Progressive Financial Services, Inc.

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 15 January 2015. [redacted] states that Progressive is...

calling his phone regarding a debt that is not his. He wants to calls to stop. Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive found the account on which [redacted]’s phone number (ending in [redacted]) was called. It does not bear his name and consequently, we concluded that the calls were made to that number in error. Our records show that we left messages from time to time at that phone number. Included early in each message is a request that states, “If we have reached you in error, please call [phone number] to report the wrong number.” Notwithstanding that request – which could have put a prompt end to the calls – there were no inbound calls from [redacted] advising Progressive that we were calling his number in error. We have removed the phone number from the account on which it was called and added it to our internal “do not call” list to prevent further calls. We apologize for an inconvenience caused by our unintentional misdirected calls. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, /s/ [redacted] Corporate Counsel

Dispute Resolution Consultant Revdex.com [redacted] 

[redacted] 

[redacted] 

[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 4 March 2015. [redacted] claims he is being garnished for a debt that is not his. He states that he notified Progressive several months ago that he was not the correct person named on the account when we spoke with him by phone. My apologies for the delay in getting this response out – we have been trying to reach the consumer’s place of employment to re-verify that the account holder’s unique identifying information matches the employee against whom the wage garnishment order was issued. Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant account. Contrary to his allegation, our records indicate that we have never called the number that [redacted] lists as his primary number (ending in [redacted]); nor are we showing any conversation with him or anyone else who shares the name of the borrower but who disavows the debt. Furthermore, when we contacted this consumer’s place of employment and asked for a person who could verify employment, that person confirmed that someone by that name worked for the company and she verified that the social security number (the full number we have on the account was queried) was indeed the same social security number that was assigned to the [redacted] who worked at that company. Based on that verification process, and having been unable to establish contact with [redacted] to set up voluntary repayment arrangements, Progressive concluded its administrative wage garnishment (AWG) checklist and notified our client, the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”) that the account was ready for garnishment. ED sent out a “notice prior” letter to the consumer at the end of December 2014. When that notice prior (advising the consumer about his right to seek a review/appeal of the AWG) did not result in any contact from the consumer, ED issued the AWG order to his employer. [redacted] had an ongoing obligation to keep the Department of Education appraised of his address and phone number. Apparently that did not happen because all of our attempts to reach him were made to a mailing address that is not his current address (based on his disclosure in the Revdex.com complaint). Nor did Progressive have his current phone number on the file (also provided in the Revdex.com complaint documentation). We believe, therefore, that the notice prior letter may not have reached him either. Progressive has started a process to give this consumer an opportunity to dispute the wage garnishment order. While we are trying to re-verify the data on the account against the employer’s data, we have also requested that ED allow the garnishment order to be temporarily suspended so that Mr. ___________________________________________________________________________...⇄ can reach out to our staff to speak to them by phone and try to sort this out. This will be a very limited opportunity (30-days) for this consumer to contact Progressive to discuss his account before the garnishment order is reinstated. He should call our AWG unit at [redacted] or [redacted] 

[redacted] are familiar with his file and can assist. Again, however, this consumer must take the initiative and make the call to discuss the account with our staff and do so at his earliest convenience. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, /s/ [redacted] Corporate Counsel

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.  We have spoken and they now understand that they have the wrong person, and they will no longer contact me.

Regards,

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 have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Mr. [redacted]. We received the complaint on/about 23 May 2014. Mr. [redacted] states that he satisfied the balance on his account that was in our active inventory. Notwithstanding this, he has been unable to secure a paid in...

full (“PIF”) letter stating the obligation has been satisfied.  He also states that our staff is still attempting to collect the debt from him, notwithstanding the PIF status of the account. He wants the PIF letter mailed to his current address.

Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, we located the relevant account. Mr. [redacted] took steps in early January of this year to pay off the balance on the above referenced account. During a call with one of our staff on 3 January 2014, the agent promised to generate a PIF letter to the consumer once the final payment posted. Several times thereafter, our staff had conversations with this consumer and promised to send the PIF letter. Unfortunately to date, that had not been done.  My staff is working today to get that letter finalized and sent to the consumer under separate cover.

The consumer also states that our staff continued to try to collect the debt even though the balance was paid in full. The only “collection efforts” our staff engaged in when the consumer called in to inquire about his PIF letter was to do a required “mini- Miranda” disclosure stating that “this is an attempt to collect a debt, etc.” At no time did the staff actually try to collect any specific amount from the consumer – the account had a zero balance. Nevertheless, we understand the frustration this mandatory disclosure caused Mr. [redacted] and we are sorry for that frustration.

We also are very sorry for the way that this account was handled – our training and expectations dictate that PIF and SIF letters be promptly generated upon request. We are notifying all collection managers company-wide to reiterate that PIF and SIF letters are to be promptly generated when a consumer requests such a letter following the payment or settlement of the account. In particular for this account, we are advising the relevant senior managers about how their substandard customer service was as far as Mr. [redacted]’s account was concerned.

Again, we are sorry for the inefficient handling of this consumer’s request for a PIF letter. He may call my staff directly ([redacted]) if he does not have that PIF letter in hand within a few days. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

If this is the case and [redacted] Communications really did state what was written in the response then I would like a letter from [redacted] Communications relaying the same message to me.  Because when I call [redacted] Communications and C** they're giving me a different story.

I have reviewed the VOD and have also contacted the tenants that were residing in the residence.

I was told that when they switched from [redacted] to [redacted] and retained services in their name, the tenants never saw the [redacted] equipment again and stated that they think the [redacted] technician may...

have mistakenly removed the equipment. Nevertheless, I sent check in the verified amount to Progressive Financial - sent certified/receipt mail on 7/25/16. I am deeply disappointed that [redacted] did not [redacted]empt to notify me of the missing equipment before "writing it off" as a bad debt within one month. I have had an 8 year history of good credit with them at several addresses and would certainly have taken responsibility for the missing equipment, had I known. I only found this out when it was reported to the credit bureau by the Progressive Financial 2 years later. I am pleased to know that Progressive is working with [redacted] to ensure that this does not happen to other customers. They wrote off the equipment so quickly and a zero balance has been showing for 2 years. Thank you so very much for your assistance in getting to the bottom of this m[redacted]er. I am hopeful that Progressive Financial will report to the credit bureaus that the debt has been satisfied as quickly as possible once they process my payment.

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], 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

8 March 2016Conciliation & Engagement Specialist Revdex.com of Central/Northern Arizona 4428 N. 12th StreetPhoenix, AZ 85014Re: Complaint # [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

Re: Complaint # [redacted] 

[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 23 February 2015. [redacted] 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 account. In an attempt to reach this consumer, our staff called both a home number and what was identified as his work number. The 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 consumer. At 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 call. Only when asked directly where the agent was calling from would the agent disclose the company name. All of these efforts to locate the consumer at his POE were done without any violation of the laws governing the industry. There were no breaches of any private information on the file. On/about 28 February 2015, Progressive received a written request from [redacted] to cease all forms of communication with him. Pursuant 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 arrangements. If 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/ [redacted] Corporate Counsel

17 July 2014

Revdex.com of Central/Northern Arizona

Re: Complaint # [redacted]

Our Acct. No....

[redacted]

Ms. [redacted]:

I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Mr. [redacted]. We received the complaint on/about 3 July 2014. Mr. [redacted] states that Progressive is calling third parties trying to reach him and he believes that Progressive must have improperly accessed his cell phone to obtain the phone numbers.  I apologize for the tardy response to this

complaint.  I was out of the office for much of the last 10 days.

Although there has been a delay in penning this formal response, promptly upon receipt of the complaint, we located the relevant account. We identified several phone numbers that our staff utilized in legitimate location information collection efforts – that is, we were calling third parties only for the purpose of obtaining permissible information regarding means to locate and speak to Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted]’s assertion that Progressive obtained the phone numbers from his cell phone is absolutely untrue. All of the phone numbers were obtained via legal skip tracing sources.  None of our skip tracing tools allows our staff access to anyone’s stored cell phone contact details.

We have removed all third party phone numbers from the list of phone numbers on the account and added them to our internal “do not call” list. Further, we have advised the relevant collection managers about the complaint and requested that the staff be retrained about keeping their third party contacts closely tied to the permissible uses under the [redacted]. Finally, we have updated the demographic information on the account based on the address and phone number Mr. [redacted] provided in the complaint documentation. We apologize that our location information efforts were upsetting to Mr. [redacted].  Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, 

[redacted] 

Corporate Counsel

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.
 

I will review the documents that have been mailed, when I receive them.  As of 5/5/2014, I have not received them in the mail.  However, I will be sure to follow up with Progressive when I get them.  I just want it to be fair and not be bullied and harassed, on something I am not sure about.

Regards,

To Whom It May Concern: Writer’s Direct Line: ###-###-####Writer’s Direct Fax Line: ###-###-#### e-mail:  [redacted]@progressivefinancial.com I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Mr. [redacted].  We received the...

complaint on/about 11 June 2015.  Mr. [redacted] states that Progressive refuses to send him proof the debt and of property ownership.  He also alleges the agents have been “rude and disrespectful.” He maintains “they are scammers.”Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant account belonging to this consumer. On the first call when we reached this consumer (27 May 2015), our agent tried to have the consumer update the address so that we could send verification of debt (VOD) that had been requested in the call. Mr. [redacted] refused and hung up on the agent.   When Mr. [redacted] called in a few days later (10 June 2015), he stated that he was not going to pay the debt and believed that it could not be collected because the violations had occurred nearly 10 years ago.  He initially said he would take care of the debt, but that he would not submit payment to Progressive.  Later in the call he refused to pay thedebt altogether, stating then that he had already paid it.Now that we have a good address for Mr. [redacted] (pulled from the Revdex.com complaint documentation), we are mailing to him under separate cover, VOD documentation and other information provided to us from the creditor, the State of Utah.  Mr. [redacted] can contact Progressive once he has received the documentation to make arrangements to resolve the account.We regret that this consumer’s experience with our staff was not what we strive for.  The collection manager for that unit has been advised of the complaint and asked to review the call details with her staff members. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.Sincerely,/s/[redacted], Esq. Corporate Counsel

I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Mr. [redacted]. We received the complaint on/about 1 June 2015. Mr. [redacted] is disputing two collection notices he received regarding a City of Philadelphia obligation and asked for documentation regarding the details of the alleged...

obligations.Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant accounts.  Our staff placed the accounts in a verification of debt (“VOD”) hold and requested account detail and documentation from our client to share with Mr. [redacted].  Those materials were secured and were mailed out to the consumer on 3 June 2015.  Once he has had a chance to review them, we encourage him to contact our office to discuss the accounts and answer any further questions he may have. The account will remain in a VOD hold for a few more days to allow that review and follow up to take place.We found no issues on the account review as to how the account had been worked. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

To Whom It May Concern: Writer’s Direct Line: [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

To Whom It May Concern:I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding Mr. [redacted].  We received the documentation on/about 26 June 2015.  Mr. [redacted] states that he wants his employer to be provided with an updated amount/balance due on a debt that we...

have in our office.  He requests that this information be provided so that his ongoing administrative wage garnishment (“AWG”) will be promptly terminated once his balance has been paid. I apologize that this response is a day or so tardy.  I waited as long as I did so that I could hopefully provide Mr. [redacted] some positive response.Here is what we can determine from the information that is available to Progressive: The obligation at issue here involves defaulted student loan/loans that are being held by our client, the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”).  When voluntary arrangements were not set up, ED initiated AWG with the consumer’s employer. In the course of the garnishment, there was also an offset against the consumer’s federal benefit payment that significantly reduced the balance owed on the account.At about that time, Mr. [redacted] started calling our staff so that his employer could be advised of the updated balance; he didn’t want the AWG to continue to take money beyond what was actually owed. At some point, the consumer’s employer information was changed or updated, and according to our requirements on the account, we provided that updated information to ED. For reasons we simply cannot discern, ED’s system has not captured and updated the updated employer information. Consequently, each time Progressive requested that the employer be provided with a new letter advising of the updated balance, the letter from ED went to the former employer. As of yesterday, that was still the case. We are showing several letters that Progressive requested having been sent by ED to the former employer.Mr. [redacted]’s balance is nearly resolved, and assuming there is no additional amounts added to the balance by ED, we anticipate that in fact, within a very short period of time, he will have satisfied the balance on the account. Yesterday our staff obtained a secured fax number from Mr. [redacted]’s current employer. While only ED can issue an updated balance notice to the consumer’s current employer, Progressive can, on behalf of ED, notify the employer than an AWG is to be terminated or suspended due to circumstances on the account (such as satisfaction of the balance).  Our AWG unit has this account flagged so that when the balance goes to zero, Progressive can immediately fax to his new employer a request to suspend/terminate the AWG.  Once that request is processed by his current employer, there should be no further garnishment deductions. 2We apologize that Mr. [redacted]’s reasonable request to have his employer notified of an updated balance has been so difficult to accomplish.  Our staff consistently has been responsive to his requests, but ED’s system issues caused delays that, unfortunately, Progressive was unable to resolve.  We appreciate Mr. [redacted]’s diligence and patience in following up with Progressive.Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.Sincerely,[redacted], Esq. Corporate Counsel

Review: I'm trying to get a credit dispute taken care of and they refuse to help. A statement was sent to me stating that I had supposedly opened a cable account on 6/19/08. However, I was currently in [redacted] complete ing basic training for the US Army from 3/2008-2/2009. I have called numerous times to dispute this and let them know this is identity theft. I was enlisted military during that time in [redacted].Desired Settlement: I want this off my credit report immediately. I DID NOT open this account.

Business

Response:

To Whom It May Concern: Writer’s Direct Line: [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

Review: I have recently made a settlement with this company in June 2015. I have been fulfilling my payments on time, as they extract them from my account on a specific date. My final payment is due September. However, since I made the settlement they continue to call me and ask me for money. They have also called me before my payment due date asking why I can't at least okay $25 towards the $155 I am expected to pay in a few days.I am also receiving additional calls from this business (same telephone number) stating my payments will end and will be going to waste if I don't pay the remainder of the balance.Desired Settlement: I would like the company to stop contacting me about the money, and correctly report to the credit bureau that my account is paid in full.

Business

Response:

See attached response.

Review: Progressive contacted me by phone regarding a debt that they were trying to collect on. I notified them that they had the wrong person, and asked that the cease contacting me. I did not document when those phone calls were occurring, however they were some months ago. Once the calls stopped, I figured the matter was resolved. However on February 19th, a Wage Garnishment Order was received by my employer...once again for this person they were claiming was me.

I feel that this is harassment. They were notified that they had the wrong person, and yet escalated the issue to a Wage Garnishment Order months after their last phone call to me.Desired Settlement: If Progressive has good reason to believe that I am responsible for this debt, mail me the documents that make you believe that. Since I never took any student loans, I know you will have a very hard time producing such documentation.

Stop all other communication with me and with this address, and record that I dispute having any obligation for this debt.

If you stop your collection of this debt, and forward or return it to another company, you must indicate to them that it is disputed and include this letter with the file.

If you report it to a credit bureau (or have already done so), you must also report that the debt is disputed.

Business

Response:

Dispute Resolution Consultant Revdex.com [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 4 March 2015. [redacted] claims he is being garnished for a debt that is not his. He states that he notified Progressive several months ago that he was not the correct person named on the account when we spoke with him by phone. My apologies for the delay in getting this response out – we have been trying to reach the consumer’s place of employment to re-verify that the account holder’s unique identifying information matches the employee against whom the wage garnishment order was issued. Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant account. Contrary to his allegation, our records indicate that we have never called the number that [redacted] lists as his primary number (ending in [redacted]); nor are we showing any conversation with him or anyone else who shares the name of the borrower but who disavows the debt. Furthermore, when we contacted this consumer’s place of employment and asked for a person who could verify employment, that person confirmed that someone by that name worked for the company and she verified that the social security number (the full number we have on the account was queried) was indeed the same social security number that was assigned to the [redacted] who worked at that company. Based on that verification process, and having been unable to establish contact with [redacted] to set up voluntary repayment arrangements, Progressive concluded its administrative wage garnishment (AWG) checklist and notified our client, the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”) that the account was ready for garnishment. ED sent out a “notice prior” letter to the consumer at the end of December 2014. When that notice prior (advising the consumer about his right to seek a review/appeal of the AWG) did not result in any contact from the consumer, ED issued the AWG order to his employer. [redacted] had an ongoing obligation to keep the Department of Education appraised of his address and phone number. Apparently that did not happen because all of our attempts to reach him were made to a mailing address that is not his current address (based on his disclosure in the Revdex.com complaint). Nor did Progressive have his current phone number on the file (also provided in the Revdex.com complaint documentation). We believe, therefore, that the notice prior letter may not have reached him either. Progressive has started a process to give this consumer an opportunity to dispute the wage garnishment order. While we are trying to re-verify the data on the account against the employer’s data, we have also requested that ED allow the garnishment order to be temporarily suspended so that Mr. _______________________________________________________________________________ [redacted] can reach out to our staff to speak to them by phone and try to sort this out. This will be a very limited opportunity (30-days) for this consumer to contact Progressive to discuss his account before the garnishment order is reinstated. He should call our AWG unit at [redacted] or [redacted] are familiar with his file and can assist. Again, however, this consumer must take the initiative and make the call to discuss the account with our staff and do so at his earliest convenience. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, /s/ [redacted] Corporate Counsel

Consumer

Response:

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. We have spoken and they now understand that they have the wrong person, and they will no longer contact me.

Regards,

Review: see Attached documentDesired Settlement: see Attached document

Business

Response:

To Whom It May Concern:I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint regarding [redacted]. Wereceived the complaint on/about 20 August 2015. [redacted] complained that the verification of debtthat was provided was insufficient and he denied being the person who received the services from ourclient, [redacted]. He was also concerned about being credit reported for a debt he deniesbelongs to him.Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant account belonging tothis consumer. We communicated his concerns to our client and they requested that we send theconsumer a “fraud packet” and then close and return the account to them. That has been done. Theenclosed document was sent to [redacted] under separate cover today. As can be seen, he has beenprovided the fraud documentation that [redacted] has asked him to complete. In addition, ourstaff confirmed that there no longer is any negative trade line information on his credit report regardingthis account. Reports from all three major credit reporting agencies were provided to [redacted] todayas well.Please let me know if I can be of further assistance