Consumer complaint received 2026-01-02 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Sued you in a state where you do not live or did not sign for the debt
Company: FAIR COLLECTIONS & OUTSOURCING, INC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this feedback because the companys response does not resolve my complaint, does not provide legally sufficient validation of the alleged debt, and does not justify the continued reporting of an account that does not belong to me. Because my previous CFPB complaint, Case Number XXXX, was closed without correcting the inaccurate reporting or requiring proof of liability, I am explicitly stating that I am creating a new CFPB case to ensure this matter receives proper review and enforcement. 

The core issue remains unchanged : I do not own this account, I did not authorize it, and the company has not provided proof that I am legally responsible for the alleged debt. Despite multiple disputes, an FTC identity theft report, and prior CFPB involvement, Fair Collections & Outsourcing ( FCO ) continues to report this account without producing documentation that establishes my liability. 

In its response, FCO claims that the account was placed with them, that a verification of debt was mailed, and that the account allegedly includes a signed lease agreement. However, none of these documents have been provided to me. Simply stating that documents exist is not the same as producing them. A furnisher can not satisfy its obligations by describing evidence without disclosing it, especially when the consumer has disputed the account as not theirs and has filed an FTC identity theft report. 

The company further requests that I provide proof of residency during the time in question. This request is improper and does not establish debt ownership. Residency does not prove that a consumer opened, authorized, or incurred a debt. Consumers are not required to reconstruct historical residency records to disprove an obligation they never incurred. This request improperly shifts the burden of proof from the furnisher to the consumer and does not comply with credit reporting standards. 

FCO also asserts that it possesses a signed lease agreement but refuses to provide it, claiming that certain agreements are confidential. This position is misleading. A document allegedly signed by me and used to establish my liability is not a confidential agreement between FCO and its client ; it is purported evidence of consumer responsibility. If such a document exists, it must be disclosed during validation and dispute processes. Withholding the alleged lease while continuing to report the debt is not compliant with consumer protection requirements. 

The response further fails to explain how the account was verified during the credit bureau dispute process. There is no description of what documents were reviewed, who reviewed them, or how FCO confirmed that I am the correct consumer. Without a clear explanation of the method of verification, the response does not demonstrate that a reasonable investigation occurred. Generic statements that the account was verified are insufficient. 

I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report because this account is not mine. Filing an FTC report is a formal declaration that the account is fraudulent or misattributed. Once an identity theft claim is raised, the furnisher must substantiate the debt with original documentation proving the consumers responsibility. Instead of providing proof, FCO has continued reporting the account and has requested consumer-supplied documents unrelated to debt ownership. This approach is inconsistent with identity theft protections and does not satisfy the furnishers obligations. 

The response also does not address why the account was reported initially without validation, why it continued to be reported after multiple disputes, or why the alleged documentation was not produced when first requested. FCOs statement that this is all that is required to verify the account is unsupported. Verification requires evidence, not conclusory assertions. 

Importantly, the response does not refute my statement that I do not own this account. It does not explain how my identity was verified at account opening, what identification was used, or how FCO determined that I was the responsible party. Without this information, the reporting remains unreliable and inaccurate. 

The continued reporting of this account has caused ongoing harm to my credit profile. A derogatory collection account affects credit scores, lending decisions, housing opportunities, insurance pricing, and overall financial stability. This harm continues as long as the inaccurate information remains on my credit reports. Closure of prior CFPB complaints without requiring proof does not resolve this harm. 

Because CFPB Case XXXX was closed without resolving these issues, I am now creating a new CFPB case to pursue a substantive outcome. Closing a complaint does not convert unverified information into verified information, nor does it relieve the furnisher of its duty to ensure accuracy. The continued reporting of this account without proof remains inaccurate regardless of the procedural status of prior cases. 

This feedback is submitted to clearly document the following facts : I do not own the account reported by FCO I filed an FTC Identity Theft Report FCO has not produced original documentation proving liability Residency does not establish debt ownership Claiming a signed lease without producing it is not validation The method of verification has not been disclosed Prior CFPB Case XXXX was closed without resolution A new CFPB case is being created due to ongoing inaccurate reporting I am requesting that the CFPB take this feedback into account when reviewing the new complaint related to this matter. I am also requesting that this feedback be used to improve oversight of furnishers that continue reporting debts without providing documentation and that improperly shift the burden of proof onto consumers. 

The resolution I seek remains unchanged : removal of this account from my credit reports unless the company can produce original, verifiable documentation proving that I am legally responsible. To date, no such documentation has been provided. Until it is, continued reporting is inaccurate and improper. 

In conclusion, the companys response does not resolve the complaint, does not validate the debt, and does not justify continued reporting. Because the account is not mine and has not been proven to be mine, deletion is the only fair and lawful outcome. I am proceeding with a new CFPB case to ensure that my rights are protected and that inaccurate information is removed from my credit file.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation