Consumer complaint received 2026-04-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Rental debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was paid
Company: ProCollect, Inc.
State: NM

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against ProCollect, XXXX regarding Account No. XXXX, a collection account placed on my credit report by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for {$250.00}. I formally disputed this debt and requested validation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). ProCollect responded with documents that not only fail to constitute proper debt validation but actually contain evidence of misconduct by the original creditor. Specifically : 1. ALTERED DOCUMENT : ProCollect provided a charge document as validation in which the month XXXX ' has been visibly crossed out by hand and 'XXXX ' written over it. This document was previously provided to me dated XX/XX/XXXX and marked 'revised. ' Submitting a manually altered document as debt validation may constitute a false or misleading representation under 15 U.S.C. 1692e. 2. FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUESTED VALIDATION : Despite my specific written requests, ProCollect failed to provide : proof of licensure to collect debts in New Mexico ; receipts or invoices for any repair or cleaning charges ; documentation proving I caused the damages claimed ; an original unaltered itemized statement sent within 30 days of my move-out ; before and after photographs supporting the cleaning charge ; or documentation confirming the unit was not re-rented for the disputed month. 3. CHARGES VIOLATE ORIGINAL CREDITOR 'S OWN LEASE : The lease agreement provided by ProCollect as validation actually disproves the debt. The Early Termination Fee clause states the fee equals two months ' rent ( {$1500.00} ). The original creditor charged {$220.00} an amount that appears nowhere in the lease. The same clause explicitly states the termination fee can not be combined with cleaning or damage charges, yet both were charged simultaneously. 4. DOUBLE RECOVERY : The original creditor 's own records confirm the unit was re-rented for XX/XX/XXXX and a vacancy notice was issued XX/XX/XXXX. Charging me a termination fee for a month in which they collected rent from a replacement tenant constitutes improper double recovery. 5. UNTIMELY DEPOSIT ITEMIZATION : New Mexico law requires landlords to return a security deposit or provide an itemized deduction statement within 30 days of move-out. I vacated in XX/XX/XXXX. The charge document is dated XX/XX/XXXX outside the legal deadline potentially forfeiting the original creditor 's right to any deductions. 6. PRE-EXISTING DAMAGE CHARGED : The original creditor charged for a full door replacement. The door hole was documented as pre-existing on my move-in inspection report, which the lease 's own Acceptance clause excludes from tenant responsibility. 7. HABITABILITY VIOLATIONS : During my tenancy, the original creditor failed to provide heat for approximately one month in XX/XX/XXXX and failed to address a cockroach infestation despite repeated maintenance requests both violations of New Mexico law and the lease agreement.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation