Consumer complaint received 2026-02-21 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Telecommunications debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Source Receivables Management LLC
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/year>, I contacted Source Receivables Management at ( XXXX ) XXXX regarding an alleged telecommunications debt. At the outset of the call, I was advised that the call was being recorded and my date of birth was confirmed for verification purposes. 

During that call, I informed the representative that I was disputing the alleged debt. The representative advised that the account would be marked as disputed but stated, in substance, that the account would not remain in dispute unless I reported fraud and filed a police report. I was not reporting fraud. I was disputing the alleged debt and requesting validation. Filing a police report was presented to me as a requirement in order to maintain the dispute. 

On XX/XX/year>, I called again to obtain clarification regarding the dispute and validation process. At the beginning of the call, I was again advised that the call was being recorded and my date of birth was confirmed. I had a family member present to speak on my behalf while I remained on the line. 

When questions were asked regarding how disputes are processed and what documentation would be provided, the representative became agitated and stated that my representative was interrupting her. My representative explained that there may have been minor overlap in speech and that she was not intentionally interrupting. After the representative stated that there would be an investigation, my representative asked whether I would receive proof of the alleged debt or additional written correspondence during that process. The representative stated that XXXX would contact me. When clarification was requested as to why XXXX would contact me if the account had already been placed with a collection agency, the representative provided vague responses that did not directly address the question and then disconnected the call while my representative was still speaking. 

I immediately called back and spoke with another representative. My identity was again verified at the outset of the call. A supervisor was requested. The representative stated that she needed to know why I was calling before transferring the call and initially stated that the supervisor would likely not answer. She did not immediately transfer the call. After I continued to insist on speaking with a supervisor, the call was placed on hold and ultimately transferred. 

A supervisor identifying himself as XXXX took the call. He was informed that I was disputing the alleged debt and requesting validation. XXXX XXXX stated, in substance, that disputing the debt meant I was alleging fraud. He referenced that I had said I never opened the account and asserted that this meant fraud had occurred. It was explained that disputing a debt does not automatically constitute a fraud allegation. 

XXXX XXXX repeatedly stated that I would be required to file a police report and indicated that the company would mail documentation for me to complete an FTC identity theft complaint. He further stated, in substance, that I needed to file a report in order to determine who opened the account and implied that it was my responsibility to prove who opened it. 

In response, I advised that it is not my responsibility to prove who opened the account and that it is the companys responsibility to prove that the alleged debt is mine. I continued to request validation of the alleged debt. 

During the conversation, XXXX XXXX also stated, in substance, that if I had not opened the account, he could not send documentation because doing so would constitute disclosure of another persons information. In response, I asked why the company was pursuing me for the alleged debt if, by his own statement, he could not provide documentation because it would disclose someone elses information. He did not provide a clear answer to that question. 

As the discussion continued and his statements were questioned, XXXX XXXX became increasingly argumentative, spoke rapidly, and disregarded requests to address issues one at a time for clarity. He ultimately refused to answer further questions, repeatedly stated have a good day, and disconnected the call while my representative was still speaking. 

Across these communications, when clarification was requested or the representatives explanations were challenged, the tone became more agitated and the calls were disconnected rather than the questions being addressed. 

A formal written dispute and request for validation, dated XX/XX/year>, was mailed and delivered to the company on XX/XX/year>. A separate written complaint regarding representative conduct, also dated XX/XX/year>, was delivered on XX/XX/year>. 

The central issue is that the company repeatedly represented that filing a police report or FTC complaint was required in order to dispute the alleged debt, equated disputing the debt with alleging fraud, shifted the burden to me to prove who opened the account, resisted supervisory escalation, and disconnected calls when reasonable clarification was requested.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation