Consumer complaint received 2026-01-13 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Rental debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive notice of right to dispute
Company: Financial Accounts Service Team Inc.
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
Complainant : XXXX XXXX Co-Signers : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Company Complained About : The Woodlands of XXXX XXXX Account XXXX ( XXXX ) ________________________________________ Formal Complaint Regarding Inaccurate Apartment Move-Out Charges and Credit Reporting I am submitting this complaint to request review of apartment move-out charges originating from The Woodlands of XXXX that were sent XXXX collections and reported to consumer credit reporting agencies. 
The charges are disputed because they have not been demonstrated to be legally assessed, contractually owed, or properly investigated, as required under Tennessee law and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). To date, responses to disputes have focused solely on whether the furnisher continues to assert the balance exists, rather than whether the charges were accurately and lawfully applied. 
________________________________________ XXXX Tennessee Law Under the Tennessee Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX et seq. ), a landlord must provide written, itemized notice of damages within 30 days of vacating the premises, not the end of the lease term, so the tenant has an opportunity to review and address alleged damages. 
No written, mailed, or itemized notice of damages was provided within the statutory XXXX period. 
________________________________________ Relevant Facts The tenant vacated the apartment on XX/XX/year> and completed the required move-out walkthrough with property staff on XX/XX/year>. During that walkthrough, a property representative stated that the only potential charge might relate to blinds. No other damages were identified. 
The tenant cleaned the unit on XX/XX/year>, and fully cleared the unit on XX/XX/year>. This was witnessed by a third party. 
After XX/XX/year>, the tenant did not return to occupy the apartment. XXXX XXXX and bathroom were not locked, and remaining tenants continued living in the unit with access to the vacated space. 
The tenant was outside the United States from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/year>, during which time the unit remained occupied by others with access to the space. 
No written notice of damages was ever provided. Communication regarding the alleged charges occurred only via email and telephone, and all email communications were sent solely to the tenant ( XXXX XXXX ). No written or email notice of damages was ever provided to the co-signers ( XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX ). 
The first notice of alleged damages exceeding {$1000.00} was sent by email in late XX/XX/year>, more than 30 days after the tenant vacated. 
Photographs submitted in support of the charges do not correspond to the condition observed and acknowledged during the move-out walkthrough and do not represent what was present when the tenant vacated. XXXX on such photographs, without reconciling this discrepancy, does not constitute a reasonable investigation. Because no timely written notice was provided, the tenant was not given the opportunity to review, address, or correct any alleged issues. 
________________________________________ Concerns With the Investigation Process The dispute process appears to have verified only that the furnisher continues to claim the balance exists, without evaluating whether : the charges were authorized by the lease ; statutory notice requirements under Tennessee law were met ; the units condition at the time of move-out was accurately documented ; or continued access by other occupants after vacating was considered. 
Additionally, the same charge arising from the same property, lease, and documentation was deleted from TransUnion on the tenants credit file ( XXXX XXXX ), while the identical charge continues to be reported on the co-signers credit files ( XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX ). All disputes were supported by the same facts and documentation. This discrepancy raises concerns regarding inconsistent verification and whether a reasonable investigation was conducted across all related credit files. 
________________________________________ Request for CFPB XXXX I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau review whether : XXXX. A reasonable investigation was conducted under the FCRA ; XXXX. The legality and accuracy of the charges under Tennessee landlord-tenant law were evaluated rather than merely repeating the claimed balance ; and XXXX. Continued reporting of these charges is appropriate given the lack of timely written notice, inconsistent outcomes across credit files, and absence of contemporaneous move-out documentation. 
________________________________________ Desired Resolution Deletion of the inaccurate credit reporting ; A written explanation of how the charges were verified for accuracy and legal compliance, not merely existence ; and XXXX that similarly situated consumers are subject to consistent investigative standards. 
This complaint is submitted to ensure that disputed apartment move-out charges are reviewed for accuracy, legality, and procedural compliance, consistent with federal credit reporting requirements and Tennessee law XXXX 
________________________________________

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation