Consumer complaint received 2025-11-21 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Rental debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: ProCollect, Inc.
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint as a former tenant of XXXX XXXX Apartments in XXXX, WA. After I vacated my apartment on XX/XX/XXXX ( prior to a new lease term beginning ), the landlord claimed I owed a large balance for alleged unpaid rent and property damages. The initial move-out statement ( dated XX/XX/XXXX ) showed an Outstanding Balance of {$6600.00}. A later version of the statement showed an Outstanding Balance of {$7900.00} an increase of over {$1200.00} with no clear explanation. This increase was driven by an inflated charge for flooring damage that jumped from an initial {$2000.00} estimate to a final {$3200.00}, despite no new evidence of additional damage. I dispute owing any of this debt, both because of the circumstances under which I moved out and the lack of documentation to justify these charges. I had informed the landlord of severe financial hardship and requested release from the upcoming lease, but management effectively forced my departure without mitigation efforts. It is unconscionable and unlawful for them to charge me for future rent or excessive damages under these conditions, yet they referred this disputed debt ( approximately {$7900.00} ) to ProCollect Inc. for collection.

ProCollects Failure to Validate the Debt I formally disputed the entire debt and requested validation from ProCollect in writing ( letter sent XX/XX/XXXX ). I invoked my rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and Washington State law, demanding that ProCollect provide proof that the debt is valid and owed. I outlined specific documentation needed to validate the debt including a copy of the lease, a full account ledger, itemized bills/receipts for each damage, photos of the move-out condition, evidence of the landlords efforts to re-rent the unit, and a legal justification for every charge. Under the FDCPA, once a debt is disputed, the collector must cease collection efforts until verification is provided, and any credit reporting must note that the debt is disputed. Washingtons landlord-tenant law also imposes strict duties on the landlord to document any damages and mitigate rent losses, which directly bear on the validity of this claim.

ProCollects response was grossly insufficient. The only materials I received from ProCollect were a copy of the lease agreement and a one-page move-out charges invoice for {$3200.00} essentially a duplicate of what the landlord had already provided. Simply re-sending the lease and a generic bill does not satisfy the debt validation requirements under federal law. ProCollect failed to provide any of the key supporting documents I had demanded. To date, none of the following required items have been provided, despite my explicit written requests : Complete Account XXXX : Not provided. I asked for a full rent ledger showing all charges, credits, and how the balance was calculated, but ProCollect sent no account statement. There is no evidence detailing how the landlord arrived at the {$7900.00} figure or any accounting of payments vs. charges.

Repair Invoices/Receipts : Not provided. I requested copies of all receipts, invoices, or contractor bills to substantiate each damage charge ( with details of materials, labor, dates, and who performed the work ). ProCollect provided no invoices or receipts whatsoever for the {$960.00} in cleaning/repairs or the {$3200.00} flooring replacement. There is XXXX proof that any repair work was actually done or paid for. 

Photographic Evidence : Not provided. I asked for time-stamped photos or similar evidence of the apartments condition before and after my tenancy, to prove the damages claimed were beyond normal wear-and-tear and caused by me. ProCollect did not produce a single photograph. 

Proof of Mitigation ( Re-rental ) : Not provided. Under Washington law ( XXXX  XXXX ), a landlord must make reasonable efforts to re-rent the unit if a tenant leaves early, and can only charge rent until a new tenant is found ( and only for the period the unit actually sat vacant ). I requested evidence of the landlords mitigation efforts e.g. when they advertised or re-listed the apartment, how long it stayed vacant, and when a new lease began. ProCollect provided no information at all on whether or when the unit was re-rented. They have not shown that I owe any rent for periods after my move-out. 

Explanation for Inflated Flooring Charge : Not provided. The landlords initial paperwork had a placeholder charge of {$2000.00} for flooring, which was later increased to {$3200.00}. I demanded an explanation and proof for this 64 % increase who determined the higher cost, based on what estimate or invoice, and whether the flooring was actually replaced. No explanation or documentation was given. This {$1200.00} jump appears completely arbitrary and unsubstantiated. 

Move-Out Inspection Report : Not provided. Washington law requires landlords to perform a move-out inspection ( ideally with the tenant ) and document any damages in a written checklist or report ( XXXX  XXXX ). I asked for a copy of the final move-out inspection report, including the date it occurred, who conducted it, and evidence that I was notified or allowed to be present. ProCollect did not furnish this. I was never given an opportunity to do a joint walkthrough, yet they are charging me for a long list of damages.

Legal/Lease Justifications : Not provided. I requested that each charge be tied to a specific lease clause or legal authority permitting it. ProCollect gave no written explanation of the basis for each charge ( e.g. early termination fees, cleaning fees, etc. ), aside from citing the lease generally. 

Proof of Causation for Damages : Not provided. There is no evidence that any alleged damage was caused by me ( or my negligence ) as opposed to pre-existing conditions, normal wear-and-tear, or issues caused by others. ProCollect failed to provide any expert statements or documentation on this point.

In sum, ProCollect has not validated this debt at all they have only supplied a copy of the lease and the landlords summary invoice, and nothing else. They ignored my detailed validation demand that was well within my rights under 15 U.S.C. 1692g. This falls far short of the FDCPAs standard for verification. Simply restating the amount claimed or forwarding an existing bill is not true verification of a debt ; the FDCPA requires the collector to obtain and provide meaningful evidence that the debt is legitimate and owed by the consumer. ProCollect never did so.

Crucially, even the original creditor has effectively admitted that no further documentation exists. In late XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX Ridges management confirmed in writing that they had forwarded only the signed lease and a generic invoice to ProCollect, and nothing more. In an email dated XX/XX/XXXX, I noted to the landlord that the only thing the collection agency has sent me was the second invoice ( after the initial estimate had been changed ) and the copy of the lease, to which they did not add any additional documents. This is a written admission by the landlord that no photographs, no receipts, no detailed itemization, etc., were ever provided to the collection agency. In other words, both the landlord and ProCollect know that none of the legally required supporting documents exist or were produced. Despite this, the collection account remains active and ProCollect has continued to pursue it and report it, causing ongoing damage to my credit. 

Continued Collection and Credit Reporting Despite Dispute ProCollects conduct after my dispute violated the law. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), once I notified them on XX/XX/XXXX that I dispute the debt and requested validation, they were required to cease all collection efforts until they mailed me verification of the debt. Collection efforts include reporting the debt to credit bureaus or otherwise attempting to collect. ProCollect, however, did not cease collection. They persisted in maintaining the collection account and continued to report the debt on my credit report even though it was ( and is ) unverified and disputed. Additionally, the FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ) ) prohibits a debt collector from reporting credit information it knows is disputed without flagging it as disputed. I explicitly informed ProCollect of this obligation, yet for many months the collection tradeline on my credit report did not show any dispute notation, indicating ProCollect failed to communicate the dispute to the credit bureaus. I eventually had to file a direct dispute with TransUnion in late XXXX to get the item updated. Following my dispute, XXXX investigation results showed that the disputed information [ was ] updated on the ProCollect account and certain fields were changed essentially adding the proper dispute remarks and updating the record. This belated update, prompted by my intervention, confirms that ProCollect initially reported the debt without noting it was disputed, in violation of 1692e ( 8 ). ProCollect had notice of my dispute since XXXX, yet the correction to the credit report only occurred after I escalated the issue months later. 

Moreover, ProCollects ongoing collection activities in the face of a void/invalid debt raise additional FDCPA concerns. They are attempting to collect amounts that are not legally collectible due to the landlords failures ( see below ), which is a false representation of the character and amount of the debt ( a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ). It is also an unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt under 15 U.S.C. 1692f, given that the debt has not been validated and appears to be baseless. I informed ProCollect that continuing to pursue a debt not actually owed or substantiated is unlawful and would expose them to liability, but they have persisted. To date, the derogatory collection account remains on my credit reports, harming my credit score and reputation, and ProCollect has not withdrawn the collection or corrected the record fully. Every day this disputed, unverified debt remains is a continued injury to me as a consumer. 

Violations of Law by ProCollect ( FDCPA ) and the Landlord ( XXXX XXXX ) The actions of ProCollect ( and the underlying landlord, whose claim they are attempting to collect ) flout multiple provisions of federal and state law. The following is a summary of the key legal violations demonstrated in this case : Failure to Validate Debt ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ). ProCollect did not provide adequate verification of the debt after my timely dispute. They continued collection without furnishing the required documentation, violating 1692g ( b ) which mandates ceasing collection until debt validation is provided. Sending only a lease and a one-page invoice is not true validation under the FDCPA.

False Credit Reporting of Disputed Debt ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ) ). ProCollect reported the debt to credit bureaus without noting that I disputed it, despite having been informed of the dispute. Failing to communicate a known dispute is explicitly prohibited by 1692e ( 8 ). This deceptive omission was only rectified after I directly disputed with the credit bureau months later.

Misrepresentation and Unfair Collection ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e & 1692f ). By attempting to collect an amount that is not supported by law or facts, ProCollect is misrepresenting the character, amount, or legal status of the debt ( violating 1692e ( 2 ) ) and using unfair means to collect ( violating 1692f ). Demanding ~ {$8000.00} without the requisite proof and in the face of clear state-law violations by the landlord is both false and unconscionable.

Improper Damage Charges and Documentation Failures ( XXXX  XXXX ). XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX required the landlord to provide me with a full and specific itemized statement of damages within 30 days of move-out, including copies of estimates or invoices to substantiate each charge. The landlord failed to do so I was never given any receipts or verifiable documentation within the 30-day window ( or ever ). XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( b ) expressly prohibits a landlord from charging a tenant for damages that are not properly documented as required, and from assigning such unsubstantiated charges to any collection agency. By sending an unsupported {$7900.00} claim to ProCollect ( and by ProCollect attempting to collect it ), they have violated this statute. Essentially, the landlord forfeited the right to claim these damages by not following the law, yet ProCollect is pursuing them regardless. 

Failure to XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ). The landlord also charged me for future rent ( XX/XX/XXXX rent, even though I had vacated on XX/XX/XXXX ) without showing any mitigation efforts. XXXX XXXX requires landlords to make diligent attempts to re-rent the unit and only allows recovery of rent for the period the unit sits vacant ( or the difference if re-rented at a lower rate ), whichever is less. I notified the landlord well in advance that I could not continue the lease and left early under duress, yet they still billed me as if the entire lease term was my responsibility. ProCollect provided no evidence that the unit wasnt re-rented promptly or that any actual rental loss occurred. Charging me for the full month of XX/XX/XXXX ( and potentially beyond ) violates XXXX  XXXX duty to mitigate. If the apartment was re-leased shortly after I left ( which I suspect it was or could have been ), then attempting to collect that rent from me is unlawful. 

No Move-Out Inspection or Acknowledgment of Wear-and-Tear ( XXXX XXXX ). Washington law gives tenants the right to a joint move-out inspection to document any damages beyond normal wear-and-tear. I was not given an opportunity to participate in any such inspection, nor have I seen a move-out checklist or report. The laundry list of damages the landlord compiled ( for painting, cleaning, etc. ) appears to include ordinary cleaning/maintenance and possibly pre-existing conditions, which should not be chargeable to me. By failing to conduct or document a proper move-out inspection with me, the landlord violated XXXX XXXX. ProCollect is attempting to collect these improperly assessed damage charges regardless.

In summary, the debt ProCollect is pursuing is legally defective. The landlords own non-compliance with XXXX  XXXX ( failing to provide documentation and mitigate damages ) means the underlying charges are not lawfully collectible. XXXX persistence in collecting this debt without verification and in the face of these clear violations has caused multiple FDCPA breaches on their part as well. 

Impact on Consumer and Request for Relief Because of ProCollects actions, I have been unjustly subjected to a derogatory collection account for over a year. My credit report was hit with an ~ {$8000.00} collection item, severely damaging my credit score and hindering my ability to obtain housing or credit on fair terms. I have spent considerable time and effort trying to resolve this, including writing detailed dispute letters, following up repeatedly, and filing a credit bureau dispute. The stress and harm to my reputation are real and ongoing. It is profoundly unfair that an unvalidated, disputed debt one that I do not even owe under the law is being used to penalize me. ProCollect had an obligation to investigate and substantiate the debt before reporting or continuing to collect it ; instead, they have been content to blindly chase whatever the landlord claimed, with no regard for the truth or the law.

I am requesting the CFPBs intervention to put an end to these practices. Specifically, I ask that the Bureau require ProCollect to either : ( a ) provide a full and proper validation of this debt with all supporting documents, or ( b ) immediately remove this collection from my credit reports and cease all collection efforts. Given the facts, the only acceptable outcomes are for ProCollect to either prove the debt with the detailed evidence required by law or delete it entirely. At this stage, I have no confidence that any such proof exists and indeed the landlords admissions indicate it does not. Therefore, the appropriate resolution is likely the complete removal of the tradeline and closure of the account. ProCollect should also update all credit bureaus to reflect that the debt is disputed and/or deleted and ensure no further negative reporting occurs.

Additionally, I want to note that I am prepared to pursue further action if necessary. The pattern of behavior here failing to validate, continuing to report a disputed debt, and attempting to collect unlawful charges is egregious. I urge the CFPB to take this complaint seriously and hold ProCollect accountable to all applicable laws, so that no other consumer is subjected to such a frustrating and harmful experience. I simply want this baseless collection removed from my name unless the collector can truly and lawfully substantiate every XXXX ( which, to date, they have utterly failed to do ). Thank you for your attention to this matter and for helping enforce my rights under the law. 

Complaint Summary : ProCollect Inc. has failed to validate a disputed debt and is attempting to collect amounts not lawfully owed, in violation of the FDCPA and Washington State law. They only provided a lease and a one-page invoice, refusing to supply the required proof ( rent ledger, receipts, photos, etc. ). The alleged balance itself changed without explanation ( from ~ {$6600.00} to {$7900.00} ) and includes charges that are unsubstantiated and improper under XXXX XXXX. Despite my dispute, ProCollect continued collection activities and credit reporting without marking the debt as disputed. I request that CFPB compel ProCollect to provide full validation or delete the collection, as their current conduct violates multiple consumer protection laws and is causing ongoing harm.

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