Product: Debt collection

On XX/XX/XXXX I paid off, in full, a municipal water bill totalling {$350.00} from the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, which had been sent to collections. 
The collections agency / law firm that I paid in person on that date is " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, KS XXXX XXXX. 
I was given a payment reciept on that date, and told that my XXXX XXXX XXXX utility account, ( listed as XXXX ), was fully paid. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I returned home from a work trip after a week away from home, and found a notice in my mailbox from the state of Kansas. 
This notice advised me that my KS tax refund in the amount of {$430.00} was being withheld due to a payment owed to the XXXX XXXX XXXX, a municipal entity. 
This Kansas state notice claimed the debt owned is in the sum of {$350.00}, which is slightly less than the {$350.00} stated by the XXXX XXXX Department, and the amount that I was charged by CBK Debt Collectors ( {$350.00} ). This would appear to be due to accumulating interest, as the XXXX XXXX seems to have first reported the debt to the State of KS tax refund authorities, and then later also pursued a parallel collection attempt through CBK Debt collectors, simultaneously. 

On Monday morning, XX/XX/XXXX, I went back to CBK Debt Collectors offices ' and spoke with two female employees, who did not identify themselves. I explained the matter to them, and asked them if CBK Dept Collectors had notified the XXXX XXXX XXXX that I had paid off this account in full in the month of XXXX. They seemed to immediately realize that any 'May ' payments were not yet reported to the client per their company practices, as I was immediately informed by one of the CBK employees that they do not report each individual payment as it is recieved, but delay notification, waiting til the following month, to report a group of payments to the original creditor. 

I asked the CBK Debt Collector employees ', politely, to call their client, the local XXXX XXXX, and notify them that my bill had been paid in full the previous month, and that they were not legally entitled to take my state tax refund, through a parallel collections effort, for a bill that had been paid in full well before the tax notice had been mailed to me. The two ( 2 ) CBK Debt Collector employees refused to make notification of payment to the original creditor, and told me that they are not authorized to do this or to discuss collection practices. They told me to call a customer service number for CBK Dept Collectors, XXXX, and talk to an authorized employee who could assist me. 

I called this number from my vehicle at approx XXXX hrs., in the CBK Dept Collectors parking lot, and was initially sent to a voice mail box. I called back and spoke with a CBK Dept Collectors employee who stated that her name was XXXX XXXX. I re-explained the issue to XXXX, and asked her to make a call to her client ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and inform them that the bill they were seeking to collect through taking my tax refund payment had already been paid the previous month to CBK. 

XXXX refused to make notification of this payment to the client, telling me several times that the CBK Dept Collectors 'contract ' with the XXXX XXXX XXXX only requires CBK to make notifications of paid debts every 30 days. XXXX continued to inform me that all payments from the previous month get reported at the same time, on the XXXX of the following month. I advised XXXX that the failure of CBK to make a timely report of a payment-in-full is the reason that my tax refund is being garnished. She told me that I will need to wait through the process, which she generally described as the XXXX XXXX taking my tax refund, and then realizing its mistake and later forwarding me the excess funds that it was not entitled to. 

I explained to XXXX that there is no need for this 'process ', if she would make notification to her company client and inform them that I paid this bill the previous month. The KS tax refund 'setoff ' program has a 15 day delay, which would affer adequate time for the CBK client to discontinue the garnishment IF CBK made this notification of payment to their client. XXXX refused to make any notification to client before the XXXX of this month, and began to re-explain a 'process ' that I would need to submit to. I asked XXXX to set up a meeting for me with a business manager for the company or one of the legal counsel or owners. She refused to do so, and seemingly denied knowing where the owners of the business were located. She did inform me that the owner was named XXXX XXXX XXXX, but that she could or would not set up a meeting for me with XXXX XXXX 

I asked to be transferred to someone else who could assist me, and she sent me to the voicemail of another female employee. I left a voicemail for that CBK employee, which was not returned as of XXXX hrs - XXXX hrs, as I began this complaint. 

I am not arguing that the following statute neccessarily governs this particular case- however under the Kansas UCC, the standard for reporting payments is as follows - 16a-2-104. ( UCCC ) Payment credit date. ( 1 ) A creditor shall credit a payment to the consumer 's account on the date of receipt, except when a delay in crediting does not result in a finance charge or other charge.

Whether there is a particular statute in State or Federal collections law governing this failure to report payments in a timely matter to to an collection agency client, I do not know, but there should be.. If this agency wants to do business, it needs to abide by timely notice to clients/ creditors of payment that has been made to pay off debt.

While CBK may well have a contract with the municipal entity that only requires reporting payment collected to that client every 30 days, I did not sign any contract with CBK, however I do have a right to be promptly and fairly credited for payment.

If CBK makes timely notification of full payment to the client agency, and that agency fails to withdraw the tax refund garnishment, that would absolve the Collection Agency of all responsibility, however when the Collection Agency concedes that the debt has been paid in full well prior to the garnishment notice, yet refuses to intercede in sending an email to its own client warning them of the unauthorized garnishment, that in my view is a serious lapse of ethical and moral duty, especially for an entity that claims 'officer of the court ' status and requires legal access to the courts to conduct its business.