Consumer complaint received 2015-09-30
Company: Nevada Credico, Inc.
State: NV
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Medical
Issue: Disclosure verification of debt
Sub-issue: Not given enough info to verify debt

Complaint:
Quantum Collections has attempted to collect a debt in the amount of {$140.00} on behalf of the XXXX without providing written verification of the following : - The amount of the debt- Name of creditor to whom debt is owed- Statement telling me that I have 30 days to dispute the debt or the debt will be assumed to be valid. 
- Statement that if you dispute the debt in writing within 30 days, the debt collector must provide written verification of the debt, including name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditorNumerous attempts to acquire this information from Quantum Collections via phone calls, fax and mail within a 30-day window from the date that Quantum made first contact with me about the debt on XXXX XXXX. Quantum continuously refused to provide written verification and said that I would have to " take their word for it '' that they are the company that was contracted by XXXX XXXX to collect the debt in question. According to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, this information must be provided before a debt can be collected. 

With the threat of this debt being reported to consumer reporting agencies, a credit card authorization form was faxed and mailed XXXX class on XXXX XXXX along with yet another request for written verification of the debt. Despite having the payment information, Quantum decided that they would not process the payment and report this on my credit. 

On Monday, XXXX XXXX I spoke to XXXX explaining my dilemma. XXXX stated that an account ledger was faxed. However, the account ledger is not the written notice that validates the debt nor does it provide proof that Quantum was contracted to takeover said debt XXXX. XXXX stated that the debt had been reported on my credit as of Sunday, XXXX XXXX despite her confirmation that their office received my credit card authorization beforehand. A date that I found to be peculiar considering that their business is closed at the time. XXXX refused to resend the documents and without a proper explanation. I again offered to pay the debt with a debit card over the phone, but XXXX stated that they would have to charge a {$12.00} fee and that would not guarantee deletion of it from my credit. She added that the only way Quantum would remove it from my credit is by paying via check by phone and with an additional fee of {$40.00}. However, she would not send a letter of deletion and that I would have to " take her word for it. '' After pleading my case regarding why this letter of verification was imperative due to dealing with previous credit card fraud issues and that I would gladly make the payment once this information was provided, XXXX declined my request. After bringing up the FDCPA, she hung up on me. I do not think that was fair given the circumstancesAccording to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, " unfair practices cited by the law include tacking interest, fees or charges or expenses on to the principal debt owed by the consumer. '' Although a credit card authorization form was provided with the payment information, Quantum Collections still attempted to charge interest as additional fees up to, and including, a {$40.00} " processing fee '' on top of the debt in question. 

As it currently stands, I am willing to make the payment to clear the debt provided that Quantum Collections can deliver a letter of deletion. After all that they have done, I believe that this is a fair request as I have only tried to protect myself and my rights as a consumer.

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation