Product: Debt collection

CFPB closed, without proper review, the CFPB closed complaint ID : XXXX, improperly, as the issue has not been resolved. 

I am responding to the following statements made by the company : As this consumer has repeatedly been told, there is not now, nor has there previously been, a collection fee associated with this debt. An employee of the original creditor, at one point, mistakenly assumed and so informed the consumer, a fee had been added, since that is generally their practice to pass the cost of collection onto the patient. That issue was clarified in our most recent response to the consumer after he filed a follow-up dispute with our office. It is pertinent to note the MD Attorney General 's Health Advocacy Unit found no evidence of wrong-doing on our part or on the part of the original creditor. The balance in full of {XXXX}, that does NOT include any collection fee, remains validly due and owing by the consumer. There has been no violation of applicable law in our handling of this matter. 

My response responds to the above statement : First, the State of Maryland did not find that the company did not do anything wrong, as it is not the Health Advocacys responsibility to reach that determination. Furthermore, the States Health Advocacy Unit does not have the authority to refer to or enforce federal or state consumer protection laws ; therefore, the companys statement is false. 
Second, the original creditor ( XXXX ) made the alleged misstatement in XX/XX/XXXX. 

In XX/XX/XXXX, ACEI knew that there were allegations of violation of the FDCPA ; yet somehow, the statement was not retracted or corrected between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. The original creditors employee ( XXXX  ), who suddenly can ascertain that the amount was NOT to be a collection fee, was on the original email dated XX/XX/XXXX. This employee did not attempt to correct these alleged misstatements, as ACEI would have you believe the employees statements were. Yet, once ACEI received a written request for debt validation under the FDCPA, the original creditor ( XXXX XXXX suddenly defined {XXXX} as a provider reversal. Further, ACEI knew in XX/XX/XXXX, via the State of Maryland Attorney Generals Office, that at least {XXXX} was in dispute as a XXXX employee stated that this amount was for an assessed collection fee. ACEI falsely communicated to the State of Maryland that the amount was not an assessed collection fee, despite evidence contrary. Next, XXXX XXXX XXXX whose statements ACEI relies on to ascertain that the amount was not ever a collection fee, was copied on XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, and made no attempt to correct any statement. 

Furthermore, XXXX XXXX XXXX specifically stated that XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, was copied on her email and had awareness. Therefore, the allegation that ACEI is knowingly violating the FCRA and FDCPA remains. It is XXXX responsibility to ensure that any statements made by its employees are accurate and complete, not the patient. ACEIs responsibility is to ensure that any debt collected is valid, correct, and without confusion, which clearly, conflicting statements are a source of confusion. Therefore, I ask CFPB carefully look at all information for this case, which I believe, will show that ACEI either improperly reported to the three major credit bureaus in XX/XX/XXXX information that it had not verified before reporting, or ACEI has advised XXXX that imposing a collection fee would violate the FDCPA, which has resulted in XXXX sudden change of tone. Finally, ACEI has failed to provide an agreement to permit XXXX to reverse any provider adjustments. ACEI has provided a signed document dated EIGHT days after the original debt was incurred ; therefore, the additional {XXXX} violates the FDCPA regardless, as no signed agreement is dated BEFORE the service date ( XX/XX/XXXX ). This signed waiver is NOT the controlling instrument, and it would behoove ACEI to carefully review state and XXXX rulings on contracts or agreements that control certain activities. Therefore, The issue remains unresolved, and the allegations of violation of the FDCPA and FCRA remain.