Consumer complaint received 2025-01-21 00:00:00
Product: Debt or credit management — Debt settlement
Issue: Unauthorized withdrawals or charges — 
Company: NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
National Debt Relief ( NDR ) was entrusted with managing my debt settlement account from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. During this time, NDR facilitated the settlement of an account later determined to be fraudulent. While the collection companies and the original creditor have proven to bear primary responsibility for creating, legitimizing, selling, and collecting on a fraudulent account, NDR is also culpable.

NDRs fee structure incentivizes them to bring as many accounts as possible into their program and settle them quickly. Instead of ensuring client transparency to allow the client to verify and validate discrepancies, they prioritize settlement volume. This profit-driven approach led to the following violations.

1 ) NDR sourced an account without authorization despite explicit instructions not to search for new debts.

2 ) NDR called with an account they sourced without authorization, misrepresented it as my XXXX XXXX XXXX  account, and used my verbal agreement to their misrepresentation as approval to begin negotiations.

3 ) NDR reconstructed the full account number by piecing together partial information rather than asking me to retrieve the full account number.

4 ) NDR obscured the opportunity to identify the accounts fraudulent nature by using the reconstructed account number, effectively hiding one of the clearest indicators of a problematic account : a missing or incomplete account number.

5 ) NDR effectively cut off all communication between the collection agency and me, negotiating on my behalf but failing to share pertinent and obvious discrepancies not otherwise visible.

6 ) NDR failed to disclose discrepancies revealed during authentication, including the fraudulent Barstow, California address, details uncovered as part of their normal negotiation process that only they were privy to.

7 ) NDR misrepresented their knowledge of full account details by sending a company-branded settlement email to me with reconstructed account information, to gain my approval, effectively binding me to authorizing payments on the fraudulent account.

8 ) NDR replaced the federally mandated debt verification and validation process with their own ad hoc system, which lacked transparency and legal precedence. 
XXXX ) NDR inaccurately listed payments under XXXX XXXXXXXX on my account ledger despite never negotiating with XXXX XXXX, which created significant discrepancies, leaving me unable to determine where the actual payments went. 
XXXX ) NDR used my program funds to pay on a fraudulent account, effectively tying me to an account that wasnt mine and leaving me unable to disentangle myself even today.

11 ) NDR charged me for sourcing, negotiating, and settling a fraudulent account that they had no authority to source and had reconstructed account information to enable them to enter settlement.

12 ) NDR has refused to refund service fees despite the fact that under no circumstances can I be bound to authorize payments on a fraudulent account, as fraud voids any agreement or contractual obligation by law.

National Debt Relief ( NDR ) contacted me using information from my XX/XX/XXXX credit report, which contained incomplete account details. Based on the information they verbally provided and their portrayal that the account was my XXXX XXXX XXXX account, I initially agreed for NDR to begin negotiations with XXXX XXXX  on this account. They now claim they were addressing a new account that had only just appeared on my credit report. If so, this action blatantly contradicts my explicit instructions to them not to search for new debts to include in their program. NDR proceeded without transparency in their negotiation and settlement process, failing to communicate that they never negotiated with XXXX XXXX, but instead with various collection companies. They also failed to communicate key inconsistencies uncovered during negotiations. 

By inserting themselves as the first point of contact with the collection companies, routing all collection company mail to themselves without my knowledge, and effectively cutting off direct communication between the collection company and me, NDR assumed the legal responsibility to communicate discrepancies back to me. They failed in this responsibility.

I acted in good faith, relying on NDRs expertise and their assurance that they were acting in my best interest. Their concealment of critical information prevented me from identifying the accounts fraudulent nature and taking corrective action sooner. I only learned of this account in XX/XX/XXXX, and within the first five minutes of my initial direct contact with the collection company, I knew the account was not mine. Unfortunately, this was long after payments had been made by NDR on my behalf. 

The account was fraudulently opened in XXXX, closed within a month, and charged off in XXXX months, a timeline NDR uncovered during negotiations. NDR updated the accounts address to my current address without informing me. Had they disclosed this, I would have immediately recognized the XXXX, California address as fraudulent. Not only did they update the address, but they also routed all communication, including settlement letters, directly to themselves, blocking my access to any contradictory information about the account. 

While XXXX wasnt responsible for verifying the accounts validity, their normal business processes would have flagged these discrepancies. To now hide behind the idea that they were not responsible for validating the debt fails to acknowledge that they were responsible for communicating to me discrepancies only they were privileged to learn during negotiations, including the accounts short lifespan, its XXXX address, and that it was the first time the account had been placed with a collection company. 

NDRs verbal portrayal, as well as the incomplete information represented on my credit report at the time, led me to believe the account was my legitimate XXXX XXXX XXXX account. However, during their negotiations, they uncovered discrepancies that would have revealed not only that the account was not my XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account, but also its fraudulent nature. They failed to communicate these discrepancies to me, even though they knew they had effectively cut off my ability to communicate directly with the collection company. 


Reconstruction of Account Number & How NDR Circumvented the Federal Debt Validation Process National Debt Relief sends clients a branded settlement email containing XXXX pieces of account information : the creditor 's name, the full account number, the balance, and the settlement offer. These account details must be provided by the client, either directly from the client, their account statement, or their credit report. The settlement email is binding and serves as the client 's final acknowledgment of the settlement terms. NDR will refer back to this settlement email and agreement any time an issue is raised.

Once the client agrees to the settlement email, NDR uses the same account details that were provided by the client to add the account to the client 's financial ledger, enabling payment from the client 's program funds. This process underscores the necessity of accurate, client-provided information for any account to be paid on. 

In my case, they lacked a full and complete account number. Instead of communicating to me or requesting me to provide the full 16-digit account number, they reconstructed it from multiple sources. They failed to communicate to me that they had reconstructed it, and in doing so, they effectively concealed the most glaring red flag that the account was problematic, the fact that both NDR and the client lacked the complete account number.

While NDR is not responsible for validating or verifying the debt, the settlement email sent to me provided no indication that they had been made aware of significant discrepancies, ones that only they were privy to through their exclusive negotiation talks. More importantly, the settlement email provides no indication that NDR reconstructed the account number.

NDRs actions circumvented and preempted the federal debt validation process, which is designed to protect consumers by requiring debt collectors to notify them, provide complete information, and allow for verification. By independently sourcing debts, masking incomplete details, and reconstructing account information, NDR replaced the federally required process with their own flawed system. This process actively hid glaring red flags, such as the missing full account number, which would have clearly identified the account as problematic or fraudulent. 

NDRs approach left me without any visible indicators or flags to suggest the account was problematic, while they had dozens of indicators, including the most obvious red flag : the missing full account number. How could I, as a client, be accountable for failing to recognize what wasnt there to see, when NDR actively concealed the visible signs of the accounts problematic state?

At the point of settlement, NDR bypassed key steps meant to prevent fraudulent accounts from going undetected and to ensure clients could access the federal debt validation process. Specifically : 1 ) They didnt ask me for a full account number before proceeding to negotiations. 

XXXX ) They didnt disclose to me that they had reconstructed the account number in order to create the settlement letter. 
XXXX ) They hid the triggers that would alert me to the account being problematic and circumvented the debt validation process I was entitled to undergo if theyd admitted that they didnt have the full account number.

One of the most obvious ways to identify a problematic account is the absence of key account details, particularly a complete account number. The fact that NDR proceeded with a settlement letter using a reconstructed account number that they created is extremely problematic. By independently sourcing debts from my credit report, NDR preempted the federal debt validation process, which requires collection companies to notify consumers directly.

Instead, NDR created an ad hoc and substandard system, limiting visibility into critical discrepancies and bypassing federal safeguards designed to ensure the legitimacy of debts. Incomplete or missing account information would have triggered the validation process, requiring the collection company to prove the debts legitimacy. NDRs actions conveniently filled in the missing information, and in doing so, they obscured the accounts fraudulent nature and negated my ability to initiate this process as intended under federal law. 

There were no details to question about this account as presented by NDR. Even as I review my XX/XX/XXXX credit report today, the incomplete information still closely resembles my XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX account. That is why the only way I could have known the account they sourced, against my explicit instructions not to and brought to me through a verbal conversation was actually fraudulent, would have been if NDR had communicated the discrepancies they learned during negotiations or by requiring me to provide the full account number because they lacked it. Searching for a missing account number by the party responsible for providing it, would have properly informed the client and in turn, spearheaded the debt validation process, revealing the account 's fraudulent status. 

When I finally discovered the account and spoke directly with XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, I was stopped in the first moments of authentication due to the fraudulent primary XXXX address still associated to the account. I often wonder how I was stopped in the authentication process with XXXX, yet NDR was not. NDR was able to update my address to my current one and request all settlement letters be sent directly to them. 

Conclusion : It took me nearly a year to understand how the buyer, XXXX, had a record of payments. Despite XXXX  never disclosing this to me, their numbers did. I spent a great deal of time researching and then engaging in some of the most uncomfortable and contentious discussions with NDR. The fact is this is the only problem account. It is also the only account they sourced and brought to me. It is also the only fraudulent account. This alone tells me they should not look for debt but allow the client to bring their own accounts to NDR and into the program. 

Identity theft is a significant issue because it mimics personal information, making fraudulent accounts appear legitimate. By sourcing debts clients do not provide and failing to communicate discrepancies, such as missing account numbers or conflicting addresses, NDR undermines their clients ability to detect and address fraud. These discrepancies are often the only clues distinguishing legitimate accounts from those created through identity theft.

NDR charged me fees for and have chosen to retain these service fees for sourcing a fraudulent account, negotiating on a fraudulent account, settling on a fraudulent account, and paying my hard-earned money out of my program funds to a fraudulent account. They inaccurately listed payments under XXXX XXXX on my account ledger, despite never negotiating with XXXX XXXX, leaving me unable to determine where my funds were sent or who to contact to recover those payments. NDR knows, but I dont. Their approach irresponsibly cuts off all communication between the collection company and the client, leaving me without transparency or recourse. They take all the visibility but want none of the responsibility.

NDR wants the client to see nothing, no red flags, no indicators of fraud, no missing information and yet still identify something is wrong, all while they hoard the information that makes the fraud obvious.

This approach caused significant harm, leaving me financially disadvantaged and tied to a fraudulent account that I have not been able to disentangle myself from, even today. By using my program funds to pay on a fraudulent account, NDR tied me to an obligation that was never mine and effectively undermined my ability to dispute the debt. Payments on an account are often seen as acknowledgment of its legitimacy, which is why I am now fighting to reverse a judgment that stems, at least in part, from their actions. 

Rather than upholding their duty to act in the clients best interest, NDRs practices undermined transparency and accountability, prioritizing their own financial gain over the legitimacy of the debts they handled.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation