Product: Debt collection

Detailed Description of the Dispute Background & Scope of Work On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX request to locate underground utilities in preparation for a XXXX  drain installation at my property : Project Scope : A water management system was installed intending to redirect water from my downspout to prevent flooding. 
Excavation Compliance : A valid utility locate request was filed on XX/XX/XXXX. 
Excavation began within the valid locate period ( XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ). 
Hand digging was used within the XXXX tolerance zone, if applicable, as required by law and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

System Design & Safety Measures : Minnesota Fuel and Gas Code XXXX mandates a minimum burial depth of XXXX inches for gas lines. 
Selected catch basins had an XXXX overall depth, compatible with XXXX corrugated drain tile, maintaining an overall excavation depth of XXXX inches. 
An XXXX shovel was used to excavate by hand to prevent digging deeper than the expected utility depth. 

Despite following all proper safety protocols, a buried gas service line was damaged on XX/XX/XXXX during excavation. Emergency services were contacted, and XXXX XXXX was notified immediately. 
During the damage investigation XXXX XXXX representative stated that I should not expect to receive a claim of damage, given that excavation was performed following safe practices. 

Interaction with The Claims Center LLC On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a demand letter from The Claims Center LLC, acting on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX, claiming I owed {$5500.00} for the damage. 

Dispute & Unsubstantiated Claims of Negligence I formally disputed the claim, citing my compliance with excavation safety procedures and requesting documentation to substantiate liability. 
I specifically requested : Clarification and documentation proving my negligence. A XXXX damage report was provided siting " failure to expose utility within tolerance zone '' as the root cause of damage. However, this report failed to provide : The method of root cause investigation used. 
The tools used to determine the utilitys location and their calibration status. 
Measurements of the utilitys actual burial depth to confirm whether improper depth was a contributing factor. 
Any verifiable data proving that I was negligent in my excavation practices. 
The claim of negligence remains unsubstantiated. 
A breakdown of charges ( labor, equipment, material, gas loss ). 
Justification for costs including : quantity and duration of laborers assigned to the repair. Justification for charges for specialized equipment that was never used. 
Despite repeated follow-ups, The Claims Center failed to provide complete documentation justifying the claim. 

Threat of collection without proper notice On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from The Claims Center LLC dated XX/XX/XXXX, stating that the matter would be sent to collections if payment was not remitted within 10 days. This letter was received after the 10-day period had already expired, leaving me no opportunity to respond before the collections threat was issued. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I was contacted by XXXX XXXX XXXX, a third-party debt collector, now attempting to collect the same amount ( {$5500.00} ). This initial communication was missing critical information, failing to meet legal requirements and protect my rights under the Fair Debt Collection Procurement Act. 

A formal letter of dispute has been send on XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX. 


Violations of Federal and State Debt Collection Laws 1. Failure to Provide Right to Dispute Notice ( 15 U.S. Code 1692g ) Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) ( 3-5 ), a debt collector must notify consumers of their right to dispute the debt in writing within five days of the initial contact. 

XXXX never provided this legally required notice in their XX/XX/XXXX, communication. 
This omission is a direct violation of the FDCPA and deprives me of my right to proper dispute procedures. 
XXXX. Failure to Include Licensing Disclosure ( MN Statute 332.37 ( 23 ) ) Under Minnesota law, all debt collection agencies must clearly disclose their licensing status in communications to consumers. The required statement is : " This collection agency is licensed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. ", or equivalent statement. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX did not include this disclosure in any of their communications. 
This is a violation of Minnesota debt collection laws and misleads consumers about XXXX compliance with state regulations. 

Relevant documentation is attached. Full history of email correspondence is available upon request.