Consumer complaint received 2025-09-02 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: CAINE & WEINER COMPANY, INC.
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
The furnisher, Caine Weiner, is reporting an account tied to the original creditor Progressive as a collection/charge-off with a balance of {$1100.00} across XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This account has been updated as recently as XX/XX/year>, and is being maintained in a derogatory status despite ongoing disputes. 

This reporting is inaccurate, misleading, and unlawful for several reasons : XXXX. Failure to Provide Validation ( FDCPA Violation ) : Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ), a debt collector must provide proper written validation of a debt within 5 days of first communication. 
I have disputed this debt. Despite this, Caine Weiner has failed to produce any of the legally required documentation, including : A signed contract with Progressive proving my obligation. 
Billing records showing how the {$1100.00} balance was calculated. 
A complete chain of assignment proving legal transfer of ownership. 
Proof of their legal right to collect or furnish this debt. 
Continuing to report this account without validation is a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), which explicitly prohibits any further collection activity until validation is supplied.

2. Contradictory Status Reporting ( FCRA Violation ) : The account is being reported as both a collection and a charge-off. These are not interchangeable terms.

A charge-off is an accounting decision by the original creditor.

A collection is a third-party action taken by a debt collector.

Reporting both simultaneously is misleading, contradictory, and fails to meet the accuracy standard under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), which requires maximum possible accuracy in credit reporting. 
XXXX. Improper Handling of Disputes ( FCRA & FDCPA Violation ) : The comments show dispute language such as : Account information disputed by consumer, meets FCRA requirements. 
Customer disputed account reported by subscriber. 
Consumer disputes this account information subject has not satisfied debt. 
These inconsistent dispute notations prove that Caine Weiner is acknowledging disputes but failing to resolve them properly. 
Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), the furnisher and bureaus must conduct a reasonable reinvestigation. Simply leaving the account as derogatory while tagging it disputed is not a reinvestigation ; it is a rubber stamp response.

4. Unlawful Reporting of Disputed Debt ( FDCPA Violation ) : Under 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ), a debt collector can not report credit information that is known to be false or fail to communicate that a debt is disputed.

Here, the inconsistent and vague dispute comments amount to half-truths that mislead creditors and do not resolve the underlying inaccuracy.

5. Failure to Correct or Delete Inaccurate Information ( FCRA Violation ) : Under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), any information that can not be verified must be deleted.

By maintaining this account despite disputes and lack of validation, Caine Weiner has violated this provision and is willfully ignoring federal law.

6. Material Harm to the Consumer : This derogatory reporting is significantly lowering my credit scores across XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
It has created a false impression of default and delinquency that damages my reputation with creditors, landlords, and even potential employers. 
I have been denied credit opportunities, subjected to higher interest rates, and stigmatized financially because of this unlawful reporting. 
This harm is not theoretical it is ongoing and compounding. Every day this inaccurate collection remains on my file, I suffer economic and reputational damage. 
7. Pattern of Negligence and Bad Faith : Caine Weiners continued reporting despite disputes and lack of validation shows a deliberate disregard for the FDCPA and FCRA. 
This is not a clerical error ; it is a pattern of misconduct that prioritizes collection leverage over compliance with the law.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation