Consumer complaint received 2018-02-02
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: HW Holding, Inc (MO)

THE FOLLOWING IS THE BACKGROUND INFORAMTION FOR THIS COMPLAINT : A MONTH AFTER WE MOVED INTO XXXX   XXXX WE BEGAN HAVING PROBLEMS WITH OUR NEIGHBORS UPSTAIRS DOING DRUGS, HAVING PARTIES, AND PHYSICALLY FIGHTING. WE HAVE XXXX SMALL CHILDREN WHO WERE BEING CONTINUOUSLY WOKEN AND DISTURBED BY SUCH INCIDENTS. WE CALLED THE POLICE AND NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY MANAGER SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE COURSE OF SIX MONTHS. NOTHING WAS EVER DONE TO REMEDY THE SITUATION BY THE PROPERTY MANAGER,  XXXX XXXX, AS HER ULTIMATE SOLTION WAS THAT WE SHOULD BE THE ONES TO MOVE IF WE DIDNT LIKE IT. WHEN WE DID NOT COMPLY, SHE REFUSED OUR RENT AND FILED FOR AN EVICTION, IN RELATIATION FOR COMPLAINTS TO THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF XXXX XXXX XXXX   ABOUT HER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND THE NEIGHBORS UPSTAIRS. 

AFTER FILING FOR EVICTION, THEY FAILED TO APPER IN COURT, THUS NO EVICTION WAS GRANTED AS THE RENT HAD BEEN PAID, AND NO LEGAL FEES WERE AWARDED BY THE COURT AS NO EVICTION WAS GRANTED. THESE ALLEGED LEGAL FEES HAVE SINCE THEN BEEN DISMISSED BY XXXX COUNTY COURT AND HAVE NO LEGAL STANDING. 

THE ISSUES WITH THE UPSTAIRS NEIGHBORS AND HER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CONTINUE, AFTER SEVERAL NOTIFICATIONS TO THE NEIGHBORS, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, AND THE XXXX POLICE DEPARTMENT. XXXX XXXX AND XXXX XXXX XXXX ARE IN BREECH OF CONTRACT AT THIS POINT FOR NOT PERFORMING DUE DILIGENCE TO MAINTAIN PEACEFUL CONDITIONS PROVIDED FOR IN THE COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT AND HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS OUTLINED IN THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY. 

AROUND THIS SAME TIME ALL OF THE TENANTS AT XXXX XXXX   WERE FORCED TO PURCHASE RENTERS INSURANCE UNDER FINANCIAL AND LEGAL DURESS, WHICH WAS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF OUR LEASE AGREEMENT. THERE WAS A PROVISION IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT THAT THEY COULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE AGREEMENT WITHOUT THE SIGNED PERMISSION OF THE TENANT. HAVING RENTERS INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF {$100000.00} AND NAMING XXXX XXXX AS AN INTERESTED PARTY WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT. THEY DID NOT OBTAIN PERMISSION TO CHANGE THE CONTRACT AND THREATENEND TO EVICT ANY TENANT WHO DID NOT COMPLY BY CLAIMING THAT THEY WOULD BE OWING LATE RENT BASED ON THE LATE FEES THEY WOULD ASSESS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE. 

IT WAS AT THIS TIME WE TERMINATED THE LEASE FOR BREECH OF CONTRACT ON THE PART OF XXXX XXXX XXXX   AND XXXX XXXX CONDOMINIUMS. 

WHICH BRINGS US TO THE REASON FOR THIS COMPLAINT : IN FURTHER RETALIATION AFTER WE MOVED, XXXX XXXX, KEPT OUR DEPOSIT AND CLEANING FEES AND CLAIMED THAT WE OWED MONEY THAT WE DID NOT OWE FOR SEVERAL REASONS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED PRIOR TO THESE CLAIMS BEING MADE, RENDERING SAID CLAIMS NULL AND VOID. 

