Consumer complaint received 2025-11-15 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: CCS Financial Services, Inc.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns the accuracy, legality, documentation, and verification of a derogatory account being furnished by Credit Collections, also known as CREDIT COLL, to the nationwide consumer reporting agencies. The account is being reported as a collection/charge-off with a past-due balance and derogatory status. However, the information appears to be inaccurate, unverified, incomplete, and unsupported by legally required documentation. Credit Collections has not demonstrated that it owns the debt, has the right to collect the debt, or has the legal authority to furnish information to the credit bureaus. Nor have they provided any of the documentation required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), raising serious concerns about the credibility and legality of their reporting.

I have disputed this account with the credit bureaus. Despite my disputes, the information remains on my credit report and was marked verified without proof of verification, without supporting documentation, and without any indication that a reasonable investigation took place. At no time did the bureaus or Credit Collections provide any documentation showing that a real review occurred. Instead, the responses received appear to be automated responses rather than a lawful reinvestigation required under federal law.

The account reported by Credit Collections includes a past-due amount that Credit Collections claims is owed. However, I have not received from Credit Collections any of the documents required to validate the debt under FDCPA 809 ( b ), nor have I received any documents supporting the accuracy of the negative information being furnished. Under the FDCPA, validation requires that a collector supply documentation that shows the debt is real, that the collector is legally entitled to collect it, and that the amount is accurate. Credit Collections has not supplied validation in any form.

Credit Collections did not provide : The original contract or application A promissory note or service agreement Original account statements A complete billing history Clear itemization of the balance Any proof I owe the debt Proof of the debts origin The name, address, and legal identity of the original creditor Proof the debt was legally transferred or assigned Proof that Credit Collections owns the debt A bill of sale or assignment document Any legal authorization to furnish information to the credit bureaus Even after disputes were submitted, Credit Collections did not provide any validation. The credit bureaus simply marked the account as verified, despite the fact that Credit Collections did not provide documentation, did not send a validation letter, and did not respond with legally mandated information.

I have strong reason to believe that Credit Collections did not conduct a real reinvestigation. Under FCRA 623 ( b ), a furnisher must conduct a reasonable investigation after being notified of a dispute by a credit bureau. A reasonable investigation requires the furnisher to review all information provided by the consumer, consult its own records, review documentation from the original creditor, and make corrections to inaccurate or incomplete reporting. Instead, Credit Collections appears to have responded through an automated systemlikely e-OSCARby simply confirming data already in its system without reviewing documentation.

A response stating verified without producing documentation is not a lawful reinvestigation.

Additionally, Credit Collections did not provide : Proof of the date of first delinquency Documentation showing the account is legally reportable Proof that the account is still within the statute of limitations Proof that the balance is accurate and not inflated Documentation showing the collector sent the FDCPA-required notice Documentation showing the consumer was notified of the collection attempt Evidence that the debt is collectible under state and federal law Without these documents, Credit Collections can not legally report the debt as accurate.

There are additional red flags concerning the way Credit Collections furnished the account. The account appears as a derogatory collection account, but the bureaus ' records and Credit Collections ' lack of documentation raise questions regarding whether the account was : Sold multiple times Returned to the original creditor Paid or settled at a prior date Incorrectly assigned Reported with an incorrect balance Reported with incorrect dates Reported beyond the allowable reporting period Reported without legal ownership Debt collectors frequently receive incomplete or inaccurate data from creditors. If Credit Collections received the account through a debt sale or assignment, it must have proper documentation, including a full chain of title and a bill of sale referencing the consumers specific debt. They have not provided any such proof.

Additionally, if the debt was part of a large portfolio sale, the bill of sale would not be sufficient unless it references the consumers account specifically. Generic statements such as a pool of accounts are not legally sufficient. Without documentation, Credit Collections can not claim ownership.

When a debt collector furnishes negative information to the credit bureaus, FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) requires that the information be accurate and complete. Furnishing unverifiable information violates that requirement. Collection agencies must also maintain reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of the data they report. The absence of documentation showing the origin of the debt or the accuracy of the amount demonstrates that Credit Collections did not meet that standard.

Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), furnishers must report an account as disputed if the consumer disputes it. However, Credit Collections has not consistently marked the account as disputed on all three bureaus. This failure creates misleading information on the credit report and violates federal law.

Another concern is the accuracy of the amount reported. Collection agencies often add interest, fees, or charges that were not part of the original agreement. Without original documentation, there is no way to determine whether Credit Collections has added unlawful fees or increased the balance improperly. 

Furthermore, if the debt was related to medical billing, telecommunications, utilities, or similar industries, additional documentation rules apply. For example, medical debt requires certain disclosures, itemized billing, and supporting evidence. Telecommunications and utilities frequently have inaccurate assignments. The failure to provide clear and complete documentation is therefore a significant issue. 

The credit bureaus also share responsibility. When I filed disputes, the bureaus were required to conduct a reinvestigation. Under FCRA 611, reinvestigations must be meaningful and thorough. The bureaus must do more than simply forward the dispute to the furnisher and wait for a code response. They must consider consumer-submitted evidence and evaluate whether the furnisher provided supporting documentation.

The bureaus responses were nearly immediate, which suggests : No documents were requested No documents were reviewed No manual investigation occurred The verification was automated The investigation was superficial This violates the FCRAs reinvestigation standards.

Credit Collections ' reporting has caused damage, including denial of credit applications, negative scoring impacts, and financial losses. This derogatory information affects access to loans, housing, employment opportunities, and insurance rates. Furnishers can not legally harm a consumers credit standing without proof that the underlying information is accurate.

This reporting has caused significant emotional and financial stress. Credit decisions made by lenders rely heavily on the accuracy of credit data. A derogatory collection account, especially one that is unverified, creates lasting harm.

Additionally, Credit Collections has not demonstrated compliance with state laws requiring : Debt collection licensing Proof of legal authority to collect Notice to the consumer prior to furnishing negative information Validation within 30 days of request If Credit Collections is not properly licensed in the relevant state, they can not legally collect the debt or furnish the account to the credit bureaus. If they can not provide proof of licensing, the account must be removed.

When I requested validation directly from Credit Collections, the company did not supply : Proof of the debts origin Validation notices Itemized billing Ownership documentation Any communications required under federal law The FDCPA requires collectors to provide validation that is sufficient to confirm the debts authenticity. Without validation, the debt can not be collected or reported. 

The debt XXXX also be beyond the statute of limitations. If so, it can not legally be sued upon, and in some jurisdictions, it can not be reported. XXXX XXXX has not supplied proof of the debts age or the date of first delinquency, making it impossible to determine whether the reporting is lawful. 

Additionally, under FCRA 605 ( a ), certain information can not be reported beyond seven years. Without documentation, there is no way to determine whether the derogatory reporting falls within the permissible timeframe.

Finally, if Credit Collections is reporting inaccurate or unverifiable information, the FCRA requires deletion. The law is clear : information that can not be verified must be removed.

Given the absence of documentation, the questionable legality of the reporting, the failure to validate the debt, the lack of evidence provided during disputes, and the potential violations of the FCRA and FDCPA described in detail above, it is clear that Credit Collections has not met its obligations as a furnisher of credit information.

For these reasons, the CFPB should investigate Credit Collections for : Furnishing inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information Failing to perform a lawful reinvestigation Failing to validate a debt under FDCPA requirements Failing to demonstrate ownership or legal right to collect Failing to mark the account as disputed Failing to provide documentation to support reporting Potentially reporting debt beyond legal time limits Possibly reporting debt without a license Violating FCRA 602 ( a ), 607 ( b ), 611, and 623 Violating FDCPA 807, 808, and 809 ( b ) Because Credit Collections has not provided any documentation, the information they are reporting is unverifiable, legally questionable, and harmful. The CFPB must intervene to ensure the credit bureaus and Credit Collections comply with the law.

The appropriate remedy, if documentation is not produced, is removal of the derogatory account.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation