Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports

I retrieved a copy of my credit report and immediately noted that Hunter Warfield had inserted a derogatory entry on my credit reports and had not sent me any correspondence ( dunning letter ) prior to doing so, which would have granted me 30 days as required by law to dispute the validity of the alleged debt. To that end, I communicated in writing ( see attached ), to the credit bureaus regarding this inaccurate, erroneous, unverifiable entry being placed on my credit reports. The bureaus responded that the company verified the information as correct. How so? A third-party collection company can only validate a debt. The original creditor is the only XXXX able to verify a debt. Nonetheless, Hunter Warfield did not advise XXXX to update the account status to disputed. This is a violation. The dispute with the bureaus was the first notification Hunter Warfield received and should have advised the bureaus at the time they allegedly validated the information that they should update the entry to disputed. Hunter Warfield did not and as you can see in the attached document, it does not denote it was in dispute. This violation in and of itself warrants Hunter Warfield to delete this entry.

My continued efforts to seek validation from the company and/or have them remove this entry from my reports was with a direct dispute to the company after the bureaus stated the company had verified the entry. If Hunter Warfield was previously aware of the dispute from the bureaus and advised the bureaus that the entry was correct, they were negligent in advising the bureaus to update the account to disputed. I sent a certified letter to Hunter Warfield and to date, the company has refused to respond or provide any documentation to substantiate their allegations of the debt.

If Hunter Warfield is attempting to collect a debt on behalf of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, then they must comply with Georgia XXXX section XXXX, XXXX ; XXXX and tenant laws as well as the Georgia Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hunter Warfield not only was negligent in not communicating with me and not updating the account as being in dispute but they did not provide the following : An agreement that states your authority to collect on this alleged debt ; Agreement with signature of the alleged debtor wherein he/she agreed to pay the creditor Alleged account number Date this alleged debt became payable Original delinquency date Verification that this debt was assigned or sold to collector Complete accounting of alleged debt Name and address of the bonding agent for collection agency in case legal action becomes necessary Duration of the lease Rent payment clauses Security deposits Utilities Landlord 's right to entry Maintenance of the leased property Subleasing clauses It is puzzling to say the least, that Hunter Warfield continues to report a derogatory entry on my credit report but not respond to the certified disputes I have sent them and none have been returned as undeliverable.

Hunter Warfield did not furnish an agreement reflecting their authority to collect on this alleged debt in the state of Georgia. Hunter Warfield blatantly violated my consumer rights and continues to do so. This alleged debt lacks veracity and verification ; further since they are violating FDCPA mandates to provide me notification prior to inserting it on my credit report and ( 2 ) failing to cease collection efforts and reporting when they received the letter of dispute, this entry should be deleted from my credit report immediately and Hunter Warfield should remunerate me for the violations.