Consumer complaint received 2026-05-18 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Client Services, Inc.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Client Services , Inc. mailed a debt collection notice dated XX/XX/year>, attempting to collect an alleged XXXX account balance of approximately {$340.00}. The letter stated that I had until XX/XX/year>, to dispute the alleged debt and that collection activity must cease pending validation if a timely written dispute was submitted. The notice further stated that if I did not dispute the debt, the company would assume the information was correct. On XX/XX/year>, I prepared and mailed a formal written debt validation demand and legal dispute to Client Services , Inc. via Certified Mail No. XXXX. The dispute was mailed well within the statutory dispute period identified in the collection notice. Because the dispute was timely mailed, Client Services , Inc. is prohibited from treating the alleged debt as presumed valid and is prohibited from continuing collection activity unless and until competent validation is provided pursuant to FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). The dispute formally challenged the alleged debt in its entirety and demanded strict proof and full competent validation pursuant to : FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692e FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692f FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) Texas Finance Code Chapter 392 The dispute specifically demanded : complete chain of title documentation account-level assignment records original signed agreement or authenticated electronic records complete itemized accounting ledger proof of lawful authority to collect in Texas proof of the required Texas surety bond under Texas Finance Code 392.101 proof of lawful authority to furnish information to consumer reporting agencies competent business records sufficient to establish ownership, balance accuracy, and enforceability of the alleged debt The dispute also expressly notified Client Services, Inc. that : the alleged debt was disputed in its entirety the balance remained unverified furnishing prior to competent validation would constitute knowingly inaccurate reporting reliance on automated systems, summaries, prior furnisher data, or database matching would not constitute competent validation The dispute further directed Client Services, Inc. to cease all telephone communications and conduct all future communications strictly in writing only. XXXX tracking confirms that the certified dispute package was accepted by XXXX on XX/XX/year> in XXXX, Texas and remains in active XXXX transit. Current tracking reflects movement through the XXXX network, including arrival at the XXXX XXXX, Missouri distribution facility on XX/XX/year>. Despite the unusual XXXX delay and absence of a final delivery scan, the dispute was timely mailed well before the statutory deadline. I am filing this CFPB complaint to formally preserve my rights, provide additional federal notice, and ensure there is no dispute that Client Services , Inc. has actual knowledge that the alleged debt is disputed. Client Services , Inc. has now been placed on notice through : the written dispute package certified mailing records XXXX tracking documentation and this CFPB complaint The original furnisher, XXXX, also continues reporting the alleged account to consumer reporting agencies while Client Services , Inc. acts as a third-party collection agent regarding the same alleged debt. Because validation, ownership, balance accuracy, and furnishing authority remain unresolved, continued reporting by the original furnisher raises substantial concerns regarding : maximum possible accuracy furnishing reliability incomplete or unverifiable account information and continued reporting of disputed information Client Services , Inc. and the original furnisher are now on formal notice that : the alleged debt is disputed in its entirety full competent validation has been demanded the balance remains unverified and any furnishing or continued collection activity prior to competent validation may violate federal and Texas law I am particularly concerned that Client Services , Inc. may attempt to : continue collection activity without competent validation continue treating the alleged debt as presumed valid despite timely dispute furnish information to consumer reporting agencies before validation rely on automated verification methods or attempt to treat the alleged debt as valid despite unresolved validation deficiencies Any furnishing, reporting, transfer, reassignment, sale, or continued collection activity regarding this alleged debt prior to full competent validation would constitute deceptive and misleading collection conduct and a failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Any transfer, reassignment, or sale of disputed and unvalidated account information would also perpetuate inaccurate and unreliable consumer reporting to downstream furnishers, data repositories, and consumer reporting agencies. Because the company has now received extensive notice of the dispute and validation demands, failure to provide competent validation within the applicable statutory periods will further demonstrate that the alleged debt is unreliable, unverifiable, and unsuitable for continued furnishing or collection activity. I am requesting CFPB oversight to ensure that Client Services , Inc. and the original furnisher immediately cease any collection or furnishing activity unless and until full competent validation and lawful authority can actually be established.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation