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: CAINE & WEINER COMPANY, INC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns significant inaccuracies, lack of verification, and procedural failures involving a collection account being reported by Caine Weiner, a debt collection agency. Despite multiple lawful attempts to obtain validation, verification, and documentation as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Caine Weiner has continued to report a derogatory collection tradeline that has not been substantiated with legally required proof. These actions have resulted in misleading, unverified, and potentially unlawful negative information appearing on my credit reports, causing ongoing harm. 

The purpose of this statement is to provide a thorough account of what happened, outline the steps I have taken to resolve the issue, detail how Caine Weiner and the credit bureaus responded, and demonstrate why this matter constitutes a violation of multiple consumer-protection statutes. 

1. Discovery of the Issue In reviewing my credit reports, I discovered that Caine Weiner was reporting a derogatory collection account with a past-due balance. This was the first time I had ever seen this account. I received no prior communication from Caine Weiner regarding the existence of the alleged debt, no notice of placement, and no written validation prior to the account appearing on my credit file. 

The reporting appeared suddenly without any earlier contact, without any debt validation notice, and without any attempt by the company to communicate with me in compliance with FDCPA 809 ( a ), which requires collectors to send a written notice within five days of initial communication. 

Because I had no records of this debt, no billing statements, no correspondence, and no proof that this alleged account belonged to me, I immediately began the formal dispute process. 

2. Initial Actions Taken by Me Upon discovering the derogatory collection entry from Caine Weiner, I promptly took the following steps : ( A ) Disputed the account with all three credit bureaus Under FCRA 611 ( a ), consumers have the right to dispute inaccurate or incomplete information. I filed disputes with : XXXX XXXX XXXX I clearly explained that the alleged collection account was unknown to me, that I had never received validation of any kind, and that the debt was therefore unverified. 

( B ) Requested debt validation directly from Caine Weiner Under FDCPA 809 ( b ), a consumer has the right to demand validation of any debt being collected. I requested : The name of the original creditor The amount of the alleged debt The date of service or transaction Copies of any contracts, agreements, or account records Proof of ownership or assignment Chain of custody showing transfer of the alleged account Verification that the amount is accurate and lawful Proof that Caine Weiner had the right to collect or report this account This request was submitted in writing and delivered with confirmation. 

( C ) Asked for procedural details from the credit bureaus Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ), I requested the detailed method of verification, asking the bureaus to disclose : How the information was verified What documentation was reviewed Whether verification was done manually or electronically Whether the furnisher provided paperwork or merely an automated response The date of verification The person or department who verified the information Any supporting documentation supplied by Caine Weiner None of this was provided. 

3. Responses Received From the Credit Bureaus Within a short period, each credit bureau issued the same generic response : The account has been verified as accurate. 

However : No bureaus provided copies of documentation used to verify the debt. 

No bureaus provided written procedures explaining how verification was conducted. 

No bureaus provided evidence that any original documentation was reviewed. 

Some bureaus completed the reinvestigation within as little as seven days, far too short for meaningful manual review. 

Each bureau refused to supply the verification method, despite my lawful request. 

This suggests that : The dispute was processed through automated systems such as XXXX, which transmits dispute codes to furnishers. 

Caine Weiner likely responded with a one-click automated verified status. 

No human investigation occurred. 

No actual documents were reviewed. 

This violates the FCRA requirement for reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. 

4. Responses from Caine Weiner Despite my written requests for validation : Caine Weiner did not provide any copy of an original contract. 

Caine Weiner did not provide account statements or transaction details. 

Caine Weiner did not supply proof of ownership or assignment. 

Caine Weiner did not provide itemization of any balance. 

Caine Weiner did not provide evidence that the debt is mine. 

Caine Weiner did not show that any communication was ever sent to me. 

Caine Weiner did not provide documentation verifying the amount owed. 

Caine Weiner did not provide records showing the debt is still legally enforceable. 

Caine Weiner did not produce any evidence of a relationship with the alleged original creditor. 

Despite failing to validate the debt as required under FDCPA 809 ( b ), Caine Weiner continued : Reporting the account Updating derogatory information Furnishing negative data to credit bureaus This is expressly prohibited by federal law. 

5. Violations by Caine Weiner Based on the facts, Caine Weiner appears to have violated multiple provisions of federal law : A. FDCPA Violations ( 1 ) Failure to provide validation Under FDCPA 809 ( a ) and 809 ( b ), a collector must send a written validation notice and must cease collection if the consumer requests validation. Caine Weiner never provided legally required documents. 

( 2 ) Continuing collection efforts without validation Caine Weiner continued reporting derogatory information while failing to validate the debt. This violates FDCPA 809 ( b ).

( 3 ) Reporting false or misleading information FDCPA 807 ( 8 ) prohibits communicating false credit information. Furnishing an unvalidated, unverified account constitutes misleading collection activity.

( 4 ) Failure to identify the true creditor FDCPA 807 ( 14 ) requires collectors to correctly identify the original creditor. Caine Weiner failed to do so.

B. FCRA Violations ( 1 ) Furnishing inaccurate information Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), no furnisher may provide information known to be inaccurate. Without validation, Caine Weiner can not accurately report the debt. 

( 2 ) Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation Under FCRA 623 ( b ), once the bureaus notify the furnisher of a dispute, the collector must investigate. Caine Weiner did not provide evidence of such investigation.

( 3 ) Failure to provide documentation to credit bureaus If a furnisher can not validate a debt, it must notify the bureaus. Caine Weiner did not.

( 4 ) Continued reporting of unverifiable information FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) requires deletion of unverifiable information. Caine Weiner violated this provision by continuing to update the tradeline. 

6. Violations by the Credit Bureaus The credit bureaus also failed to comply with federal law.

A. Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation ( FCRA 611 ) By relying on automated verification processes, the bureaus did not perform a reasonable reinvestigation.

B. Failure to provide the method of verification I explicitly requested the verification method under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ). None of the XXXX XXXXplied. 

C. Failure to delete unverifiable information The bureaus retained the derogatory account despite no supporting documentation. Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), unverifiable entries must be deleted.

D. Failure to provide maximum possible accuracy ( FCRA 607 ( b ) ) Allowing a collection agency to verify a debt electronicallywithout real proofviolates the FCRAs accuracy standard.

7. Harm Suffered Caine Weiners reporting has caused significant harm, including : Lower credit scores Credit denials Higher interest rates Difficulty obtaining financial approval Reduced credit card limits Higher insurance premiums Stress, emotional harm, and reputational damage Wasted time disputing inaccurate information Every month the unverifiable account remains, the harm increases. 

8. Failure to Comply with Industry Standards Debt collectors must maintain records, proof of assignment, account-level documentation, and transaction history. Caine Weiner provided none. 

Additionally, major industry-standard practicessuch as providing itemized balances, chain of custody, and creditor authorization documentationwere ignored. 

9. Lack of Transparency At no point was I provided : A signed contract A copy of the original agreement Transactions or itemization Proof of account ownership Proof of right to collect Validation notice Date of last payment Charge-off records Account statements Chain-of-title documentation Without these items, the debt is unvalidated and unverified.

10. Reasonable Conclusion Given the lack of evidence, Caine Weiners reporting appears to be : Unverified Unvalidated Legally unsupported Potentially inaccurate Potentially unlawful In violation of both FDCPA and FCRA 11. Burden of Proof Is on the Furnisher Not the Consumer The FCRA does not require the consumer to prove the inaccuracy. 
It requires the furnisher to prove accuracy. 

Caine Weiner has not met this burden. 

12. Summary of Violations FDCPA Violations : 809 ( a ) Failure to send validation notice 809 ( b ) Continuing collection without validation 807 ( 8 ) False representation of credit information 807 ( 14 ) Failure to identify original creditor FCRA Violations : 607 ( b ) Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy 611 ( a ) Failure to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) Failure to delete unverifiable information 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ) Failure to provide method of verification 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) Furnishing inaccurate information 623 ( b ) Failure to investigate disputes 13. Why CFPB Assistance Is Needed I have exhausted all reasonable internal remedies. Caine Weiner has : Ignored validation requests Ignored documentation requirements Ignored consumer rights Continued reporting unverifiable data Failed to conduct lawful investigation The credit bureaus have : Relied on automated verification Ignored procedural requests Failed to provide verification details Failed to ensure accuracy CFPB involvement is necessary to enforce federal law. 

14. What This Complaint Seeks I am not asking for special treatment or favored outcomes. 
I am simply requesting that the law be followed. 

Specifically, I seek : A lawful, documented, manual reinvestigation Full validation documents from the furnisher Removal of the unverifiable collection account Correction of any inaccurate or contradictory reporting Transparency in the verification process Assurance that the account will not reappear without certification All of these actions are required under the FCRA and FDCPA. 

15. Conclusion Caine Weiner has reported a collection account that is unvalidated, unverified, unsupported by documentation, and in violation of federal law. The credit bureaus failed to follow proper procedures, failed to verify information, and failed to provide transparency. 

This complaint seeks to ensure compliance with FCRA and FDCPA, the removal of unverifiable derogatory information, and the protection of the consumers legal rights.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation