Consumer complaint received 2019-08-27
Company: HW Holding, Inc
State: AZ
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Other debt
Issue: False statements or representation
Sub-issue: Attempted to collect wrong amount

Complaint:
My old apartment complex XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX located in XXXX, IL drummed up bogus charges to cover the cost of the apartment while not being leased. For 2 years all of our rent was paid in full and on time. XXXX first sent an email for repainting for {$180.00} about 6 days after our lease was up. Then about a month later the amount they have asked for an amount that is strangely close to the amount for 1 month of rent ( around {$2000.00} ). I at least know of one bogus charge specifically they claim one charge is around {$1200.00} for a washer and dryer with a light dull blue tint in the dryer which happens when new blue jeans have been washed and dried. This is normal wear  and tear as stated in the lease and they say the washer and dryer is unserviceable because of the light blue tint.This was all strangely brought up exactly a month after we moved out. XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX specifically told us there is no final walk through for the apartment which is strange in my experience.I refused to pay the amount.A collections agency Hunter Warfield then contacted me about the debt which I disputed via registered mail when I received a letter dated XX/XX/2019 from Hunter Warfield within the 30 day period. 

Hunter Warfield has not validated or itemized the debt at all which if they did would see the charges are illegitimate.

Hunter Warfield is charging undue interest as per the original contract.The original contract only says interest is applied to late rent payments not bogus/alleged damages.

Hunter Warfield has also have sent differing amounts and by differing I mean a range of $XX/XX/XXXX- {$400.00} on most letters. 

Hunter Warfield refuses to show that they are licensed to collect this debt.

Hunter Warfield refuses to show that they have a contract to collect this debt and are not a scam.

Below is my response to Hunter Warfield. They have continued to send the same automated responses.They claim they have no responsibility to provide any such information on the debt. 


( 1 ) To address the threatening interest rates that are being displayed in your response the 5 % interest rate as per the lease only pertains to late rent payments as per the original terms and conditions of the contract not alleged damages. As per FDCPA you can not add interest or fees except those allowed by the original contract. Furthermore, even if you could charge interest, which you can not, it would not start until after debt validation which as far as our party is concerned has not been properly validated as a legitimate debt.

( 2 ) The amount owed again is unfair, ambiguous and deceptive. You have sent differing amounts in your responses. On the original letter dated XX/XX/2019 you stated that the amount was {$1800.00} and then in your letter dated XX/XX/2019 the amount was {$2100.00}. You have not sent any itemization of the alleged charges accurately totaling either amount. You have only sent a ledger of all my rent payments. FDCPA gives me the right to have itemization on what is owed and reasonable basis on why it is owed. 

( 3 ) Furthermore, to address your statement Regarding your demand for verification including original signed contracts, copies of state licenses, our agreement with the original creditor listed on this account etc., there is no basis in law to substantiate your right to such information. In fact, court cases and the Federal Trade Commission have found there is not duty to comply with excessive verification. is vague and deceptive. Please provide case citations for the statement you made on behalf of Hunter Warfield.

The above only has the violations. As both Hunter Warfield are both being vague, deceptive with the amounts I can't even begin to dispute the charges are fraudulent.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation