Sauer's Milford Marathon

04 November 2015Dispute Resolution ConsultantRevdex.com of Central/Northern Arizona4428 N. 12th StreetPhoenix, AZ 85014 Writer’s Direct Line: ###-###-####Writer’s Direct Fax Line: ###-###-#### e-mail:  [redacted]@progressivefinancial.com Re: Complaint # [redacted]Our Acct. No....

[redacted]Navient Ref. No. [redacted]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 October 2015.  Ms. [redacted] claims that Progressive does not contract with Navient to collect loans on their behalf; that Navient does not garnish wages; and that “studentloans take your taxes, not your wages.”Promptly upon receipt of the complaint, Progressive located the relevant account belonging to this consumer. We are not sure who the consumer spoke to at Navient, but if she was told that Progressive does not contract with Navient for student loan collections, they were mistaken.  Progressive works two types of portfolios for Navient – private student loans, and federally guaranteed student loans. The loan about which Progressive contacted this consumer is a federally guaranteed student loan, and Navient (NELA) is a guarantor agency handling the loan.  The consumer’s account was placed with Progressive in mid to late July, 2015 by Navient/NELA because the loan had fallen into default.  Our task was to contact the consumer and work with her to try to establish a voluntary repayment plan to get the loan out of default. If voluntary arrangements could not be completed, the account could be identifiedfor involuntary collection measures available to the guarantor agency via the High Education Act and its corresponding regulations.  Among the involuntary measures available to Navient/NELA and frequently employed by them is administrative wage garnishment (AWG).More than 60 days into our working the account, we finally reached the consumer on the phone. Our staff had several conversations with her in late September and those conversations centered on a voluntary repayment method known as rehabilitation. Under a rehab arrangement, the consumer makes a series of on-time monthly payments over a 9-10 month period.  After those payments have been made pursuant to the rehab agreement the consumer signs, the defaulted loans are refinanced and the consumer’s loan comes out of default with the issuance of a new loan.  There are other tangible benefitsto rehabilitation as well and we frequently set consumers up on this path to getting their loans current again.  The consumer was told that failure to get the account into a qualifying repayment arrangement could result in Navient/NELA moving forward with involuntary collection measures, including AWG. She was informed, as well, that AWG would likely result in more money being garnished out of her pay that the voluntary payments that were being discussed for the rehab repayment plan. The consumer agreed to submit the required paperwork so that a qualifying payment could be established.  On/about 7 October 2015, our staff spoke to the consumer, verified that the monthly

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

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]

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