Consumer complaint received 2025-12-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: RentDebt Automated Collections, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Creditor/Furnisher : RentDebt Automated Collections , LLC ( RDAC ) Referenced Account : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX Reason for Filing : Took or threatened to take negative or legal action ; false reporting ; identity theft ; failure to validate ; failure to block fraudulent information ; reinvestigation violations ; inaccurate credit reporting. 

This submission is not a duplicate case. The prior case was closed without resolving the issues, therefore I am filing this as a rebuttal, consistent with CFPB guidelines. 

SECTION 1 RDACS THREATENING AND UNLAWFUL ACTIONS ( Took or threatened to take negative or legal action ) At several points in RDACs communications and conduct, the company took or threatened to take negative or legal action against me, despite having full notice of identity theft, fraud indicators, police documentation, and my FTC Identity-Theft Report. Specifically : RDAC continued to report a fraudulent debt to all major credit bureaus, knowing the account is disputed and linked to identity theft. 

RDAC continued to attempt collection, even after notifying me that I may be a victim of fraud. 

RDAC stated or implied that negative credit reporting would continue unless I complied with demands for extensive documentsshifting the burden to me, contrary to federal identity-theft protections. 

RDAC threatened ongoing damage to my credit rating by maintaining and updating the derogatory tradeline. 

RDAC indicated that legal consequences or continued collection actions could occur if I did not provide notarized affidavits, ID copies, and additional documentsdespite this request being procedurally unlawful following an identity-theft filing. 

Under FDCPA 1692e ( 5 ), a debt collector may not threaten actions that can not legally be taken or that are not intended to be taken. 

RDAC violated this section by : Threatening continued collection while the debt was unvalidated. 

Threatening continued negative credit reporting after receiving an FTC identity-theft affidavit. 

Threatening legal consequences unless I completed their identity-theft packeteven though federal law requires YOU, the furnisher, to investigate and block the information once notified, not require the consumer to prove innocence. 

Under FCRA 605B, once identity-theft documentation is submitted, the furnisher must block and remove the account, not continue furnishing and threatening consequences. 

RDACs actions fall directly into the CFPB violation category : Took or threatened to take negative or legal action. 

This violation must be formally recognized and addressed. 

SECTION 2 FAILURE TO VALIDATE & ILLEGAL CONTINUATION OF COLLECTION RDACs response does NOT meet the validation requirements under FDCPA 809, which require the collector to provide : Legal ownership of the debt Contract with wet signature or verifiable digital authentication Complete accounting itemizing all charges Chain of assignment from original creditor to RDAC Explanation of how the balance was calculated Names of all persons involved in verification Method of verification under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) RDAC produced none of the above. 

Instead, they provided : A generic move-out statement ( not authenticated ) A request for ME to provide additional documents An affidavit-of-forgery form Instructions for me to gather evidence on their behalf This is not validation. 

The Move-Out Statement you provided ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) contains conflicting data, unexplained charges, and inconsistent calculations that contradict RDACs claimed balance of {$9700.00}. 
( See pages 12 of the uploaded statement. ) RDAC made no attempt to reconcile the discrepancies, which demonstrates they did not conduct a reasonable investigation. 

SECTION 3 IDENTITY-THEFT NOTIFICATIONS IGNORED ( AND THREATS CONTINUED ) RDAC openly acknowledges in their own CFPB response that : They received an identity-theft alert from the credit bureaus They reviewed a federal trade commission identity-theft report They were made aware that I believed the account was fraud They received multiple disputes regarding this account Despite this, they continued : Furnishing the account Demanding payments Threatening ongoing negative reporting Requiring me to provide additional notarized documents after receiving an FTC identity report Claiming they could continue collection until I satisfied their demands Pushing responsibility onto me rather than conducting a legally required reinvestigation Under FCRA 605B, this is unlawful. 

Furnishers MUST block identity-theft accounts within 4 business days of receiving : FTC Identity Theft Report Consumer dispute Proof of identity RDAC ignored all three. 

Under FDCPA 1692c, collectors must cease communications when identity theft is claimed. 

RDAC ignored this too. 

