Consumer complaint received 2025-11-08 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: CAINE & WEINER COMPANY, INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
b'I am filing this complaint against Caine & Weiner, a third-party debt collection agency, for improper debt collection, failure to validate debt, and furnishing inaccurate and unverified information to consumer credit bureaus.\nThis concerns an alleged debt with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX., reference XXXX XXXX, in the amount of $XXXX.\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, I sent a Debt Validation Letter to Caine & Weiner via certified mail, requesting documentation to verify the validity, ownership, and itemization of the alleged debt, as required under FDCPA XX/XX/XXXX(b) (XXXX  U.S.C. XXXX).\nAs of today, I have not received any response or documentation.\nHowever, Caine & Weiner has reported this unverified account to the credit bureaus (XXXX  and XX/XX/XXXX) before providing validation  an act that directly violates both the FDCPA and FCRA.\nDetails of the violations and bad practices:\nFailure to provide a written validation notice within XXXX  days (FDCPA XXXX(a))\nThe first contact was on XX/XX/XXXX, but no written validation notice was sent within XXXX  (5) days as required by law.\nThe initial email lacked the 30-day dispute disclosure, creditor details, and consumer rights information.\nFailure to validate debt upon request (FDCPA XXXX(b))\nDespite my written validation request on XXXX XXXX XXXX, no verification or documentation was provided.\nInstead, Caine & Weiner proceeded to furnish the debt to TransUnion and XXXX.\nPremature and misleading credit reporting (FDCPA XXXX  / FCRA XXXX(a)(XXXX))\nThe company reported the debt to credit bureaus before responding to the validation request.\nReporting an unverified debt constitutes continued collection activity under the FDCPA and inaccurate furnishing under the FCRA.\nInconsistent and misleading reporting among bureaus (FCRA XXXX(a)(XX/XX/XXXX))\XXXX: Lists the account as Account not disputed, even though it was under dispute since November 1.\XXXX: Lists Account disputed, but adds Subject has not satisfied debt, which is misleading and damaging during an active dispute.\nThese inconsistent and incomplete dispute notations violate the FCRAs duty to report accurate and complete information.\nNegative reporting during active dispute (FCRA XX/XX/XXXX(a)(XX/XX/XXXX) & XXXX(a)(XXXX))\nOnce a consumer disputes a debt, the furnisher must mark the account as disputed and refrain from continuing to report it as delinquent or derogatory until the investigation is resolved.\nCaine & Weiner failed to comply with this requirement.\nMisleading communication prior to reporting (FDCPA XX/XX/XXXX)\nThe email sent by XXXX XXXX (Caine & Weiner) stated:\nThis account qualifies for credit report data furnishing by Caine & Weiner. We furnish information to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX.\nThis implies credit damage before verification and is coercive and deceptive under the FDCPA.\nSupporting evidence:\nCopy of the email titled REQUEST FOR CONTACT Re: XXXX XXXX XXXX (XXXX XXXX XXXX).\nThe debt validation letter was mailed to Caine & Weiner on XXXX XXXX XXXX, via XXXX  Priority Mail Small Flat Rate Envelope, tracking number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, from XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX  to XXXX, TX XXXX. According to XXXX  tracking records, the package was delivered on XX/XX/XXXX. This receipt serves as proof of mailing and evidence that the validation request was properly sent, thus triggering the 30-day response period required under FDCPA XXXX(b).\nScreenshot of my credit report, showing:\XXXX: Account marked as Account not disputed, status Collection/Chargeoff.\XXXX: Account marked as Disputed but still reported as derogatory, stating Subject has not satisfied debt.\nThese entries prove inconsistent and unverified reporting.'

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation