our collection activity and in response to her disputes. She should be getting the VOD packet in a few days. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.Sincerely, Barbara A. H[redacted], Esq.Corporate Counsel

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.  I will wait until for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]

I received a letter saying I was to contact them and was under the impression from the time I had contacted them I was to create a payment plan to get my student loans out of default. I had been in the hospital, had multiple surgeries and nearly died of sepsis, so I was not as prompt as I could have been. Upon contacting them, the initial payment they gave me after viewing my 1040 (roughly $260) was high and was going to make things stressful for me and my family so I asked if there was any other options to lower my payment. Last year I was out of work for 5 months due to maternity leave, and my husband was out for 6 months as he had honorably discharged from the navy and was pursuing his new career. We have had many hardships, the year prior we lost our daughter, so things have been tight and stressful. With the extreme hardships and extra bills; I was then asked my and my husbands current pay before taxes, any bills (housing, power, transportation, cellphone, Internet, childcare, etc.) with these numbers I was quoted a new fee of approximately $60; they just needed the documentation which I sent over right away. I was calling everyday, sometimes twice to check on my status and they told me it was still in review, but they had not sent out any letters to my employer about wage garnishment yet. I was under the impression that I had 30 days to figure it out and wouldn't send the letter to my employer until I had made a payment. I had been in contact with them for THREE weeks now. Mind you I had been I the hospital again for another surgery. They then told me several days later that my documents I had sent were blurry and actually needed them resent, which I did promptly. I called back the next day and was told a letter had been sent to my employer to start the garnishment of my wages and that the new documents they received (even after I had been quoted $60 on the phone) were now going to be $234 and that was the best they could do. At this point I became very frustrated, I spoke to a supervisor Bill M[redacted] and he informed me it was all my fault and to blame myself. He was very unprofessional and treated me as though I were some incompetent it. I asked Bill if I had paid the original $260 from the first call, would the letter still had been sent to my employer? He responded that it would not have. So after 3 weeks of medical issues, calling them back and forth, being misled and quoted multiple prices with the impression of finding a common ground that I could afford and to keep a wage garnishment letter sent to my employer, one was sent anyway. I would have paid the original amount (which was a hardship) had I known I would have been misled and misquoted resulting in my time running out and a letter being sent. Bill M[redacted] told me there was nothing I could do, too bad so sad. I am very frustrated due to the fact that I could have just paid the initial amount (which is pretty much the same as the "new and better" one they sent me to begin with) but because they took multiple days to get my documents reviewed and not getting back to me in a timely manner, I am now the one who is having wage garnishment. I understand I have a debt that needs to be payed and I intend to do just that, but have had multiple hardships and handicaps in my life recently. the way Bill M[redacted] treated me was very unprofessional and his team had misled me and misinformed me this whole time. Again, due to the fact Bill M[redacted] told me if I paid the initial quote, the garnishment letter would not have been sent. I gave them everything they asked, constantly called and they were the ones who were "still reviewing" even after several days... That my employer had then been informed about a wage garnishment. Moreover, if they had expedited their end or not have misled me in the monthly payment to begin with, according to Bill M[redacted] the wage garnishment would have not been sent to my employer. It has now been sent to my employer and am not at risk of my career. I am VERY upset with the misleading and misquoting I had received AND the rudeness, unprofessionalism and lack of responsibility taken by this company; especially Bill M[redacted] Clearly he was lying to me or his employees were and for that, I am the one being screwed over by a new monthly pay that was roughly the same amount of my first quote and now I had a letter sent to my employ to have my wages garnished. I would not have spent the whole three weeks working with them, calling constantly to come up with a more affordable payment had it just resulted in this. This is one of the worst, most unprofessional and dishonest companies I have dealt with.

