Product: Debt collection

Simon 's Agency , Inc. ( Simon ) inaccurately furnished data regarding a medical debt to XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( XXXX  ). Notwithstanding a conspicuous billing discrepancy and repetitive disputes as to liability ; Simon continued to report the negative information to XXXX, failed to conduct a reasonable  investigation and did not properly report the tradeline as being disputed by the Consumer. See attached. 
At an undetermined time, an allegedly delinquent XXXX medical debt with a listed unpaid balance of {$170.00}, was referred to a third-party debt collector, Simon. As a collection strategy to ostensibly motivate payment of this balance by the Consumer, Simon reported this medical debt as a collection account to one of the nationwide consumer reporting agencies, to wit, XXXX. Upon learning of the existence of this collections tradeline, the Consumer first disputed the alleged delinquency directly with Simon and demanded that the account promptly be deleted from his Consumer Report, as it was erroneously reported in the first instance. Additionally, the Consumer requested that should Simon disagree with this assertion, Simon should provide the Consumer with a written summary of the nature, extent and scope of their investigation, along with an explanation as to why it believes the account was not previously paid as agreed. Simon failed to respond. 
In XXXX of XXXX, the Consumer submitted an initial dispute with XXXX, asserting that this medical debt was timely paid-in-full by the Consumer remitting partial payment via co-pay at the time of service with the remaining balance subsequently paid by the Consumers health insurance company at the contracted reimbursement rate. It is important to note, the provider was in-network and the Consumers health insurance plan at the time did NOT have a deductible or co-insurance provision associated with it. Admittedly speculating to some degree, the alleged debt likely originated out of the providers billing department incorrectly crediting monies paid by the insurer, improper balance billing beyond the pre-negotiated rates or a failure to timely/properly invoice the insurer by transmitting the appropriate billing code. 
Simon, apparently without conducting any investigation whatsoever on the veracity of the Consumers dispute, generally confirmed to XXXX  the accuracy of the reported tradeline, but did apparently backdate with XXXX  the alleged delinquency date. Since the initial dispute, the Consumer filed numerous detailed disputes with XXXX  in regard to this tradeline, effectively challenging the delinquent payment status of this account, accompanied by repeated demands for Simon to conduct the required reasonable investigation. Despite notice of these disputes, Simon refused to conduct an investigation on the accuracy of the reported tradeline, reasonable or otherwise. When the Consumer directly contacted Simon to resolve this issue - specifically to seek information relating to the nature and scope of their prior investigation ( s ), Simon advised that the provider would not have referred the account balance for collections if it was not past due and that no further investigation was required on their part. To this point, the Consumer quipped that this compliance policy is unequivocally misguided and clearly contrary to Simons responsibilities under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and its progeny.

In conclusion, Simon has repeatedly attempted to obfuscate its legal responsibilities through its unscrupulous credit reporting practices. Simons investigation procedures for credit bureau disputes are clearly inadequate, which has in turn directly and adversely impacted the Consumer. As this regulatory complaint hopefully elucidates, Simons seemingly unapologetic perversion of the Consumers rights can not be tolerated and needs to be outright discouraged. One can reasonably surmise that Simons credit reporting practices are not isolated to this particular Consumer, as illustrated by their repetitive and deliberate disregard for their solemn duties as a furnisher of consumer credit data. It is readily apparent that Simons internal debt collection procedures are critically lacking compliance safeguards and are designed solely to maximizing collection recoveries to the competitive disadvantage of those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices. Simons deficiencies serve only to further undermine the publics confidence in our nations consumer credit markets, the efficiency of which is in large part reliant on fair and accurate reporting of credit information by data furnishers.