ADDITIONALLY, EVEN SHOULD THE CONTRACT HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS MADE, WE DO NOT OWE MONEY FOR THESE CHARGES DUE TO THE FOLLOWING : FIRST, OUR SECURITY DEPOSIT AND CLEANING FEE OF {$300.00} HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED TO ALLEGED CHARGES. SECONDLY, THE RENT AND LATE FEE CLAIMED ON THE STATEMENT OF DEPOSIT IS ACTUALLY A CHARGE FOR LEGAL FEES WE HAD ALREADY DISPUTED AND WERE NOT GRANTED OR AWARDED BY A COURT AND THE PETITION PURSUING THIS CLAIM HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY XXXX COUNTY COURT IN GENERAL. ALSO, WE WERE DOUBLE CHARGED FOR THE ATTORNEYS FEES CLAIMED. ADDITIONALLY, THE STATEMENT CLAIMS THE APARTMENT WAS FILTHY WHICH IS NOT TRUE, WE CLEANED AND EVEN VACCUMED THE PLACE AND TOOK PICTURES AS PROOF, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS STATED THE {$150.00} OF THE DEPOSIT WAS NON-REFUNDABLE FOR CLEANING. WE DO NOT OWE THIS CHARGE. ALSO, THE CARPET NEEDED REPLACED BEFORE WE MOVED IN AND XXXX WAS NOTIFIED UPON MOVE IN THAT THEY NEEDED REPAIRED AND PEPLACED AND SHE AGREED UPON MOVE IN THAT WE WOULD NOT BE CHARGED FOR THE CARPETS. I TOOK VIDEO OF THE CONDIDITION UPON MOVE-IN AS WELL. THE REMAINING CHARGES ARE FOR PREEXISTING DAMAGE AND THINGS COVERED UNDER GENERAL MAINTANANCE FOR WHICH A LANDLORD IS GENRALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH AS LIGHT BULBS, DRIP PANS, ECT.  THE PRE-EXHISTING DAMAGE CLAIMED IS A HOLE IN THE DOOR FROM ANOTHER DOOR HANDLE, WHICH I DOCUMENTED VIA RECORDING UPON MOVE-IN AS WELL. THIS IS ALL STUFF FOR WHICH A SECURITY DEPOSIT IS TO BE USED FOR. AGAIN, THIS WAS ALL CHARGED IN ADDTION TO THE {$300.00} FOR CLEANING AND DEPOSIT THAT WAS NEVER APPLIED OR RETURNED TO US.  WE HAVE DISPUTED THESE CHARGES FROM THE BEINING AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS THEY WERE ONLY ACCCESSED FOR THE PURPOSES OF RETALIATION FOR TAKING ACTION REGARDING THE ISSUES FOR WHICH WE TERMINATED THE CONTRACT TO BEGIN WITH. 

AFTER FAILED DISPUTES WITH XXXX XXXX AND XXXX XXXX XXXX, THIS BOGUS DEBT WAS SENT TO A COLLECTION AGECNY NAMED HUNTER WARFIELD, WHO DOES NOT HAVE A LICENSE OF AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS WITHIN THE STATE OF MISSOURI TO BEGIN WITH, WHO REPORTED THIS INFORMATION ON MY CREDIT REPORT AFTER BEING DISPUTED AND FAILING TO VALIDATE THE DEBT. BOTH XXXX XXXX XXXX AND XXXX XXXX, XXXX, AS WELL AS THE CREDIT BUREAUS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT WE DISPUTE THIS CLAIM FULLY, IT HAS NOT BEEN VALIDATED, AND THEY ARE REFUSING TO REMOVE IT IN VIOLATION OF THE FCRA AND FDCPA. BOTH THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR AND COLLECTION AGENCY FAILED TO RESPOND WITHIN 30 DAYS TO REQUESTS TO VALIDATETHE ALLEGED DEBT AND INVESTIGATE AS AN INFORMATION FURNISHER. ALSO, THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE COLLECTION AGENCY AFTER THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND HAD PASSED, EVEN SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN TIMELY, IS NULL AND VOID BECAUSE WE TERMINATED THE CONTRACT PRIOR TO THE CLAIMS BEING MADE. 

THIS IS A CLEAR CASE OF INVALID DEBT, AS WELL AS HARRASEMENT AND REALIATION UNDER MISOURI LANDLORD TENANT LAW ON THE PART OF XXXX XXXX AND XXXX XXXX XXXX, AND IS IN VIOLATION OF THE FCRA AS AN INFORMATION FURNISHER ON THE PART OF XXXX XXXX XXXX, AND IS A VIOLATION OF THE FDCPA ON THE PART OF HUNTER WARFIELD, AND SHOWS WILFULL NON-COMPLIANCE ON ALL PARTS.