On XX/XX/2018, I spoke on the phone with XXXX XXXX at Portfolio Recovery Associates ( PRA ) and settled two outstanding accounts with balances of {$1100.00} ( XXXX Credit Card ) and {$320.00} ( XXXX XXXX Card ). A settlement was offered and PRA accepted {$570.00} and {$210.00} ( respectively ). I was told by Ms. XXXX that this settlement settles the accounts " in full '' and that no additional balance would be owed. I was also told that my credit reports would reflect this as well. Payment was made for each account as an ACH payment, which cleared my bank account on XX/XX/2018. Within a few days, I received a notification via a credit monitoring service that my credit report had changed. I checked into the alert and saw the balances on both of these PRA collections accounts had decreased by amounts I paid but they are still being reported as open accounts with balances owed. Feeling suspicious, I phone PRA to find out what was going on. I called them twice over two days and I also recorded the conversation each time. Per Illinois eavesdropping laws, we are a one consent state and PRA gives consent by alerting customers calls may be recorded. Transcripts of both conversations are attached as supporting documentation and a copy of the recordings are also immediately available upon request ( I was unable to upload the actual recordings through this system ). I PRA called on XX/XX/2018 and spoke with XXXX XXXX. Ms. XXXX advised that each account was " paid in full, '' a phrase she used multiple times, and that I did not owe anything on either account. When asked why my credit reports were reporting as open and with balances she said it was because each account still had a balance because I paid less than what was owed, but I didn't have to pay it because they were " settled in full. '' When asked how a balance could be reported but me not owe anything she repeated that I didn't owe on the accounts but that the balance was still owed on each because I settled each account for less than what was owed. I understand PRA has the right to report accounts were settled for less than what was owed, but that does not mean the accounts are still open with balances. As you can see this made no sense. I was unable to get any further with Ms. XXXX so I ended the call. I called PRA again on XX/XX/2018 to go over this information once more and I spoke with XXXX XXXX. The purpose of this call was to again confirm each account was paid in full and no balance was owed after the settlement. Ms. XXXX confirmed this and advised letters stating the payoffs were to be mailed within 10-days of final payment. PRA is clearly misleading customers to pay them " settlements '' yet continue to report the accounts as open with a balance owed. If an account is reported to credit bureaus with a balance, that is considered a debt in the eyes of our financial system. The reporting of this false and inaccurate information is a gross violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and as such, PRA 's false representation to me that paying the settlement amounts would close each account is a violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ( FDCPA ). No matter how you look at this, PRA used shady gimmicks to settle these accounts by promising settlement with {$0.00} balances then but continue to report full balances in an attempt to harrass the consumer.