Consumer complaint received 2025-12-30 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Sued you in a state where you do not live or did not sign for the debt
Company: FAIR COLLECTIONS & OUTSOURCING, INC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this feedback to formally state that I am creating a new CFPB case because my previous case XXXX was closed without resolving the underlying dispute. Although the prior case was marked closed, the account remains reported, the dispute remains unresolved, and the company has not provided legally sufficient proof that this account belongs to me. As a result, further review and escalation are necessary. 

I continue to dispute this account in its entirety. I do not own this account, I did not open it, and I never authorized any lease, service, or contractual obligation with XXXX on XXXX or Fair Collections and Outsourcing ( FCO ). Because the account is not mine, I filed an official FTC Identity Theft Report. The companys response does not adequately address my identity theft claim, does not rebut it with documentation, and does not justify continued reporting under federal law. 

1. Identity Theft and FTC Filing Remain Unaddressed The central issue in this dispute is identity theft and misattribution. I affirm under penalty of perjury that I did not open or authorize this account. I took the legally appropriate step of filing an FTC Identity Theft Report, which triggers enhanced protections under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). When an identity theft report is filed, continued reporting requires the furnisher to produce documentation demonstrating that the consumer actually opened and authorized the account. 

In its response, FCO does not explain why the account was not blocked or removed following my identity theft filing. The response does not state that my identity theft report was evaluated, rebutted, or disproven. Instead, the company relies on assertions that documents exist, without providing those documents to me. This is insufficient to overcome an identity theft affidavit. 

2. Failure to Provide Proof of Authorization or Ownership FCOs response claims that a signed lease agreement and a final account statement exist and that this is all that is required to verify the account. However, no copies of these documents have been provided to me through the CFPB process, during prior disputes, or with the response itself. Stating that documents exist is not validation. Validation requires that the documents be produced and that they demonstrate my authorization. 

To date, the company has not provided : A copy of a lease agreement bearing my verified signature Proof of identity verification performed at the time of lease execution Documentation showing that I personally entered into the agreement Evidence linking my identity to the creation of the account Records rebutting my FTC Identity Theft Report Without producing these materials, the account remains unvalidated. 

3. Improper Burden Shifting to the Consumer The companys response improperly shifts the burden of proof to me by requesting that I provide proof of residence during the time period in question, such as mortgage statements, utility bills, or a fully executed lease. This approach is inconsistent with federal consumer protection laws. 

Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the burden rests with the furnisher and collector to prove that a debt is valid and accurately attributed to the consumer before continuing to report it. A consumer is not required to disprove a debt that has never been properly validated. Requiring me to produce documentation to disprove an unvalidated account reverses the legal burden and undermines the protections afforded to consumers. 

4. Mailing Statements Does Not Establish Liability The response states that verification of the debt was mailed to an address provided in the complaint. Mailing statements to an address does not establish that I opened, authorized, or agreed to the account. In cases of identity theft, addresses are often compromised or misused. The presence of mail delivery alone does not rebut an identity theft claim or establish contractual liability. 

A fair and lawful verification requires proof of authorization, not proof that mail was sent. 

5. No Method of Verification Provided The companys response does not explain the method of verification used during reinvestigation. It does not state : Whether the investigation was manual or automated What documents were reviewed Who reviewed them How my identity was verified How the company concluded that the account belongs to me Simply stating that the response was prepared in compliance does not demonstrate compliance. Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), consumers are entitled to understand how disputed information was verified. 

6. Continued Reporting Causes Ongoing Harm Despite my disputes and identity theft filing, the account remains reported. This continued reporting causes ongoing harm, including : Damage to my credit score Negative impact on lending decisions Increased financial costs Emotional distress Time and effort spent repeatedly disputing inaccurate information Labeling the account as disputed does not cure the harm. Disputed information must still be accurate and verifiable. Fraudulent or unvalidated accounts should be blocked or removed, not merely flagged. 

7. Prior Case Closure Did Not Resolve the Dispute My previous CFPB case XXXX was closed without resolving these issues. The closure did not result in production of documentation, deletion of the account, or acknowledgment of my identity theft claim. Because the account remains reported and the dispute remains unresolved, I am now proceeding with a new CFPB case to ensure full compliance with federal law. 

The closure of the prior case should not be interpreted as validation of the account or acceptance of the companys assertions. It simply reflects that the process ended without resolution. 

8. Continued Reliance on Internal Records Is Insufficient The company appears to rely on internal records and summaries rather than original, consumer-authorized documentation. Internal records do not establish that I agreed to the account. Fraudulent accounts can generate internal records, billing statements, and balances without consumer authorization. These records do not convert fraud into a valid debt. 

To continue reporting, the company must demonstrate that I personally entered into the agreement and consented to the obligation. 

9. Legal Standards Require Deletion of Unverified Information Under FCRA 607 ( b ), information must be reported with maximum possible accuracy. Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), information that can not be verified must be deleted. Under FCRA 605B, identity-theft-related information must be blocked unless certified as accurate. Under FDCPA 809 ( b ), collection activity must cease until validation is provided. 

The companys response does not demonstrate compliance with these standards. 

10. Requested Outcome and CFPB Involvement Because the company has not validated the account, has not rebutted my FTC identity theft filing, and has improperly shifted the burden of proof, I am requesting further CFPB review. Specifically, I request that : The company be required to cease reporting unless it can produce proof of authorization The account be blocked or removed pursuant to identity theft protections The dispute not be closed solely on the basis of internal records Reinsertion be prohibited without legal certification Conclusion I do not own this account. I did not open or authorize it. I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report. Fair Collections and Outsourcing has not provided documentation proving my authorization and has instead attempted to shift the burden of proof to me. My prior CFPB case XXXX was closed without resolving these issues, which is why I am creating a new case. Continued reporting of this account violates the spirit and letter of federal consumer protection laws and continues to cause harm. I respectfully request that this matter receive further review to ensure full compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and CFPB guidelines.

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