Consumer complaint received 2026-03-30 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was paid
Company: Kinum, Inc., Indianapolis, IN Branch
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Kinum , Inc. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for nine willful violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. I am a consumer in XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. Kinum is attempting to collect {$300.00} on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). This balance arises from a supplemental insurance billing I never personally agreed to pay. I never executed any personal payment agreement or contract. My insurance carrier paid {$16000.00} confirmed in Kinum 's own XX/XX/XXXX FDCPA validation notice. XXXX XXXX charged off the remaining {$300.00} internally. Their own Roof.Link billing system shows a {$0.00} balance on my account. I have never personally paid this amount and no such payment exists in any of my financial records. VIOLATION 1 COLLECTING ON CHARGED-OFF DEBT NO PERSONAL OBLIGATION FDCPA 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ), 1692e ( 10 ), 1692f Kinum is pursuing collection of {$300.00} that : ( a ) arises from an insurance supplemental billing I never personally agreed to pay ; ( b ) has been charged off by the original creditor, XXXX XXXX XXXX and ( c ) is reflected as {$0.00} in XXXX XXXX XXXX own XXXX billing system. There is no personal payment obligation supporting this collection effort. VIOLATION 2 8+ MONTHS OF WILLFUL FALSE CREDIT REPORTING FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), 1681s-2 ( b ), 1681n Kinum reports {$300.00} as currently past due on my Experian credit report as of XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX 's own billing system shows {$0.00}. Kinum is furnishing information it has reasonable cause to believe is inaccurate. My dispute notation has been active for XXXX months. The reported balance has not changed by a single dollar no genuine investigation was conducted. VIOLATION XXXX FABRICATED {$5.00} INTEREST NO CONTRACT ADDED AFTER DEADLINE FDCPA 1692f ( 1 ), 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) Kinum 's own XX/XX/XXXX validation notice shows interest = {$0.00}. Every subsequent letter through XX/XX/XXXX confirmed {$0.00}. Then on XX/XX/XXXX 25 days after XXXX 's own dispute deadline of XX/XX/XXXX XXXX added {$5.00} in interest with no contractual basis. This is not interest. It is a retroactively fabricated charge. No agreement, no contract, and no law authorizes this amount. VIOLATION 4 APRIL 2 LETTER CONTRADICTS KINUM 'S OWN XX/XX/XXXX VALIDATION NOTICE FDCPA 1692e ( 10 ), 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) Kinum 's XX/XX/XXXX validation notice confirms {$16000.00} credited to the account. Eight days later XX/XX/XXXX Kinum 's letter states : 'Neither we nor our client, XXXX XXXX have record of your payment. ' These two statements from the same company about the same account, eight days apart, are irreconcilable. Kinum 's own documents contradict each other. VIOLATION 5 FAILURE TO REPORT CORRECT ORIGINAL DELINQUENCY DATE TO EXPERIAN FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 5 ), 1681n FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 5 ) required Kinum to report the month and year of original delinquency commencement XX/XX/XXXX per Kinum 's own validation notice to XXXX within 90 days of first furnishing. Kinum apparently reported approximately XX/XX/XXXX instead ( working backwards from the XX/XX/XXXX removal date ). This 17-month error directly caused the unlawful removal date and constitutes an independent FCRA violation proven by Kinum 's own two documents. VIOLATION 6 CREDIT REPORT RETENTION DATE EXCEEDS FCRA MAXIMUM BY ~11 MONTHS FCRA 1681c ( a ) ( 4 ), 1681c ( c ) ( 1 ) Kinum 's own validation notice states the debt arose XX/XX/XXXX. Applying the XXXX buffer of FCRA XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ) : XX/XX/XXXX + 180 days = XX/XX/XXXX clock start + 7 years = XX/XX/XXXX maximum removal date. Kinum has caused XXXX to report XX/XX/XXXX approximately XXXX months beyond the federal statutory maximum, proven entirely by Kinum 's own document. VIOLATION 7 HARASSMENT SIX LETTERS IN 65 DAYS PLUS MULTIPLE PHONE CALLS FDCPA 1692d, CFPB Regulation F 1006.14 Kinum sent six collection letters between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX a 65-day period plus multiple phone calls, all on a {$300.00} charged-off balance with no personal payment obligation behind it. VIOLATION XXXX FAILURE TO REASONABLY INVESTIGATE CONSUMER DISPUTE 7+ MONTHS FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ), CFPB Circular XXXX My dispute notation has been active on this Kinum tradeline since XX/XX/XXXX over seven months. The reported balance has not changed by a single dollar, the scheduled payment remains {$0.00}, and no data element has been modified in any way. Confirming disputed information without substantive review ( 'parroting ' ) is a per se violation of furnisher reinvestigation obligations under CFPB XXXX XXXX. VIOLATION XXXX XXXX XXXX DOCUMENTED PRIOR IDENTICAL CONDUCT FCRA 1681n ( a ) ( 2 ) Willfulness XXXX XXXX the specific Kinum employee involved in this matter has been identified by name in prior consumer complaints involving the identical conduct : refusing to delete a credit bureau tradeline after receiving proof of account resolution directly from a consumer. This documented pattern of repeated identical conduct by the same employee across multiple consumers establishes willful noncompliance under FCRA 1681n.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation