Product: Debt collection

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, # XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Email : XXXX PH # XXXX To whom it may concern, In XX/XX/XXXX, when I became aware this organization was having trouble with the funds available for this account, I arranged a 3-way telephone conversation with my banking institution XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in the office of Senior Service Specialist XXXX XXXX to resolve this matter. We contacted a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX representative who introduced himself as XXXX. In that conversation, XXXX claimed that the 4 previous online payments I had made between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, had been returned as unauthorized, that the XXXX XXXX account information I was using for payment for XXXXContinental Finance Card payments was inconsistent with the information I was providing him with at that time, and that I was engaging in fraudulent activities. 

The genesis of this issue began in XX/XX/XXXX, when I reported to XXXX that I had lost my wallet and in that wallet was my XXXX credit card and my XXXX XXXX debit card. XXXX closed that account and opened another one, to which I had access for 1 month, which failed to provide the information that might have been used to effectively address the issue. No card, just online access to my account information. XXXX XXXX also sent me a new card with a new card number. The account number and routing number remained the same. At that time, I was under the impression that, as is with all my other online financial relationships, it is the account and routing numbers that are used to access funds from these accounts, not the debit card number. There was never anything nefarious, as was implied, about these activities. It this area XXXX Continental Finance is unique. It seems illogical, but this is apparently the case. So, for those next four payments and ultimately a fifth payment XXXXContinental Finance was using a card number that had been removed from circulation. The XX/XX/XXXX account statement, the only and last statement I would have access to, make no mention of failure of XXXXContinental to access funds authorized by the online payments I had made. The statement only said Thank you for your Payments. There were three of them listed on that statement. That was the last information I would have until I became aware of a problem and immediately called to resolve it and to XXXX representative XXXX in late XX/XX/XXXX when he demanded I pay my account in full, with the balance, at that time, being {$640.00}, before I would, again be granted access to my account. I told him that would not be possible, but that I would be paying off the account as soon as resources became available. I subsequently received a regular statement, in late XX/XX/XXXX the last until XXXX of XXXX, the balance now {$730.00}. The fact that XXXXContinental Finance response is to deny access to account information prevents consumers from identifying the root cause of these issues and is compounded by the aggressive and accusatory manner of its representatives. 

The second issue, a persistent one, is Continental Finances claim that that it was unable to provide me proper, regular and consistent documentation of my account activities and status. Information essential to proper address of these issues. In correspondence with Senior Vice President for Continental Finance, XXXX XXXX, in late XX/XX/XXXX, she claims that in XX/XX/XXXX, correspondence sent to me, was returned and a decision was made to send me no more documentation henceforth. This is a curious proposition given it was also XX/XX/XXXX that I received my last statement, by mail, from XXXXContinental Finance , which is how I came to be in possession of the statement placing my balance at {$730.00}. A balance that would be paid with 3 cashier 's checks that were cashed between XX/XX/XXXX -and XX/XX/XXXX for a total of {$730.00}. Each of those payments was sent via priority mail and on each of those envelopes was my return address. I received no acknowledgment of any of those three payments and I considered the account to be closed at that time. There is an obvious contradiction here. I received no correspondence from XXXXContinental Finance between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, when I received a response from XXXX XXXX to a complaint filed with Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX In a letter XXXX XXXX sent on XX/XX/XXXX, she referenced attempts to contact me via telephone. At this point, telephone communication with XXXXContinental Finance was not a viable option. Given the accusations and hostile nature of previous telephone contact with XXXX representatives that made this manner of communication offensive and counterproductive. It is also worth noting that there would be no point having a verbal conversation regarding information/documentation I havent been provided with. Which renders a verbal conversation a moot point. 

With XXXX XXXX response I received on in XX/XX/XXXX, I finally received account documentation I had been requesting since XXXX of XXXX. In the letter, XXXX XXXX acknowledged the error in not providing me with proper account documentation and agreed to reverse charges and late payment notices accessed to my credit report. My primary concern articulated in my complaint was that I have not assessed any charges that were a result of Reflex/Continental failure to provide me with the information necessary to manage my account effectively. Again, I believe this matter to be resolved. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received a statement from XXXX. The statement now placed my balance at {$600.00}, including a charge of {$99.00} for an annual fee for the period of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. In XX/XX/XXXX I received a statement now placing the account balance at {$340.00}. Refunds for late fees had been deducted for charges accrued for the months I was not receiving statements, but the annual fee remained. This charge, like the others that were now refunded, was a direct result of XXXX/Continental Finances ' failure to provide me with monthly documentation. This charge would not have been possible except for this failure. It should be reasonable to assume, given my conduct, that provided with current accurate information at any time dating back to XX/XX/XXXX, I would have paid the balance well in advance of any potential annual fee. Had I been sent a statement that placed my balance at {$220.00}, supported by accurate documentation, I would have paid the balance at that time and this account would have been closed. The {$99.00} annual fee and all subsequent charges are not legitimate. If I were to pay any payments on this account, I would be acknowledging these charges, which is why I havent.