Sauer's Milford Marathon

[redacted] 871 Barnaby ST. SEWashington, DC 20032Progressive Financial Services Attention: Barbara A. H[redacted]Tempe, AZ 85285RE: Response to Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted]/ Acct.#[redacted]Dear Ms. H[redacted],Thank you for your timely response. I never stated in my validation letter that have not done business with [redacted]s but that I never done business with your company directly (see attachment) as your company is the one who is reporting on my credit report not [redacted]s. And after two requests I am just now receiving a VOD packet from your company to one of my residences in which I received on June 27th .I also never received any correspondence dated June 17th regarding how to go about filing a fraud claim with [redacted]s. In fact the VOD packet I just received dated 06-23-16 (see attachment) stated that your company will be mailing me a claim form since you could not provide me with the original agreement between me and the creditor in which I request in my validation letter. After thoroughly reviewing the VOD packet which consisted of screen shots of the account activity from [redacted] systems it does not validate that I owe your agency directly the debt in which you are reporting on my credit report. I was expecting to receive official proof of documentation from [redacted]s that they had personally assigned this account to your agency for payment. I've contacted [redacted]s again on January 29th  (twice) in reference to this account, and their Billing & Finance Dept. both times have stated that this account was written-off on 12/24/10 and the account reflects  a $0 balance. And as you can see in the document your company sent me (see attachment) which is the very last statement in the VOD packet it states the very same thing that [redacted]s had discuss with me. [redacted]s did state that your agency is 1 of 3 agencies they do work with. However, this account during its collection period was assigned to another collection agency in which [redacted] agreed at my request to send me a copy of all statements regarding this account and proof of the agency they had  assigned to this account during that time. Another thing that stood out was the timeline from when the account was closed by [redacted] and the time you stated Ms. H[redacted] that your agency was assigned the  account which was 11 months after [redacted] closed the account. In which leaves more questions regarding this account with your company.I am once again for the last time demanding for this account to be resolved and removed immediately from all three credit bureaus or I will proceed with next step according to state and federal law. As the VOD packet your company sent does not state or validate proof of documentation from [redacted]s that they assigned this account over to your agency directly to collect on their behalf. Furthermore, the documents you provided in your VOD packet clearly shows the account statement reporting as a current balance of $0 with [redacted]s.I respectfully look forward in response in resolving this matter quickly and not letting it proceed further in legal matters then what it needs to be.Thank you! Miss. [redacted]

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

Their claim is not correct. I have several calls from this company from 3 different phone numbers. They are listing only one number in their reply. I have 5 messages on my answering machine from them. I do get mail for an Elizabeth Olson but one does not live here at this address. I have been having issue with this problem since moving in 3 years ago. I have to keep changing my phone number because of this issue also. Their trace of this person is wrong.

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 filed by Ms. [redacted]. We received the complaint on/about 31 March 2017. Ms. [redacted] disputes information on her credit report and wants the trade line involving a debt owed to Cox Communication removed. She claims that...

the “open date” of January 23, 2107 is inaccurate since she has had Verizon for the past 2 years. Promptly upon receipt, we located the relevant account. We believe Ms. [redacted] is misreading the information on her credit report regarding the above-referenced debt. The“Date Opened” information is the date that the account was placed with Progressive for collection efforts. The “FCRA DOFD” is listed as 03.06.2015 – that is the “date of first delinquency” – when Cox first listed the account as delinquent. Ms. [redacted] disputed the debt via the credit bureaus (CBR), and Progressive received that dispute from the CBR on/about 21 March 2017. The form lists the due date for our response as 4-14-17 – under the FCRA, the data furnisher has 30 days from the date of the dispute to conduct a reasonable investigation and notify the consumer of the results of the investigation.Progressive is still within that window to finish our investigation and send the consumer information about her dispute. According to the notes on the account, our staff currently is working on pulling verification of debt (VOD) documentation regarding the balance on the account. We anticipate having those materials mailed out to her within the 30-day window noted above. In addition, we have marked the trade line as “disputed” on her credit report. While we are investigating the dispute, the account in our office is in a VOD hold – and collection efforts are suspended until we can mail out the VOD and provide her ample time to receive and review those materials. Once she has those materials, she may contact our staff if she has further questions or wishes to take care of the balance on the account. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

See attached letter containing Progressive's response.

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 enclosure.  Complaint filed in error against our company.

Re: Complaint # [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: 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

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.

See attached response.

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 15 September 2016. Ms. [redacted] thinks thatProgressive’s attempt to collect on a debt that dates back to 1996 is illegal because the statuteof limitations has...

run. She asked not to be contacted again about the account and wantsassurance that it won’t appear on her credit report.Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, we found the associated account for thisconsumer. In looking at the account details, we reviewed the recording of an inbound phonecall from Ms. [redacted] that took place on 13 September 2016. During that call our agentindicated that the debt dated back to 1996 and was recently placed with Progressive from[redacted]. The consumer stated that Progressive could not collect on that billbecause of its age. Our agent (correctly) informed the consumer that there is no “statute oflimitations” on Progressive’s efforts to get the consumer to voluntary resolve the debt. Theconsumer disagreed.The consumer misunderstands the meaning of “out of statute.” A debt that is “out ofstatute” cannot be collected by means of a lawsuit – the statute runs on the ability of thecreditor to bring a lawsuit against the consumer for repayment of a debt. The statute oflimitations does not restrict Progressive from trying to voluntarily collect that debt from thisArizona resident notwithstanding that the statute has run on that obligation.The consumer mentioned on the phone and in her complaint that she did not wantthe debt reported on her credit report. Generally, credit reporting can take place for up to 7years from the date of first delinquency for the debt. Without getting into the specifics of theaccount, the debt in question, dating back to a 1996 delinquency, would not be reported tothe credit bureaus – even though Progressive does report permissible accounts to the creditreporting agencies for [redacted] for allowable periods of time. This account fellout – being nearly 20 years old – and would not have been credit reported. Furthermore,Progressive does not report debt to the credit bureaus that is less than $50. The consumer’saccount balance was less than $30, so for that additional reason, it would not have beencredit reported. All that said, the debt in question is a valid debt owed to [redacted].Nevertheless, the consumer indicated that she was refusing to pay that valid debt, and wouldnot update her address with the agent when asked to do so. Accordingly, because of herrefusal to pay as well as because of this Revdex.com complaint, the account is in a “cease and desist”status. It will be closed and returned to [redacted], and no further efforts will be made byProgressive to collect on the account. The decision to send the account back to [redacted] does not,however, eliminate the obligation. If the consumer wishes to resolve this long overdueobligation, we encourage her to contact [redacted] directly to do so.Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

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.

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

To Whom It May Concern: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]. We received the complaint on/about 7 April 2017. Mr. [redacted] states that the negative trade line that Progressive posted on behalf of our client, Cox Communication, is “incorrect information.” He...

does not elaborate about why the information is false, however. He wants the tradeline off his credit report. Promptly upon receipt, we located the relevant account. We see that on/about 24 March 2017,Progressive received a dispute from this consumer regarding the trade line. He sent the dispute via the credit bureaus (CBR). The dispute stated that the wanted documentation about the account balance and the creditor to whom the debt is owed. We believe that Mr. [redacted] may be looking at a partial trade line(the type pushed out by “free” services such as Credit Karma). The full trade line that can be viewed by going to the bureaus directly lists the debt as owing to Cox Communication. Promptly upon receipt of his CBR dispute, our staff caused the trade line to be updated to “disputed” status. Furthermore, we are today sending out to the consumer a packet of verification of debt (VOD)documentation from Cox. The account is in a temporary VOD hold while those materials are being mailed. The account will remain on hold for several more days to give Mr. [redacted] time to receive and review the VOD that is being sent. Once he has those materials, he may contact our staff if he has further questions or wishes to take care of the balance on the account. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

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.

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.

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: I have been asked to respond to the above-referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]. We received the complaint on/about 13 March 2017. Mr. [redacted] is frustrated about the terms under which he is repaying his defaulted federally guaranteed student loan that was placed in our...

office for collections by the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”). He attributes the various rules/regulations that govern the repayment options which Progressive is bound to follow, to Progressive not being willing to negotiate terms more favorable for him. He claims that the intentional recalcitrance by Progressive is designed to force borrowers into administrative wage garnishment (“AWG”). He wants his money back that has been garnished over the past several years and wants to deal “directly” with the federal government. Promptly upon receipt, we located the relevant account. The account was placed with Progressive in October 2012 by ED. Progressive is bound by a host of conditions and guidelines that ED has in place regarding what programs and repayment means/methods (voluntary and involuntary) are available for Progressive to offer to a borrower in default. What this consumer is frustrated about and what he attributes as Progressive being purposefully uncooperative is,rather, Progressive following the rules imposed on the process by ED. A brief history of the account since it has been in our office is helpful to explain where the borrower currently is in the repayment process. After attempts to get the account into voluntary repayment arrangements were unsuccessful, Progressive located the consumer’s employer and verified that the borrower was currently employed. These are initial steps to prepare the file for ED to impose an involuntary administrative wage garnishment (AWG) order. Before doing so,however, the consumer was notified about ED’s intent to start involuntary AWG. A notice of proposed wage garnishment was mailed to the consumer’s address on file. That correspondence, dated 15 February 2013, gave the consumer notice that he had 30 days to get his account into qualifying voluntary arrangements and/or request a hearing (“RFH”) to“appeal” the decision to move forward with AWG. He failed to set up voluntary repayment arrangements, and his request for a hearing (appeal) was not timely (received 4.2.13). In the meantime, the AWG garnishment order was already in the pipeline, and on 18 April 2013, ED notified the consumer’s employer that they were to initiate wage garnishment to resolve the balance of the account. Following ED’s review of Mr. [redacted]’s RFH and his income/expense documentation, ED granted him a financial hardship and lowered his monthly garnishment amount due from$286.43/month to $179.06 per month. The consumer has been making those AWG payments(via weekly payroll deduction) since June 2013. In January 2015, the consumer contacted Progressive to ask about (1) his IRS Form 1098 for interest paid; and (2) why he was certified for offset by the federal government if he is making payments via AWG. Our staff told him that if the Treasury Offset Program has been notified that he has a debt (defaulted loan, for example)owed to the federal government, any federal benefit (including a tax refund) is subject to offset to repay the debt. Furthermore, he was told that offsets are typically authorized if the debt is in default – regardless of whether he is making voluntary or involuntary payments. The next substantive communication we had with the consumer was in earlier in March of this year. Two e-mails and their responses are attached to this response. During a phone call with the consumer on 8 March 2017, our agent explained to the consumer that he had to be out of default to stop offsets due to the defaulted student loan; and she explained that if he could get set up on a rehabilitation program and successfully complete the various steps, he could be out of default in 9-10 months. She explained, however, that any rehab payment (1) would have to be made on top of the garnishment payment – but that after 5 timely qualifying rehab payments, he would be eligible for the AWG to stop; and (2) that after completing the 9/10-month program,he would have a new loan and the old account would be out of default. She explained that to calculate the proper payment, she would need him to submit current financial information. ED requires that all such calculations be based on relatively new/current financial information. The information he supplied in 2002/2013 would not be current enough. While the agent was explaining this, the consumer hung up without getting details as to what he needed to submit or how to submit the information. Furthermore, during the call he had revoked permission for Progressive to call him on his cell phone, so Progressive has not been able to reach out to him by phone to finish the conversation. The program requirements to rehabilitate the loan are ED requirements; Progressive is simply following the rules that ED requires Progressive to follow. The ED staff in our office has asked that we encourage the consumer to call in again and to take the time to learn about what new information is needed for Progressive to calculate what the monthly rehab payment would be. Depending on a consumer’s financial information, ED can set qualifying monthly payments as low as $5/month. While we cannot say that Mr. [redacted]’s payments will be that low, we believe it would be to his benefit to submit the required information so the amount can be calculated. Nothing binds him to do the rehabilitation program after the calculation is complete, but at least he would know what the requirements would be. Again, though, since he has revoked our permission to call him, he must initiate the call and complete the steps needed for our staff to be able to calculate the qualifying payment and assist him to get (1) out of AWG status; and hopefully (2) out of default. In sum, Progressive has been following the particular guidelines that ED imposes in our dealings and communications with this consumer. Our staff has not been unethical as he alleges. We remain committed to assist Mr. [redacted] with his desire to get his loan out of default so that the garnishment and the federal offsets can be stopped. He needs to contact our office and supply the requested current financial information so that our staff can assist him in determining what the qualifying rehabilitation payments would be. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.