Re: Complaint # [redacted] [redacted]Progressive Acct. No. [redacted]/Dept. of Education Ref. No. [redacted]To Whom It May Concern:I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Mr. [redacted]. We received the complaint on/about 15 July 2015.  Mr. [redacted] is stating that he...

was not permitted sufficient time to dispute his wage garnishment before it went into effect.  He states that Progressive’s staff has not been responsive to his concerns.Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant account.  Mr. [redacted] lists his address on his complaint as [redacted]. Importantly that is the address that was on the file from the inception of Progressive’s collection efforts.  Multiple collection notice letters were sent to the consumer at that address; none were returned.  He did not respond to those letters.  Nor did he respond to multiple calls from our staff to his phone number (ending in [redacted]) that were placed in February, March, and April of this year. When Progressive was unable to get this consumer on the phone to set up voluntary repayment arrangements, our client started the process to involuntarily recover the amount due via an administrative wage garnishment (AWG).The Department of Education (“ED”) mailed out a “notice prior” letter to this consumer on/about 11 May 2015 advising him of the impending AWG.  The letter was sent to the same address listed above – the address the consumer listed on his Revdex.com complaint.  Although he states he did not get that until “1 week before the process was to begin,” there appears to be no reason why he did not, at that time, promptly contact Progressive to alert us to his need to request a hearing. Had he done so, our staff would have assisted him in getting the request timely filed. Instead, the first inbound call we have from this consumer is listed on 22 June 2015 – more than 40 days after the notice prior letter from ED was mailed to him.On that call he was advised to fax relevant document to Progressive that day.  He was further told that it was his responsibility to check back with Progressive 24 hours later to see if the documents were complete or if there was anything else that needed to be sent.  Our records show that it was another week before he sent in the documents (received in our office on 6.29.15) and then he did not call Progressive until 7 July 2015.  By then, the garnishment order had been issued by ED to his employer. 2On 10 July 2015, the consumer called in again. On that call he was provided with information from which he could submit a request for a hearing directly to ED and request that the garnishment be stopped based on the fact that he was laid off from his previous job and had been working at his present employer less than a year.  Our staff assisted in getting that information to the consumer so that an “untimely” request for a hearing could be sent to ED. The staff told the consumer that the hearing process could take 30-60 days to complete and that if he was successful, the garnishment would be suspended following that hearing outcome.We did not that our staff mishandled the account at any point.  The consumer failed to respond to letters and phone calls when the account was initially place with Progressive. When the garnishment notice prior letter went out, he did not timely request a hearing and then failed to promptly get documents in when Progressive asked for those to be immediately faxed to our office. Thereafter, he neglected to call Progressive back to check on the status of the documents (they were not complete). His failure to timely respond to various requests by Progressive (written, voice mail, conversations on the phone) contributed to the fact that he did not get a timely hearing requested with ED before the garnishment order was sent to his employer.Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.Sincerely,[redacted], Esq. Corporate Counsel

To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]. We received the complaint on/about 14 May 2017. Ms. [redacted] is upset because she has not been able to get Progressive to return her phone calls. Promptly upon receipt we located the relevant...

account. Unfortunately, the following verbiage is what we are permitted to share with this consumer: Due to a pending legal matter involving the servicing of Department of Education accounts that are currently assigned to our office, the Department of Education has restricted us from servicing the account about which you wrote. Please accept our apologies. You may contact the Department of Education with further questions at [redacted]  .Again, we are sorry for the inconvenience caused by this current situation. We hope that the personnel at the Department of Education can assist her. If there is anything else you need from us, do not hesitate to reach out to me.

To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding [redacted]. We received the complaint on/about 16 June 2016. [redacted] states that she was being contacted by Progressive about an account for Cox Communications that was already with another...

agency. She states that she resolved the account balance via a settlement with the other agency, but Progressive nevertheless reported the debt to the credit bureaus. She wants the account closed and the credit report trade line deleted. Promptly upon receipt we found the associated account for this consumer.  The account was placed with Progressive on/about 13 November 2015. Our records show that indeed [redacted] provided Progressive with proof that she had made arrangements with the other agency ([redacted]) and that she made the agreed upon payments that resulted in the account being settled in full. To make a long story short, she is correct. Cox apparently did have the account with both agencies at the same time and our personnel at multiple points in the account processing flow did not follow established procedures when she notified us about the other agency's settlement arrangement. Those oversights on our part caused the account to remain active, and eventually a trade line was reported to the credit bureaus. We have notified Cox about the error and have been advised that they have closed and recalled both accounts from the two agencies. The consumer's account is settled. Progressive recently processed a request sent to all three major credit reporting agencies to delete trade line for the account. [redacted] should contact my office directly if, after providing a few days for the credit reporting agencies to process the delete request, the trade lines are not being deleted. Our sincere apologies to [redacted] for the confusion about her account. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Barbara A H[redacted], Esq. Corporate Counsel

See attached letter and several attachments.  If the Revdex.com wishes to see all the attachments that are referenced in Progressive's attached response to the CFPB on 1.3.17, Mr. [redacted] can provide those to you.  Since they have sensitive data, they are PW protected, but he knows what the PW is...

to open them.  Otherwise, we can send them to the Revdex.com via e-mail.
 
[redacted] Progressive tried to send all the relevant information, but the Revdex.com response mechanism did not permit the additional information that Progressive attempted to attach.[redacted]

21 June 2016       Conciliation & Engagement Specialist Revdex.com of Central/Northern Arizona 4428 N. 12th Street Phoenix, AZ 85014 Writer’s Direct Line: [redacted] Writer’s Direct Fax Line: [redacted] e-mail: [redacted]  
[redacted]      [redacted]                    [redacted]   To Whom It May Concern:   I have been asked to respond to follow up comments from Mr. [redacted] following Progressive’s initial response to the complaint. In a nutshell, Progressive advised that [redacted] had placed the account in error with Progressive and that the account was subsequently closed and recalled following our investigation into his Revdex.com complaint.  Now Mr. [redacted] states that he wants an apology from [redacted] Communications. He implies that our response is not credible because “[redacted] Communication and C** [are] giving me a different story.”   As we stated in our initial response, “Progressive regrets that [redacted] both placed the account with Progressive in error and that one of its reps gave this consumer misinformation that caused the consumer to be concerned about possible fraudulent activity by Progressive.” Our collection efforts prior to being informed of the error were appropriate and measured. We promptly stopped all activity on the account when the complaint arrived and terminated such efforts altogether once [redacted] informed us of the error and recalled the account. If the consumer wants an additional apology from [redacted] Communication for its error in placing the account with Progressive, he will need to reach out to [redacted] Communications directly and make that request. We are unable to assist any further on that front.   Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.   Sincerely,       /s/   Barbara A. H[redacted], Esq.

Re: Complaint# [redacted]          [redacted] Our Acct. No. [redacted] and [redacted](Cox Communication) To Whom It May Concern:I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding [redacted]. We received the complaint  on/about 18...

October 2016. [redacted]is upset about the type of verification of debt (“VOD”) that was sent to him on the above-referenced debts. He asked whether screenshots can “serve as proof” and questions how the VOD that was sent “serve[s]as proof of what I asked for.” [redacted] initially set up a payment arrangement with one of our agents to pay and/or settle the
balances on the accounts in question.  When a payment authorization letter was sent to him to confirm the arrangements he agreed to, he then started asking for “proof”that the past due amounts were his responsibility. Our client on the accounts, Cox Communications, has provided Progressive with access to its“ICOMS” system which houses the information about the past due amounts. The screen shots that are printed for customers who ask for VOD include the balance owed, the date when services were discontinued, and a breakdown of what “products” or “services” are past due. The products could be
unpaid data (internet) charges, unpaid cable charges,unpaid telephone charges, charges for equipment
that wasn’t returned or charges for early termination of a multi-year contract. In addition to the screen
shots that show all that information, Progressive also sends to each consumer a “How to Read Your Cox
Documentation” page that explains what the information on the various pages means. In addition to these
screen shots that summarize the past due amount(s), Progressive also sent this consumer an itemized statement – a “flow chart” of the last few weeks of activity on the account.The basic VOD was sent to [redacted] on/about 30 September 2016. He responded via e-mail that the VOD that was sent was “no proof at all” and that “anyone can print screen a pc.”He went on, “Give me some kind of proof that I in fact opened this account.” He said he needed to be shown proof
that the debt belongs to him.At that point, the dispute was escalated to Progressive’s Legal Department for assistance. Another set of the VOD was prepared; this time it included an itemized statement print out for the two accounts that Progressive was attempting to resolve. In a lengthy e-mail response to the consumer
prepared on 12 October 2016 (copy attached to this letter),Progressive explained that his name and social (which he verified) was on the account detail that came from Cox at the time they placed the account with Progressive. It was based on that information that the collection efforts were directed to him – as the “owner” of the past due account. Progressive further explained that additional VOD was being mailed to him, BUT, if he was alleging with his dispute that he did not sign up for or receive Cox Communication goods/services, he needed to let us know that he was claiming that the account was fraudulently taken out in his name. We described that if that was the case, we would send him a “fraud
letter” explaining how he would need to reach out to the appropriate personnel at Cox Communication to lodge his fraud complaint and thereafter, Cox would start the fraud investigation process. Throughout the time that the account was in dispute and/or when verification of debt documentation was being provided,
the account was in a “hold” status and no further collection efforts were conducted to try to get the
account resolved.On 17 October 2016, the consumer (contrary to Progressive’s instruction about how to communicate with Progressive) sent an e-mail to Ms. Dixon (who had authored the e-mail sent to him on 12 October 2016). He notified Ms. Dixon that he was filing a
Revdex.com complaint and that he wanted
Progressive to “cease all communication with me til [sic] I am able to speak with Cox.” Upon receipt of that e-mail, Progressive changed the status of the account to cease and desist(“CAD”). CAD status effectively terminates all efforts to try to voluntarily resolve the account; the account is closed and returned to our client. Closing the account generates a request to the credit bureaus to delete the trade line for the debt that was previously reported. That command is communicated to the bureaus during regularly scheduled updates that are sent to the credit reporting agencies several times per week.
Removal of the trade line does not, however, eliminate the obligation that this consumer owes to Cox Communication. Although Progressive handled the account appropriately at every step of the process, the consumer was not content to rely on the verification of debt documentation that was provided to him. He declined to pay the debt that was assigned to his name/social security number by Cox. Nor did he take steps to lodge a fraud complaint with Cox asserting that he did not request or receive goods/services from Cox that were assigned to his name/social security number. While Progressive no longer has the account in our inventory, the debt is valid, however, and remains assigned to this consumer/social security
number.Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

8 March 2016Conciliation & Engagement Specialist Revdex.com of Central/Northern Arizona 4428 N. 12th StreetPhoenix, AZ 85014Re: Complaint # [redacted] [redacted]To Whom It May Concern: 
[redacted]e-mail:...

[redacted] I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Mr. [redacted]. We received the complaint on/about 2 March 2016. Mr. [redacted] states that Progressive is a “scam” organization and that we are calling his residence “non-stop for 5 days up to 4 times per day.” He also claims that “several times” he has tried to correct the issue but “it’s like they don’t listen.”  This is the type of exaggeration in a complaint that makes for interesting reading and maximum shock value but like so many complaints we respond to, this complaint has no merit whatsoever.Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant account belonging to Elizabeth [redacted], the consumer we were trying to locate. We have credible evidence that Ms. [redacted] is/was associated with the phone number called (ending in 5054) and at the address listed by Mr. [redacted]. However, he states in his complaint to the Revdex.com that that Elizabeth [redacted] “does not exist at my phone number or location.” (Emphasis added). He does not say she never lived there, or that she was never associated with the number, or that he does not know who we are trying to find.To set the record straight, Progressive did not call that phone number “non-stop for 5 days up to 4 times per day.” In truth, we called the phone number three (3) times in three (3) days (one outbound call per day). We are more than happy to produce the call records to the Revdex.com or any regulatory agency who may be reviewing this complaint and response. None of the calls to that number were answered, and on two of those calls, a message was left. The message starts by asking the consumer listening to let us know promptly if we are calling a wrong number. On the same day that the third call was made (2 March  2016), Mr. [redacted] placed an inbound call to Progressive (as we requested). He stated that Elizabeth [redacted] “does not exist at this number.”  We have reason to believe based on his answer (and the way he phrased his complaint to the Revdex.com as well) that she once lived at that number, but no longer does. Promptly upon learning that we could not reach Elizabeth [redacted] at that number, the agent who spoke with the consumer removed the number and it was not called again. So his allegation that he has tried to correct the issue, “but it’s like they don’t listen,” clearly does not apply to Progressive’s response to his “wrong number” instruction.Thus, this consumer has only one thing right – Progressive called his number looking for someone that all indicators point to as having once been associated with that phone number and that address. We did not call “non-stop for 5 days up to 4 calls per day.”  We called ONCE per day for 3 days. We did in fact, listen to him when he told us we could not find Elizabeth at that number and we promptly removed the number so it would not be called again on the account. Nor are we a “scan financial service 2provider” as this consumer alleges. We are a legitimate debt collector who did absolutely nothing wrong in the way the underlying account was worked.Again, we are happy to provide supporting documentation for the account activity we have described in this complaint response. If the Revdex.com or a reviewing regulatory agency reads this, just let us know what corroborating evidence is needed; we are happy to comply. Please let me know if I can be of

This consumer filed an identical complaint with the CFPB.  Today, we submitted the attached response.  Please accept this as our response to the consumer's Revdex.com complaint as well.  Thank you.

To Whom It May Concern: Writer’s Direct Line: [redacted]  [redacted] I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Ms. [redacted].  We received the complaint on/about 27 April 2015....

Ms. [redacted] states that she does not owe any past due debt to our client, [redacted].  She states that it might be identity theft and that “I have called numerous times to dispute this.”Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, we located the relevant account.  It is not clear from her e-mail if her “numerous” calls to dispute the debt were made to [redacted] or to Progressive.  We found only one inbound call from this consumer, however.  Our front desk personnel took the call and before she could transfer the call out to the [redacted] unit on the collection floor, the consumer terminated the call.We have placed the account in a dispute/hold status and notified our client ([redacted])that the consumer is claiming possible identity theft.  We have been notified that the appropriate [redacted]unit has mailed out a fraud packet to this consumer to complete and return to [redacted].  In addition, prior to receiving the Revdex.com complaint, we got notice from the credit bureaus that she was disputing the account. At that time, a request was sent to delete the trade line and records available to us indicate that request has been completed at all three major credit reporting agencies.  Furthermore, upon receipt of the dispute, our staff obtained verification documentation from [redacted] and forwarded that to Ms. [redacted].We believe that our staff has handled the account appropriately and the current dispute/hold status will be in place until we receive word from [redacted] that the fraud investigation has concluded.Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.Sincerely,/s/[redacted], Esq. Corporate Counsel

Dispute Resolution Consultant Revdex.com of Central/Northern Arizona [redacted] 
[redacted] Re: Complaint # [redacted] Our Acct. No. [redacted] To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced...

complaint regarding [redacted]. We received the complaint on/about 6 November 2014. [redacted] states that he is continuing to get misdirected calls from Progressive even though he has spoken with our staff and previously asked for the calls to stop. First, I want to apologize for my tardy response. Although the matter was corrected promptly by my staff, I have been away from my desk a great deal lately and this formal response was overlooked. Promptly upon receipt of this complaint, we located not one but two accounts on which calls to the relevant number (ending in [redacted]) were being made. It appears the number is for a business/place of employment. We see that indeed, we had calls from [redacted] regarding the misdirected calls. We found errors by our staff who did not remove the number from the account as promised. Furthermore, calls were being made on a second account – neither account was held by anyone who worked at the place of business [redacted] was writing about. Our staff also failed to recognize that there was a second account being called. We apologize for the multiple errors made by our staff that resulted in further calls being made to [redacted]’ number. The staff person(s) responsible for the errors have been identified to their respective collection managers and the mangers have been asked to work with the agents to ensure this kind of error does not repeat. Again we are very sorry for the continuing frustration that our shortcomings caused for [redacted]. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, /s/ [redacted] Corporate Counsel