Product: Debt collection

I agreed to receive XXXX services based on the amount I was told I would be responsible for AFTER insurance.Three months after services were rendered to me, I was informed by the same XXXX  office manager that my insurance did not cover the estimated 56 % of the services received, and that I had to pay more than what I was initially told. 

I disputed this charge with both the XXXX office manager as well as the debt collecting agency, however, no action was taken by either parties. 

Furthermore, just recently I received a Notice to Judgement Debtor letter from my job, regarding an order to garnish my checks.I was not aware of the judgement let alone garnishment up until one week before the first garnished check. 

Here are some dates and names regarding my story : Date of services ( from above ) : XX/XX/XXXX Verbal agreement for the cost of services after insurance : 3 payments of {$150.00} Actual cost for services : XXXX {$1000.00} plus {$240.00} for " XXXX XXXX XXXX ''. Total : {$1300.00} ( see attached document for more details ) Estimated insurance coverage for this service : {$610.00} plus {$140.00}. Total : {$760.00} ( see attached document for more details ) Actual insurance coverage : {$62.00} plus {$90.00}. Total : {$150.00} ( see attached document for more details ) Name of business where services were received : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX Date of initial attempt for XXXX XXXX XXXXl to collect alleged debt : Approximately XX/XX/XXXX Date of initial dispute with XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding the alleged debt : Approximately XX/XX/XXXX Name of debt collection agency my account was sold to : National Account Systems ( NAS ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX Date of initial dispute with NAS : XX/XX/XXXX Date of second dispute with current debt collector : XX/XX/XXXX Date when judgement was brought to my attention : XX/XX/XXXX Date when garnishment started : XX/XX/XXXX Amount allegedly owed : {$910.00} plus attorney fee {$96.00} and court cost : {$90.00}. Total amount subject to be garnished : {$1000.00} ( at 25 % of biweekly earnings ). 


I believe there are two major violations of my consumer rights here : 1.  According to the attached document, XXXX XXXX XXXX clearly lists the estimate that the insurance would cover, which is how they based what I would pay " out of pocket '' ( in this case 3 payments of {$150.00} ). However, the insurance did not cover what they estimated and because of that, XXXX XXXX XXXX billed myself for the remainder amount. I of course disputed these charges because I did not agree to pay anything more than 3 payments of {$150.00}. In other words, I would have NEVER received their services if I knew my out of pocket cost would be more than {$470.00}. It is unlawful to collect more than owed, and I am appalled that XXXX XXXX XXXX is an exception to this rule. And 2. NAS ( the debt collecting company ) was made aware of the unfair practices by XXXX XXXX XXXX, however, did not attempt to refrain from collecting alleged debt. Under section 808 ( A ) of FDCPA, it is a violation to collect any amount unless the amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt. If, in writing, there is clear breakdown of how much a service rendered would cost the insurance company as well as the person receiving the services, then that should be enough to determine that more debt than owed is being collected, and an ethical and moral thing to do is cease any and all attempts to collect that debt. 

As far as not being made aware of my legal duties by the attorneys at NAS, I am in the process of learning about my civil rights as a resident of Nebraska, and will stay on top of any and all unlawful matters concerning this case, and tackle them one at a time and hopefully with the help of State Attorney.