Consumer complaint received 2018-08-14
Company: HCFS Healthcare Financial Services of TeamHealth
State: TX
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Medical debt
Issue: False statements or representation
Sub-issue: Impersonated attorney, law enforcement, or government official

Complaint:
This is my SECOND complaint about XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX Florida. They are operating in the State of Texas as a THIRD-PARTY DEBT COLLECT WITHOUT A BOND. On XX/XX/2018, I filed a complaint here against this company. Within an hour, I had a response from them or someone, who said that they were XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, AND THAT XXXX XXXX XXXX, ( hereafter called XXXX ) was their D.B.A. 
I have included my original complaint here WHICH includes that companies carefully crafted response. As a result, CFPB, CLOSED my complaint because of that response and the information contained within. In their response, they said that THEY WERE ALWAYS LICENSED AND BONDED IN THE STATE OF TEXAS and they were so kind ( and deceptive ) to give me 'proof ' of a BOND NUMBER XXXX to search within the Texas Secretary of States site for third party debt collector searches. I did do that search and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, WAS and IS bonded in Texas. SO ... I called the SOS and asked for their assistance to search the database for any traces of XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. What I was told and you can confirm with the SOS is this ... XXXX XXXX XXXX IS NOT BONDED IN TEXAS ... FURTHER THEY NEVER HAVE BEEN. Within the search pattern, it will say if they had and/or if it had lapse. IN XXXX case, they are nowhere to be found so are in fact with the State of Texas, a NON-Bonded company. I was told by the Secretary of State representative that XXXX MUST HAVE A SURETY BOND IN PLACE IN ORDER TO ACT AS A THIRD-PARTY DEBT COLLECTOR IN TEXAS. According to Texas law, because XXXX is reporting into my ( and other Texas Consumer ) credit files, ALL WITHOUT BOND, this is considered INDIRECT COLLECTIONS, and is a total violation of my rights under both Texas and Federal Laws. 

Today, I updated my complaint with the Texas Attorney General 's office. I am attaching the XXXX INITIAL RESPONSE THAT YOU HAVE from my first complaint ... The one you closed without checking the validity of XXXX ' response. Today, I am here filing another complaint with the CFPB, with the sincere belief that if you take the time to read this lengthy complaint you will see DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES in full view. In the response that you receive on XX/XX/XXXX from an XXXX official, they told CFPB and myself, that they WERE Bonded. My complaint was against, XXXX. This other ye-hoo company they brought out of the closet was not then on my nor my attorney 's radar screen, well until then. So my complaint was in total directed at XXXX. Their CFPB response was deceptively crafted to create the illusion with the CFPB and myself, that they WERE ... mean XXXX as they were the target of my complaint ... That THEY, XXXX was bonded. They cleverly gave you a bond number. Did you not check that bond to see that it was NOT XXXX bond. I can tell you definitively that XXXX has never been bonded here. YET ... they still being allowed to post derogatory remarks into my credit file ... Well, mine and every other Texas consumer that is dealing their deceptive practices. AGAIN FOR THE RECORD ... FROM THE TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE,  XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX IS NOT BONDED IN TEXAS. PERIOD! YET, Texas has a MANDATORY SURETY BOND REQUIREMENT. Are they not REQUIRED to abide by Texas Laws? What about federal laws regarding DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES? Are blatantly constructed false statements into a FEDERAL site, that has oversight over that industry NOT important to the CFPB? I surely hope they are. I can tell you that while my complaint may fall here, they assuredly will not with the Texas Attorney Generals office nor with forthcoming civil actions. What about my rights as a senior citizen under the Consumer Protection Act, or Fair Credit Practice Act, or the Fair Credit Collection Reporting Act, or the Texas Finance Code, Section 392. Do any of these matter? I wonder. XXXX  XXXX XXXX is a non-bonded company ... I have had now four communications with the Texas Secretary of State. Two I initiated, two they called me on to discuss my situation with XXXX. My understanding is that the SOS is in contact the Attorney General 's Office and good news for me, I have two complaints now in his office and a third coming tomorrow. All breaches of the above acts. I have notified all three credit bureaus of they non-compliance in that they are allowing a NON-BONDED company to access to my credit files. We will see if they want to formally meet XXXX in court I guess. All my credit files now show XXXX with a CLOSED STATUS YET ... this week, XXXX had access to my credit file enough to FLAG It as Collections. A NON-BONDED company, practicing deceptive trade with false statement into a federal site in order to squelch my consumer rights of complaint ... Still with complacent accessing to my credit bureau files at XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. 

What I hope for is that you will realize that were blatant deceptive trade practices is exhibited that CFPB has a responsibility to me as a senior citizen to protect my consumer and FEDERAL rights. They are each being trampled on in this case. I am demanding that XXXX and all traces of them and ANY affiliated companies be removed from my credit files. I also trust that when you get another very craftily written deceptive response from them, that you will investigate and read their carefully crafted and obviously deceptive XX/XX/18 response. It clearly shows their obvious intent to squelch a legitimate complaint with a response that was INTENTIONALLY CONSTRUCTED TO DECEIVE THE CFPB AND ME AS A CONSUMER.

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