Consumer complaint received 2025-09-27 00:00:00
Product: Debt or credit management — Debt settlement
Issue: Charged upfront or unexpected fees — 
Company: NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns National Debt Relief, LLC ( NDR ), a debt settlement company. I am alleging violations of the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule ( premature/unauthorized fee collection ), misleading disclosures and inconsistent reporting that have caused significant financial and credit harm. 

Product : Debt Settlement / Debt Relief Services Company : National Debt Relief, LLC What happened I enrolled with National Debt Relief ( NDR ) in XX/XX/XXXX to settle ~ {$22000.00} of enrolled debt. Since then I have deposited {$5900.00} ( XXXX {$190.00} ) into my dedicated savings account. 

According to NDRs own letters and portal : Paid to creditors so far : about {$1700.00} ( XXXX {$820.00}, XXXX {$900.00}, XXXX {$75.00}, XXXX {$0.00} ). 

Account balance reported the same date : {$720.00} in the portal vs {$580.00} by email. A {$130.00} discrepancy that does not match my draft amount ( {$190.00} ) or the stated monthly admin/legal fees ( {$27.00} ). This suggests inaccurate or misleading balance reporting. 

Fees deducted to date ( per NDRs XX/XX/XXXX Client Account Fees letter ) : {$3400.00} total ( includes settlement fees for XXXX  {$450.00}, XXXX  {$370.00}, XXXX {$2200.00}, plus admin/legal ). 

XXXX : {$5900.00} deposits {$1700.00} creditor payments {$3400.00} fees = {$680.00} remaining, which still doesnt match either the {$720.00} portal or {$580.00} email balance ( again highlighting inconsistent reporting ). 

Violations & concerns Premature fee collection vs. what NDR told me NDR wrote to me on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX that they never collect a fee for a debt we have not settled and begin collecting fees once the first creditor payment is completed. In practice, they front-loaded the full 25 % settlement fee at signing : XXXX : XXXX reached XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX & XXXX ) ; first creditor payment {$25.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ; yet the entire {$2200.00} fee was deducted immediately at settlement start. 

XXXX and XXXX fees were similarly booked right at settlement start. 
This timing appears inconsistent with the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule ( 16 CFR Part 310 ) requirement that fees are collected only after a settlement is reached and a payment is made, and it contradicts their own written assurances to me. 

Illegal up-front solicitation for an unsettled account XXXX remains unsettled ( portal : Enrolled, 0 % complete ; no creditor payments ). On XX/XX/XXXX, NDR called me from XXXX and asked me to provide almost {$3000.00} up front to negotiate this last creditor. 
Requesting a lump sum up front to negotiate violates the FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule prohibition on requesting or collecting fees before a settlement is reached and the first payment is made. I declined and requested all communications in writing ; they did not follow up in writing. 

Conflicting & inaccurate reporting that harms consumers Balance mismatch same day : {$720.00} ( portal ) vs {$580.00} ( email ). The {$130.00} difference does not match my draft ( {$190.00} ) or monthly admin/legal ( {$27.00} ), suggesting undisclosed deductions or faulty accounting.

XXXX payment inconsistency : reported as {$800.00} in one document and {$900.00} in the portal. 

XXXX credit damage despite settlement : creditor letter ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ) shows a {$4900.00} settlement with payments starting XX/XX/XXXX, but my XXXX  alert on XX/XX/XXXX still shows the account as {$3200.00} delinquent. 
These discrepancies undermine trust in NDRs numbers and suggest consumers could be misled about progress. 

Pattern of skating the line / hard-to-detect timing NDRs practices appear designed to be difficult for typical consumers to detect : front-loading fees at settlement signing ( rather than after actual payments ) and reporting balances/payments inconsistently. Most clients wont cross-check fee timing against the first payment date or compare creditor letters to credit-bureau data . This looks like a systemic pattern that could allow the company to profit while leaving consumers in prolonged programs. 

Consumer harm Financial : After more than a year and {$5900.00} in deposits, only about {$1700.00} ( 30 % ) has reached creditors ; {$3400.00} ( 58 % ) has already gone to NDR fees.

Credit : XXXX continues to show delinquent despite an active settlement, damaging my score. 

Extended debt timeline : My projected out of debt date is now XXXX - longer than if I had filed for bankruptcy, which typically clears in 7 years. Instead of relief, I am left with mounting fees and extended credit harm. 

Emotional : The XX/XX/XXXX call demanding almost {$3000.00} upfront caused significant distress. I cried after hanging up, it ruined my weekend and I now require everything in writing. 

As a single mom managing all household responsibilities and income on my own, the impact of these practices has been even greater. Instead of relief, I am left with mounting fees, prolonged debt and damaged credit ( with no clear end date ), leaving me in a worse position than if I had filed bankruptcy. Based on their breach of contract terms, I question whether NDR is fulfilling its fiduciary responsibility to act in my best interest. 

What I am uploading Deposit history letter showing XXXX {$190.00} = {$5900.00}. 

Client Account Fees letter ( XX/XX/XXXX ) showing {$3400.00} in fees ( incl. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ). 

Portal screenshots : balances ( {$720.00} ), creditor payments ( XXXX {$820.00}, XXXX {$900.00}, XXXX {$75.00}, XXXX {$0.00} ), and XXXX status Enrolled 0 %. 

Email screenshot with {$580.00} balance ( same date as portal proves the {$130.00} mismatch ). 

XXXX XXXX XXXX settlement letter ( XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX ). 

XXXX  alert ( XX/XX/XXXX ) showing XXXX delinquent {$3200.00} despite settlement. 

Call-log screenshot ( XX/XX/XXXX ) showing inbound call from XXXX ( documenting the almost {$3000.00} up-front request ). 

Emails from XXXX where NDR states we never collect a fee before settlement/first payment. 

Additional Note : While the company has provided some responses, the information is incomplete and inconsistent. The balances, fees and payments they reported do not reconcile with my deposits, creditor settlement letters, or credit reports, leaving significant discrepancies unresolved.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation