Product: Debt collection

( XXXX XXXX ) obtained a copy of his XXXX credit report following an application that was denied by the federal government for an educational loan to verify the reasons why this had taken place. XXXX examined the report and proceeded to contact the collection agency doing business on his credit profile with the major credit reporting bureaus ( XXXX, XXXX and XXXX ) on or about XX/XX/2023 understood to him as XXXX  XXXX XXXX, with the contact displayed on his respective reports as : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX  XXXX and phone number XXXX, via the respective phone number detailed herein. This collection agency stated that a debt is owed to a lending agency XXXX alleged contracted with, and that the debt amount was negotiable, yet still asserted on his report at the amount detailed on his reports with the major credit bureaus as {$640.00}. XXXX did not agree that he owed this creditor any money at all, and that the amount was not accurate nor owed in any capacity and that the whole dollar amount of the debt borrowed from XXXX XXXX had been satisfied through a longstanding and verifiable payment history. XXXX asked the collection agency on or about XX/XX/2023 to please cease all collection efforts and reporting until the debt validation documents were provided, reviewed and considered in the face of the assertions being made on his credit profile with the three major credit bureaus displaying this collection account, considered to be a valid debt amount and factual information, which it is not. This is a speculative, hypothetical dollar amount with a tribal quality lender that is not enforceable, valid, nor does it align with any kind of factual contractual obligation entered into by both parties. For this reason XXXX has disputed this information with all three major credit reporting agencies for displaying and purporting an inaccurate debt that is not based on any tangible legal instrument that can uphold a debt owed by the consumer to this collection agency and respective merchant where XXXX was at XXXX point in real contractual lending relationship. The actual debt undertaken by XXXX with XXXX XXXX, the lending agency was originally {$500.00}, which is less than the amount being asserted by the collection agency on behalf of the lender merchant against his credit profile with the XXXX major credit bureaus. This collection agency and lending merchant at issue herein are asserting that XXXX, despite making on time payments which have satisfied the amount borrowed is still in debt to the company for more than the original amount, based upon no tangible agreement entered into by either party, but merely because they feel this amount is owed to them for some unapparent reason they have refused to comply with when asked for by XXXX XXXX or about XX/XX/2023, when XXXX asked numerous questions concerning the debt asserted against him on his credit profiles with the XXXX major credit reporting bureaus. There is no way to validate this debt, as it is a tribal quality lender asserting inaccurate information against his credit profiles with the three major credit bureaus, in an attempt to extort him of money with no legitimate factual or contractual means in doing so. This is an abuse of his personal information afforded to the lending merchant and respective collection agency afforded to them given the personal nature of the information provided to them when XXXX initiated and accepted a loan by and through XXXX XXXX, where a tangible agreement was coalesced and entered into, where now it is no longer enforceable and the amounts owed and claimed on his credit profile with the three major credit reporting bureaus is inaccurate and an abuse against his federal legal consumer rights.