Instead, RDAC issued coercive demands for a notarized affidavit and police report, attaching consequences for failure to complyconstituting threatening action that can not legally be taken. 

SECTION 4 IMPROPER BURDEN SHIFTING ( UNLAWFUL THREAT VIA COERCION ) RDACs repeated demandsstating that failure to provide certain documents would allow them to continue reporting or collectionconstitutes : Coercion, Threat of continued harm, Improper burden shifting, Violation of identity-theft protections, and Violation of the FDCPA. 

Federal law places the ENTIRE investigative burden on the furnisher, not the consumer. 

Therefore, RDACs conduct is an unlawful attempt to : force compliance under threat of continued derogatory reporting and under implied threat of legal consequences This directly matches the complaint category : Took or threatened to take negative or legal action. 
SECTION 5 FAILURE TO PROVIDE METHOD OF VERIFICATION Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ), when a consumer disputes an account, the furnisher must provide : The method of verification Detailed description of documents used Name of the individual who verified Credentials, systems, timestamps, and chain of custody Explanation of how accuracy was determined RDAC instead responded with : Vague statements No system logs No identity verification No chain-of-assignment documentation No ledger audit No contract authentication Threats and negative actions continued without validation. 

This is a clear FCRA violation layered on top of unlawful threats. 

SECTION 6 RDACS INVALID RELIANCE ON CREDIT BUREAU VERIFICATION RDAC states that the CRAs verified the account after being contacted for reinvestigation. However : XXXX verification does NOT constitute legal validation Automated code responses do NOT meet the standards of FCRA 611 The furnisher must provide original documentation, not automated confirmations RDACs reliance on this process, followed by continuing derogatory reporting and collection, is another example of threatening negative action through the use of faulty and incomplete procedures. 

SECTION 7 SUPPRESSION REQUEST IGNORED Under FCRA, a disputed item must be : Suppressed during reinvestigation Blocked if identity theft is involved RDAC continued furnishing the account at all three bureaus. 

This is yet another case where RDAC took negative action despite legal prohibition. 

SECTION 8 MISREPRESENTATION OF AUTHORITY ( Threatened legal action ) RDACs letters imply : They have legal authority to enforce the debt They may pursue additional collection activity Continued reporting is lawful They may take further action unless I meet their document demands This constitutes misrepresentation of legal status, violating : FDCPA 1692e ( 2 ) FDCPA 1692e ( 5 ) FDCPA 1692e ( 10 ) Threatening legal or collection consequences when the debt is : disputed, unvalidated, tied to identity theft, and potentially fraudulent is expressly prohibited. 

SECTION 9 AUDIT TRAIL REQUEST ( Still Ignored ) I again request : All XXXX communications All internal notes Full accounting ledger with explanations All dates, times, and individuals involved in verification Chain-of-assignment documents Communications between XXXX XXXX and RDAC All documents RDAC claims support the debt Method of verification RDACs failure to provide this information while continuing harmful reporting is another form of negative action taken without authority. 

SECTION 10 REQUIRED REMEDIES I formally request : 1. Immediate deletion of the RDAC account from all credit bureaus The account is fraudulent, unvalidated, and unlawfully furnished. 

2. Immediate blocking under FCRA 605B Identity-theft documentation was previously submitted. 

3. Suppression of the account during reinvestigation 4. Written confirmation that : No reinsertion will occur Furnishing has ceased Collection has ceased The furnisher has been notified 5. Civil and regulatory review Given RDACs repeated threatening of negative and legal action, the CFPB must evaluate for : Pattern of abusive practices Misuse of identity-theft procedures Illegal maintenance of fraudulent tradelines Improper verification processes FINAL STATEMENT This rebuttal makes clear that RDAC : Took and threatened to take negative and legal action, Ignored identity-theft protections, Failed to validate, Failed to reinvestigate, Furnished inaccurate information, Attempted coercion and burden shifting, Continued damaging my credit despite knowing the account is disputed and potentially fraudulent. 

I respectfully request that the CFPB intervene and compel RDAC to delete this account permanently and comply with all federal standards. 

I also confirm that I am personally submitting this complaint, and no third party is involved.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation