Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

The debt in question is in the amount of {$2100.00} and arose from a lease agreement with XXXX XXXX XXXX which ended XX/XX/year>. Due to uninhabitable and unsafe living conditions, I had no choice but to vacate the property at the end of my lease, despite initially intending to renew. Specifically : XXXX XXXX XXXX allowed a felon to reside in close proximity to my unit. They had knowledge that the tenants parents rented the apartment for him because he was unable to rent due to their policy of no felons being able to live in the complex. As the sole caregiver of a young child, I was alarmed by the risks this individual posed to our safety. I also had to file several noise complaints related to another tenant that lived next door to my unit, as the tenants disruptive behavior consistently violated local noise ordinances, further deteriorating the living environment. 

The apartment suffered from a hive of carpenter ants, with large numbers gathering around my windows and spreading throughout my bedroom. The infestation was so severe that the windows were nearly obscured, and my child and I were forced to sleep with our heads under the covers to avoid exposure. Despite repeated requests for maintenance to address this issue, the problem persisted, making the apartment uninhabitable. 

The carpeting in my unit had not been properly secured. Unlike carpets in other apartments, mine was not tacked down, causing it to shed excessively. Although I requested repairs, XXXX XXXX XXXX attempted to charge me for carpet damage upon my departure, despite the fact that the issue was a maintenance oversight from the outset. At the time I moved in they cleaned the carpet because it smelled like smoke in the apartment yet the apartments are non-smoking units. The carpet was never new. 

I have documented evidence, including emails, detailing my complaints and requests for repairs regarding the ant infestation, the carpeting, and noise disturbances. XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to resolve these conditions, breaching their duty to provide a habitable and safe living environment. Due to these conditions, I was unable to continue living there and should not be held responsible for the disputed charges related to my move-out. 

Upon discovering that ProCollect reported this debt as an open account on my credit report, I immediately requested debt validation and re-investigation. Despite my ongoing dispute and evidence of uninhabitable conditions, ProCollect failed to conduct a complete or reasonable investigation and instead relied solely on information provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX, disregarding my documentation and concerns. They also failed to do a re-investigation when I asked. 

This is a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) of the FCRA, ProCollect has a legal duty to conduct a reasonable investigation upon notice of a dispute. This responsibility requires more than a simple confirmation from the original creditor ; it demands a genuine and thorough review of the facts. In my case, ProCollect ignored critical evidence related to unsafe and uninhabitable conditions and merely repeated XXXX XXXX Apartments information without an independent evaluation. ProCollects rubber-stamping of this information violates the FCRAs standard for accuracy and completeness in credit reporting. Furthermore, ProCollects reporting lacks transparency, as they failed to disclose XXXX XXXX XXXX as the original creditor on my current credit report. It is listed as a debt owed to them and states the original creditor is not available. This omission deprives me of the ability to fully understand the debts origin and to address the matter accurately. 

This is also a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 15 U.S.C. 1692e and 1692g. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692e of the FDCPA, ProCollect is prohibited from misrepresenting the character, amount, or legal status of any debt. By mischaracterizing this disputed debt as an ongoing open account, ProCollect has violated the statute by falsely implying a recurring obligation where none exists. The FDCPA also mandates in 15 U.S.C. 1692g that debt collectors notify consumers within five days of first contact, informing them of their right to dispute the debt. I did not receive any notification from ProCollect when they began collection activities ; instead, I discovered the account on my credit report. This failure deprived me of the right to contest the debt at an early stage.

It is a violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ( FCCPA ) Florida Statutes 559.72 ( 9 ). Under Florida Statutes 559.72 ( 9 ), it is unlawful for debt collectors to attempt to enforce a debt they know is disputed, especially when there is substantial evidence that the debt may be unjustified. ProCollect has disregarded my numerous communications about the uninhabitable conditions that led to my departure, demonstrating a willful disregard for the legitimacy of this debt. ProCollects attempts to enforce collection and report inaccurate information are clear violations of the FCCPA, which protects Florida residents from deceptive and unfair practices. 

The ongoing reporting of this debt has caused significant harm to my credit, financial stability, and peace of mind. ProCollects failure to conduct a lawful, thorough re-investigation has compounded this harm by allowing inaccurate, disputed information to persist on my credit report. My ability to make informed financial decisions and protect my credit standing has been jeopardized by ProCollects disregard for both my evidence and applicable consumer protection laws