Consumer complaint received 2022-11-04
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive notice of right to dispute
Company: National Credit Systems,Inc. (TX)

Earlier this year- possibly XX/XX/XXXX ; National Credit Systems has placed a {$450.00} debt collection entry on my credit reports, without ever having followed the FDCPA and FCRA which required them to send me a notice of a collections effort on behalf of their client, XXXX XXXX XXXX, in XXXX XXXX Texas XXXX 
Instead of following requirements for debt collection, National Credit Systems siXXXX parked the debts on all of my family members ' credit reports- even those who were not on the lease agreement, at the time of move out. 

My daughter was the one who noticed that National Credit Systems had unfairly reported this debt on her credit reports, first. She was not even a party to the lease agreement, during the disputed debt time frame. Nonetheless, this was the first instance of realizing that National Credit Systems had violated our rights. 

However, my daughter disputed this debt ( rightfully so ) through her credit monitoring provider. The negative entry was removed from all of her credit reports. 

Nonetheless, this negative credit entry remains on my own credit reports as well as one of my son 's credit reports, illegally. 

Shortly, after my daughter noticed this on her credit and successfully disputed this item- my son retained a XXXX XXXX to assist us, who assured us that they would reach out to National Credit Systems . However, in the process of retaining the XXXX XXXX ; National Credit Systems finally decided to mail my son a letter in XX/XX/XXXX, using language to the effect where it pretended to have sent my son a prior notice. Again, it was not until my daughter discovered the illegal practice of debt parking of this debt on her credit reports. She was blind-sided wholly by this harmful and illegal act. Had she even been written a collection letter with an opportunity to dispute ; she would have immediately contacted National Credit Systems to inform them that she was not a party to this debt and to remove this debt from all of her credit reports. But she was not provided that opportunity.. 

The thing about apartment debt collection practices is that usually not only the apartments know that past tenants need to apply for another apartment as shelter and housing are necessary and basic human needs but they also can name their price since many times, especially due to the financial and adverse impact of the pandemic on finances ; renters are placed in a tight spot of facing having to pay these debts just to proceed with getting approved or having to pay a hefty and additional rental deposit which was exactly what happened to me, this past XXXX when I went up to lease my next apartment. 

In the process, I retained The XXXX XXXX XXXX  which was a wasted effort because they flat out told me that they would not pursue legal action for debt parking committed by National Credit Systems, after I'd even provided them with a notarized Affidavit as part of the contract to retain their services, stating this fact- that I was never given an opportunity and nor were my family members- to learn of this debt before it appeared on our credit reports. 

XXXX XXXX ( client of National Credit Systems ) owe me a {$300.00} deposit based on Texas Property Code which @ Section 92.103- it states : " The landlord shall refund a security deposit to the tenant on or before the XXXX day after the date the tenant surrenders the premises. 

However, Section 92.107 provides an exception to this : The landlord is not obligated to return a tenant 's security deposit or give the tenant a written description of damages and charges until the tenant gives the landlord a written statement of the tenant 's forwarding address for the purpose of refunding the security deposit. 

The same section states that even if the tenant does not provide a forwarding address to the landlord, the tenant does not give up their right to a refund. The tenant may still pursue legal action. 


Remedies for Bad Faith Deductions If a tenant who paid a security deposit to a landlord believes that it is being withheld in bad faith, the tenant has a few options. If the tenant moved out and the security deposit or itemized list of deductions is not mailed to them within 30 days of moving out, they can sue. Section 92.109 allows the tenant to sue the landlord to recover three times the portion of the deposit wrongfully withheld plus other fees. 

When less than {$20000.00} is involved, the tenant can sue by going to the local justice of the XXXX XXXX ( justice court ). These suits often do not involve attorneys. For more information on filing suit in justice court, please see our guide to Small Claims Cases. 

Before a tenant files suit, the XXXX XXXX XXXX recommends sending a refund demand letter to the landlord. Both parties may also want to consider mediation before going to court. Taking those steps could lead to an resolution that does not require going to court. '' Thus, not only did I never receive my deposit or an itemization from XXXX XXXX, the client who National Credit Systems was hired by ; XXXX itself never sent me a debt collection notice. I had also provided the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  a copy of my signed Notice To Move Out which was signed by the assistant manager for XXXX XXXX attesting that I'd provided all forwarding contact information i.e. forwarding address, phone number and email address- only to get this surprised debt parked on all family members ' credit reports. 

After this action ; National Credit Systems reached out to one of my sons with an old lease agreement and a form from its client, The XXXX citing an amount, that was not justified nor did it provide an accounting/ explanation for why the {$300.00} deposit was kept. it simply stated {$450.00} was owed for 'damages ' and clean up fees. This still was well past the 30 days that The Texas Property Code stipulates for when the deposit or an Itemized Statement stating why the deposit is less or kept in full- must be provided. 

I moved out XX/XX/XXXX but again- experienced debt parking in XX/XX/XXXX. I had never received any communication from National Credit Systems, much less its client, The XXXX XXXX prior to hiring The XXXX XXXX XXXX, which only happened as a result of the debt parking committed by National Credit Systems in XX/XX/XXXX. 

Upon National Credit Systems being contacted by The XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ; only then did send the last lease agreement that I signed in XXXX, which covered the lease term from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. After that lease expired ; I refused to sign a new lease and I went month to month, for the duration of XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX when i moved out.. 

I was wholly misled by The XXXX XXXX XXXX  which simply was interested in either agreeing to settle this debt with National Credit Systems as I'd expressed I'd need to lease an apartment soon and the paralegals kept stating that it would be a time-consuming process attempting to get National Credit Systems to agree to remove this debt. They also expressed that they would not again pursue the debt parking violation and that I could retain a different law firm for that. Being that I was unemployed and job searching ; I could not afford to hire another, different attorney after I'd been misled. I was able to obtain a refund from The XXXX XXXX XXXX as I was not interested in settling this debt when I was still owed a deposit. I was interested in a lawsuit but given that The XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX seemed interested in settling this debt ; I didn't feel confident to continue the relationship and I instead opted to file a complaint with this agency.. 

Not only that ; The XXXX later 'validated " the debt citing carpet damage- without first addressing my deposit, again required by the Texas Property Code, cited above. It also did not state the original cost of the replacement carpet to apply against the IRS requirement for multi-family units. I even sent these mandates to The XXXX XXXX XXXX only for them to not address or raise this as a dispute against the debt alleged.