Consumer complaint received 2025-11-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery Inc.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint to report serious issues regarding the accuracy, validity, and continued reporting of a derogatory collection account furnished by LMMINC. This account appears on my consumer credit reports as a collection or charge-off with an alleged past-due balance of approximately {$880.00}. I am disputing the presence, accuracy, and legitimacy of this account because the furnisher has failed to provide any documentation proving its validity, ownership, or lawful authority to report it. Additionally, the credit reporting agencies have failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation into my disputes, instead responding with automated form letters that provide no substantive justification for continuing to publish the derogatory account. This narrative outlines what has occurred, why this reporting is unlawful, and the harm that it has caused. 

1. Discovery of the LMMINC Account I first became aware of the LMMINC collection account during a routine review of my credit reports. The account did not match any financial obligation I recognized, nor was there any memory of having received notices from LMMINC prior to the account appearing on my credit file. The account appeared with vague, incomplete, and inconsistent information across the different credit reporting agencies. Some agencies listed the balance differently ; others displayed incomplete dates or failed to identify the original creditor. This lack of clarity raised immediate concerns about the accuracy and legitimacy of the information being reported. 

The LMMINC entry was marked as derogatory and had a significant negative impact on my credit score. Because credit reports influence loan approvals, interest rates, insurance premiums, rental opportunities, and even employment screenings, discovering an unexplained and unvalidated negative account was alarming. For these reasons, I began the dispute process under the rights granted to me by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). 

2. Initial Disputes Sent to Credit Reporting Agencies As soon as I identified the LMMINC entry, I initiated written disputes with XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. I drafted separate dispute letters for each bureau, sent via certified mail, clearly identifying the LMMINC account and requesting a full investigation. In each letter, I cited the account as inaccurate, incomplete, and unverified. I also requested the following information : The specific method of verification used to confirm the LMMINC account Identification of the documents provided by LMMINC The date and system used to verify the information Whether verification was done through XXXX, manual review, or another process Evidence of the data transfer and chain of custody The legal authority permitting continued reporting of an account that had not been validated with original documentation My dispute letters were thorough, detailed, and fully compliant with FCRA 611 ( a ). Each letter provided more than enough information for the bureaus to conduct a meaningful reinvestigation. These disputes were mailed with tracking numbers and return receipts confirming delivery.

3. Validation Request Sent to LMMINC Under FDCPA In addition to disputing the information with the bureaus, I also sent a debt validation request directly to LMMINC under FDCPA 809 ( b ). In this letter, I made clear that I was not refusing to pay any legitimate debt ; instead, I was exercising my legal right to request verification. 

I asked LMMINC to provide : A copy of the original signed contract or agreement The identity and contact information of the original creditor An itemized list of all charges, payments, fees, and interest claimed Documentation showing assignment or transfer of the alleged account to LMMINC Proof that LMMINC is legally authorized to collect or report the debt Evidence showing how the account was verified when reporting to credit bureaus This request was sent via certified mail, and delivery was confirmed.

4. Inadequate or Non-Existent Responses Over the following weeks, I received responses from the credit bureaus. Unfortunately, every response was a generic form letter stating that the information was verified as accurate. None of the bureaus provided any explanation of the procedural steps taken during the reinvestigation. None identified the source of verification, the documents reviewed, or the method used. These responses failed to comply with the requirements of FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), which obligates consumer reporting agencies to provide a description of the procedure used during reinvestigation when requested by the consumer. 

Even more concerning, LMMINC never provided any validation. They did not send a signed contract, billing statements, proof of ownership, or any document whatsoever. They simply ignored the debt validation request while continuing to report the account to the credit bureaus. Under FDCPA 809 ( b ), this is unlawful. A debt collector must cease collection activityincluding furnishing information to credit reporting agenciesuntil validation is provided.

By failing to respond, LMMINC effectively admitted they do not possess documentation to validate the account. 

5. Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act The FCRA establishes strict obligations for credit reporting agencies and furnishers when a consumer disputes information. Based on the events described, the following likely violations occurred : FCRA 602 Accuracy and Fairness Congress emphasized the need for accurate credit reporting because unfair reporting damages consumers. The continued reporting of unverifiable information violates this foundational principle. 

FCRA 607 ( b ) Maximum Possible Accuracy Credit bureaus must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy. Accepting unverifiable information conflicts with this responsibility.

FCRA 611 ( a ) Reasonable Reinvestigation Credit bureaus must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes an account. A reasonable reinvestigation requires reviewing original documentationnot just receiving an automated data confirmation from a furnisher.

FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Description of Procedure The bureaus must provide a procedural description upon request. They did not.

FCRA 623 ( b ) Furnisher Duty to Investigate LMMINC must conduct its own investigation and delete or correct unverifiable data. Its failure to provide validation shows noncompliance.

The combined failures from both the bureaus and LMMINC indicate systemic disregard for legally mandated verification procedures. 

6. Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Under the FDCPA : FDCPA 809 ( b ) Failure to Validate LMMINC was legally required to cease reporting until it provided validation. It did not.

FDCPA 807 False or Misleading Representations Continuing to report a debt without validating its accuracy is misleading.

FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) Communicating False Credit Information Publishing unverified information constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice.

The FDCPA was designed to prevent exactly this kind of abusive reporting strategy. 

7. Systemic Problems with the Verification Process A deeper issue likely contributed to this outcome : the use of automated systems such as XXXX. Research indicates that credit bureaus routinely convert disputes into two- or three-digit codes representing simplified issues, ignoring detailed written explanations from consumers. The furnisher then responds electronically, often by clicking a box indicating the account is verified, without reviewing documentation.

If this automated process was used in my case, it would explain the vague responses from the credit bureaus. It would also demonstrate why the bureaus were unable to provide detailed reinvestigation proceduresthey did not perform them in the first place. 

Such systems result in superficial investigations that completely undermine the FCRA. 

8. Evidence Suggesting the LMMINC Account Is Unverifiable Based on my research and the absence of documentation, several indicators suggest that the LMMINC account can not be legitimately verified : No original creditor is listed No contract or agreement exists No payment or billing history accompanies the account The account may be beyond the statute of limitations The furnisher failed to respond to a lawful validation request The bureaus provided no verification details Data inconsistencies exist across reports These red flags collectively indicate that the account may be erroneous, outdated, sold multiple times without proper documentation, or otherwise invalid.

9. Harm Caused by the Continued Reporting The presence of this unvalidated LMMINC account has caused substantial harm. Because collection accounts are weighted heavily in credit scoring models, the derogatory report has lowered my credit standing. This affects : Credit card approvals Loan interest rates Housing applications Insurance rates Employment screenings Additionally, the emotional burden of dealing with unvalidated negative information is significant. I have spent time, money, and energy sending letters, tracking disputes, and dealing with the stress of inaccurate financial reporting. 

Consumers should not be penalized for exercising their rights. The harm caused by negligent reporting is both financial and emotional. 

10. Follow-Up Attempts Made After Initial Disputes After receiving insufficient responses from the bureaus, I continued submitting follow-up disputes, again requesting procedural information and validation. The credit bureaus refused to provide anything beyond generic statements. LMMINC remained unresponsive.

The lack of cooperation from the companies involved demonstrates a systemic problem that requires regulatory oversight. 

11. Why CFPB Intervention Is Necessary The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exists to ensure compliance with federal law, protect consumers, and promote fairness in the financial system. The circumstances of this case reflect a failure of both the bureaus and the furnisher to meet their legal obligations.

CFPB intervention is necessary because : Furnishers must be held accountable for unvalidated reporting Credit bureaus must be held accountable for inadequate reinvestigations Automated systems like XXXX must be examined for FCRA compliance Consumers must be protected from unfair and inaccurate reporting Unresponsive furnishers must not be allowed to continue damaging consumers Without CFPB involvement, the harm will continue and the systemic issues will persist.

12. Documents Available to Support This Complaint I have records of : All dispute letters sent to the bureaus All validation letters sent to LMMINC Certified mail receipts and tracking confirmations All credit bureau responses Copies of credit reports showing the disputed account These documents demonstrate that I acted in good faith, followed proper legal procedures, and received inadequate, non-compliant responses in return.

13. Requested Relief I respectfully request that the CFPB require : The deletion of the LMMINC account unless original documentation is produced A procedural description of the reinvestigation performed by each bureau Verification of whether XXXX or automation was used Production of the original contract or documentation from LMMINC Immediate cessation of reporting during validation Permanent prevention of reinsertion unless fully validated Corrections to be shared with all bureaus and third-party data resellers This requested relief aligns with FCRA and FDCPA requirements and ensures accuracy and fairness.

14. Conclusion This complaint concerns more than a single accountit highlights a systemic failure of the credit reporting and debt collection ecosystem. When furnishers fail to maintain documentation, and when credit bureaus rely on automated processes rather than genuine reinvestigation, consumers are left vulnerable to harm. I have made every effort to resolve this matter on my own. The companies involved have not complied with their legal obligations.

I request the CFPBs assistance in ensuring lawful documentation, accurate reporting, and accountability. The continued reporting of an unvalidated debt by LMMINC is unjust, unlawful, and harmful. A fair and lawful resolution requires regulatory intervention.

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