Consumer complaint received 2026-06-10 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: Security Credit Services, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX I filed CFPB complaint XXXX against Security Credit Services LLC demanding five validation documents under FDCPA Section 1692g ( b ) for a reported {$850.00} collection ( their account XXXX, contract XXXX ). On XX/XX/XXXX Security Credit Services responded " Closed with explanation '' and produced ( a ) a XXXX merchandise lease agreement signed XX/XX/XXXX and ( b ) a XXXX XXXX XXXX servicing printout dated XX/XX/XXXX. This complaint documents what that production proves and what it fatally omits. FIRST FACTUAL DEFECT, THE CHAIN OF TITLE THEY ADMITTED IS BROKEN : Security Credit Services produced no executed assignment of any kind. The only assignment instrument in its production, the Negotiation and Assignment block on page 8 of the lease, is blank. It is unsigned by the lessor, undated, and no recourse election is marked. Worse, its response letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, signed by Support Supervisor XXXX XXXX, states that Security Credit Services " purchased the account from XXXX XXXX, XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. '' XXXX XXXX, XXXX appears nowhere in the documents it produced. The lease names XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the contemplated assignee. No document evidences any transfer from XXXX to XXXX XXXX, from XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX, or from XXXX XXXX XXXX Security Credit Services. The furnisher 's own narrative now requires a four-entity chain ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Security Credit Services ) for which it has produced XXXX executed links, and the third entity in that chain was never disclosed until this response. A debt collector that can not document its own ownership of an account can not validate it under Section 1692g ( b ), can not truthfully represent its right to collect it under Section 1692e, and can not certify the accuracy of the tradeline it furnishes under FCRA Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ). RELATED DEFECT, THREE DIFFERENT ORIGINAL CREDITORS : The same response identifies the original creditor three different ways. Its XXXX tradeline reports Original Creditor Name as " No Info. '' The Re : line of its XX/XX/XXXX letter states " Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. '' The body of the same letter states the account " was originally opened with XXXX '' One furnisher, one response, three contradictory identifications of the most basic fact about the account. At least two of the three are false representations under Section 1692e, and the " No Info '' field remains a facial Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) accuracy violation. SECOND FACTUAL DEFECT, THE AMOUNT : The {$850.00} it reports is wrong on the face of its own production. Its XX/XX/XXXX letter describes the figure as a " principal balance of {$850.00}. '' That characterization is false by the letter 's own next sentence, which states " the total cost of the lease was in the amount of {$820.00} for 12 payments of {$67.00} with a residual payment of {$47.00}. '' The lease 's capitalized cost, the only figure that could be called principal, is {$310.00}. The {$850.00} figure is the full-term lease total INCLUDING the {$47.00} end-of-lease residual purchase option, the price of an ownership option that was never exercised on a lease that defaulted in its first month ( first payment XXXX XX/XX/XXXX per the XXXX XXXX ). The lease 's own Section 8 early-termination clause requires a lesser-of calculation that was never performed, and the agreement states three different full-term totals across its own pages ( {$800.00}, {$820.00}, and {$850.00} ). Representing {$850.00} as " principal '' and furnishing it as the balance is a false representation of the character and amount of a debt under FDCPA Section 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) and an inaccurate balance under FCRA Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ). THIRD FACTUAL DEFECT, THE SERVICER 'S OWN LEDGER : The XXXX XXXX printout Security Credit Services chose to produce shows the account was written off XX/XX/XXXX as XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX '' with Times Over 30, Over 60, and Over 90 each recorded as XXXX. Their own evidence contradicts the derogatory severity being furnished. FOURTH FACTUAL DEFECT, STILL UNCURED : The XXXX tradeline continues to report Original Creditor Name as " No Info '' even though Security Credit Services ' own production identifies the originator ( XXXX ) and the named assignee ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). The furnisher demonstrably possesses the original-creditor information and furnishes a blank field anyway. That is a facial Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ) accuracy violation independent of validation. FIFTH ISSUE, DATE AUDIT : The XXXX XXXX establishes first delinquency on or about XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ( first payment XXXX ). The bureaus show this collection " opened XX/XX/XXXX. '' I demand written confirmation of the date of first delinquency being furnished to each bureau under FCRA Section 623 ( a ) ( 5 ), to confirm the obsolescence clock under Section 605 runs from the true XXXX delinquency and has not been re-aged. SIXTH ISSUE, MISSTATEMENT OF MY RIGHTS : The letter 's " Continued reporting '' paragraph states the FCRA allows reporting " for 7 years from the date the account is charged to profit and loss, or upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the delinquency leading to charge off, whichever is earlier. '' That is not the law. FCRA Section 605 ( c ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c ( c ) ) runs the 7-year period from 180 days after the commencement of the delinquency that preceded the charge-off, here on or about XX/XX/XXXX, not from the charge-off date, and there is no " whichever is earlier '' election. A debt collector sending a consumer a garbled misstatement of the governing reporting period is a false or misleading representation under FDCPA Section 1692e ( 10 ), and it matters here because anchoring the clock to the XX/XX/XXXX charge-off instead of the XX/XX/XXXX delinquency would unlawfully extend the reporting period by months. SEVENTH ISSUE, THE REFUSALS : The XX/XX/XXXX letter refuses outright to document either ownership or licensure. On licensure it states Security Credit Services " has no obligation to provide you with proof of licensing. '' On chain of title it states " there is no basis in law to substantiate your right to such information, '' citing XXXX v. XXXX, a XXXX XXXX XXXX decision. That authority is not binding in the XXXX XXXX, predates Regulation F ( 12 CFR Part 1006 ), and says nothing about the furnisher investigation duty under FCRA Section 1681s-2 ( b ). Whatever the outer limits of Section 1692g validation, a furnisher responding to a dispute about WHO OWNS the account can not refuse to examine its own acquisition documents. Its licensure is separately before the Florida Office of Financial Regulation under Fla. Stat. 559.553, where " we deny the allegation '' is not proof. The investigation duty here is not abstract. Under binding XXXX Circuit precedent, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the Section 1681s-2 ( b ) reasonable-investigation duty squarely covers objectively and readily verifiable facts : whether an executed assignment to Security Credit Services exists , what the contract 's own termination formula yields, and who the original creditor is. Every one of those is answerable from documents Security Credit Services itself selected and produced. FLORIDA STATE LAW : Collecting and furnishing an amount the collector 's own contract does not support, while asserting ownership it can not document, is an attempt to enforce a debt when the collector knows the right being asserted does not exist in the manner claimed, in violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. 559.72 ( 9 ). Each federal violation above additionally serves as a per se predicate under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. 501.201 et seq. Security Credit Services ' Florida licensure posture is separately before the Florida Office of Financial Regulation under Fla. Stat. 559.553. CONCRETE HARM : This unvalidated and inaccurately stated {$850.00} tradeline is published on my XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX files to every third party that pulls my consumer file in the ordinary course of underwriting, and it has materially depressed my credit standing and the terms available to me. This is a published false representation of my creditworthiness, the concrete reputational and financial injury recognized in this Circuit, not a procedural grievance. Damages : The continued furnishing of an unowned, misstated {$850.00} collection constitutes continuing actual damages within FCRA Sections 616 and 617 for as long as it remains on my files. Feedback-option preservation : If this complaint is closed as " verified, '' " validated, '' " duplicate, '' or any procedural deflection without the executed assignment instruments demanded above, I will treat the closure itself as a Section 1692g ( b ) and Section 623 ( b ) violation and file again. Anti-deflection clause : A second production that omits the executed XXXXXXXX assignment will result in ( a ) supplemental filings with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation ( complaint XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX licensure ) and the Florida Attorney General ( Fla. Stat. 501.201, with these federal violations as FDUTPA predicates ), each updated with the XX/XX/XXXX non-response as evidence, and ( b ) preservation of all of the above for any private enforcement under FCRA Sections 616 and 617 and FDCPA Section 1692k. The pressure on this account does not abate until the chain of title is produced in executed form or the tradeline is deleted.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation