Product: Debt collection

** ( To : CFPB ) - Corrected Complaint : This second version corrects the typos and errors in the first one, added more comprehensive details & attachments. ** The co-tenant and I lived under XXXX XXXX XXXX for less than a year ( XX/XX/XXXX, to XX/XX/XXXX ). Aside from the landlords dismal and extremely ill-favored reputation and habitability controversies, I tried to make my move-out as professional as possible. 
On XX/XX/XXXX I walked into the main office of XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, CA XXXX ), with a witness by my side, to give my 30-Day Notice to Vacate in person, I had clearly typed out a properly written notice, signed and dated it, with explicit instructions to use my security deposit for the prorated rent as permitted by the lease. 
Once I handed my notice to the staff they didnt understand what I meant about the security deposit, so I reiterated it to them that due to controversies surrounding their trustworthiness I instructed them to use the security deposit as available funds for the prorated rent ( as the lease permits ), the manager stepped in and told me that I need to have a XXXX balancewhich I responded by explaining that I already paid that months rent and since it was still that month, there was a XXXX balance. So I gave them the Notice and I said this is my 30-Day Notice, the account is at a XXXX balance so you cant just refuse it so they said we accept it but it just wont be valid which to me sounded contradictory and strange so I told them That is my 30-Day Notice and I walked out. The next day they retaliated by leaving a three-day notice to quit or fix pertaining to their overflowing dumpster which we had nothing to do with. Subsequently we moved out that same week. 
At my new address I received a statement from the landlord which detailed a host of frivolous charges which I have a copy of, but the one charge that is most highly disputable is the carpet shampooing charge. I did not bother contacting the landlord as they are not good people and are exploitative. The statement highlights that no 30-days was given yet also says Notice given on XX/XX/XXXX which is both incorrect and contradictory. They drained the entire security deposit by failing to honor my properly-given ( and in-person ) 30-Day Notice. 
I was later contacted through mail by Kings Credit Services, detailing the same statement and a {$330.00} alleged debt. I have disputed this account and provided both a copy of the 30-Day Notice and the photographic evidence I have from the move-in and move-out pictures of the carpets from the old apartment which we left in a pristine condition. Where it is obvious there was no damage or soiling beyond normal wear and tear, and therefore doesnt merit extraordinary cleaning to warrant a charge. 
One troubling concern I have is with the debt collector, who according to their emails domain name ( XXXX ) states on the website that their California Collection License is pending which makes me question if their tactics are even legal and Ive since demanded proof of their credentials and licensure. 
The debt collector has failed to communicate in good faith and violated my rights by leading me to think the alleged debt was a disputed account until I checked my credit report on XX/XX/XXXX which states that a report of a collection/charge-off account was made on XX/XX/XXXX, it even raised the value from {$330.00} to {$350.00}, and with the account status being labeled as derogatory ( a negative account ). This I believe violates FCRA since I was never notified by the debt collector of this change and override of the dispute, the deception and underhanded actions is appalling. The debt collector has failed to resolve and close this dispute and has proven to not be competent in giving me fair notice of a negative report, deceptively and wrongfully damaging my credit report which has resulted in financial XXXX and stress. They have also been very inconsistent and inactive in their responses to my demands, and the dishonesty of creating a derogatory report on my credit report without my knowledge is unacceptable and a violation of my rights as a consumer.