Product: Debt collection

My husband and I lived in XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX until the spring of XXXX and were co-lessors during our time in the building. XXXX XXXX XXXX parent company, XXXX, contacted us in the spring of XXXX  about what they claimed was an outstanding balance on our account. This was our first interaction with XXXX employees rather than their local building managers, which we felt was suspicious and out of the ordinary from our experience. This was red flag # 1. 

Throughout more than 18-months of conversations where we were engaged and transparent with them, XXXX accounting contact ( XXXX XXXX XXXX also repeatedly insisted that we correspond via phone instead of writing. This was red flag # 2. 

Considering those red flags and our correspondences with XXXX local building managers that confirmed we didnt have an outstanding balance at move-out, we felt a multi-billion-dollar company like XXXX could only be raising this relatively insignificant balance ( {$160.00} ) in a bet we would just pay it. We have remained adamant, with evidence to support our position, that we dont owe the balance. 

After more than 18 months of stalemate discussions on the phone, during which XXXX provided us with no documentation to validate the debt or contradict our supporting evidence, they apparently became fed up and sent the matter to Columbia/Genesis in fall XXXX for collections action. Comically, that validating documentation we requested would later come from Columbia/Genesis and include the type of discrepancies we expected. 

My now-husband and I are both named separately in ongoing collection efforts, which is why we have filed individual complaints with the CFPB citing the same issues/activities/practices of XXXX and its collections partner Columbia/Genesis XXXX We maintain there are at least two glaring problems with the past due balance XXXX and Columbia/Genesis allege we owe. Either of these arguments which have been completely, repeatedly, and recklessly ignored when weve raised them on our own should sufficiently invalidate the disputed balance individually. Together, they demonstrate a culture of operational laziness and generally reckless business practices, along with a willingness to weaponize the credit system to extort consumers. 

1 ) The first issue is clear as day, and an obvious violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The sum Columbia/Genesis are attempting to collect on XXXX behalf blatantly exceeds the 30-day notice clause within our lease for month-to-month rentals, which we were at that time. XXXX own documentation provided to us by Columbia/Genesis as validation of debt ( attachment A under lease information on page 1 ) establishes that we provided notice to building management on XX/XX/XXXX. That same document reflects a move out date of XX/XX/XXXX, which was never agreed upon or discussed with us. How they came up with this date is beyond us, and our move-out date was confirmed by the local property managers as XX/XX/XXXX ( attachment B ). That move-out date also happens to be exactly 30 days after our initial notice, when considering the one day of notice in XXXX and the 29 days in XXXX during the XXXX XXXX XXXX Regardless of whether Columbia/Genesis and XXXX arXXXX inclusive of our notice on XXXX XXXX they are unapologetically and ruthlessly pursuing us for  either 31 or 32 days of advance notice both of which are misleading, excessive and might as well be arbitrary. 

As such, we maintain that our final rent payment for the month of XX/XX/XXXX was sufficient in meeting the financial responsibilities stipulated within our lease agreement. 

Even more infuriating, weve made repeated attempts to alert Columbia/Genesis of the inaccuracy all of which have been ignored and met with hostility in return. On a recorded line, one Columbia/Genesis representative told us that XXXX is our customer Its their decision, and your dispute has been forwarded for their feedback. Such passive inaction not only abuses Columbia/Genesis credit reporting privileges, but also fails to meet the investigative duty outlined in the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act. 

Since then, Columbia/Genesis have repeatedly and knowingly continued to misrepresent the balance they claim we owe first in our initial notice from Columbia/Genesis, then in their response to our formal dispute through Columbia/XXXX then subsequently in multiple email and phone correspondences that followed. Most recently, Columbia/Genesis further validated the debt in response to our disputes filed with the XXXX and XXXX credit bureaus ( Items C and D as examples ). Those disputes were dismissed because of Columbia/Genesis validation of the debt, which anyone that can count up-to the number XXXX on a XXXX calendar ( XXXX XXXX ) will recognize is wholly inaccurate. This situation is now a scar on both of our credit scores, while Columbia/Genesis/XXXX insistence of validity undermined our one chance at a third-party appeal outside of court for their own financial benefit. 

2 ) In addition to the reckless misrepresentations outlined above, we also maintain Columbia/Genesis and XXXX efforts to collect this balance directly contradict written correspondence from XXXX own local property managers. Those individuals confirmed in writing that our account balance was settled in advance of our move-out date on XX/XX/XXXX ( please see item E ). Our next message from management was not until XX/XX/XXXX ( Items F & G ), which not only fails to mention any balance but also shows a disconnect in internal communication between managers. If XXXX 's own management team confirmed our account as having a XXXX balance upon move-out, which they did in their response and lack of subsequent follow-up as promised, then we believe XXXX  differing perspective represents an organizational issue that is entirely unrelated to us. XXXX 's choice of staff is an internal matter, regardless of how unqualified, disorganized or inexperienced those individuals are. Those personnel and training decisions, along with their impact on XXXX revenue, do not, and never should, involve us or other consumers footing the bill for their own mistakes. 

This saga has taken a massive and adverse toll on each of us, both financially and emotionally. We believe either of the issues above are valid and undermine the legitimacy of the balance in dispute on their own. Considering them in unison, we believe that any reasonable and impartial third party will agree that XXXX and Columbia/Genesis claim to the balance is invalid, excessive and unethical.