Consumer complaint received 2019-01-06
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem — Difficulty submitting a dispute or getting information about a dispute over the phone
Company: EQUIFAX, INC. (TX)

The below is the summary of facts that my husband sent to XXXX XXXX, an executive team respondent at Equifax, after we were already unable to resolve the matter through Equifax 's usual dispute resolution channels, being bounced to offshore call centers and not given proper updates ; we escalated to their executive support team and Ms. XXXX asked us to e-mail these details. After several follow-ups with Ms. XXXX, she stonewalled us as well, and we have not received any update whatsoever from Equifax in months while this fraudulent collection continues to bog down my credit score. 

-- - While hiking on XX/XX/XXXX, my wife XXXX obtained a XXXX XXXX that showed no signs of healing over the following two days. On XX/XX/XXXX, the pain was so excruciating that we went to the closest urgent care facility to our home, XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, VA. The office visit was brief and she was prescribed a topical XXXX  that would help treat the XXXX  and provide pain relief. I retrieved the prescription myself from the pharmacy and administered it to XXXX at home. 

XXXX filed a claim with our insurance, XXXX claim # XXXX, and they were in-network for our plan. We received the Explanation of Benefits ( attached as " XXXX  '' ; her claim appears at the bottom of page 2 ) where it showed XXXX billing us for the Office Visit ( code XXXX for {$160.00}, we don't dispute this ) and for " Dressings or Debridement '' ( code XXXX for {$180.00}, the crux of our dispute ). XXXX did not pay anything as we had not yet met our annual deductible, so we were responsible for the full charges. 

Code XXXX is defined by the XXXX handbook used by all medical offices as " Dressings and/or debridement, initial or subsequent, without anesthesia, large, more than one extremity. '' Not only were no dressings or " debridement '' ( the XXXX XXXX XXXX ) performed at this visit, but only the area of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  was effected, hardly " more than one extremity. '' We categorically deny that this service was performed even remotely, and any notation the provider has made saying that she did amounts to nothing more than insurance fraud. 

We contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX to contest the {$340.00} bill, and were referred to a third-party phone number for their billing contractor. The representative agreed to send back the bill for a review and that they would call us back in about two weeks. That call never came, and as we got caught up with an imminent move from XXXX to XXXX, we admittedly did not remember to follow-up ( and, candidly, as the action item was on them to call us back, we don't feel that we had a responsibility to follow up with them ; they have a duty under the law to bill us accurately and in this regard, they failed repeatedly ). 

In addition to our claim that the amount on the debt is fraudulent and should only be {$160.00} for the office visit alone, XXXX XXXX XXXX made no attempts to contact XXXX or myself in an attempt to collect the debt. We received no phone calls, e-mails, text messages or letters from them, despite keeping the same contact information after the move and having USPS mail-forwarding service established to our new address in XXXX. It is our belief that in XXXX 's failure to do or demonstrate that they did this, they've violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. To that end, we did send them a demand letter two weeks ago ( attached as " XXXX XXXX XXXX.pdf '' ) via Certified Mail, USPS tracking number XXXX, and we received a return receipt ( attached as " Return Receipt.pdf '' ) that shows that an " XXXX XXXX '' signed for it on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX. We still have received zero response from XXXX to our allegations of their misconduct. 

Per the XXXX XXXX XXXX  rating of " F '' on XXXX XXXX XXXX, it appears that these stonewalling tricks are central to their business model, and we're not their only victims.