Consumer complaint received 2026-02-12 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Rental debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: FAIR COLLECTIONS & OUTSOURCING, INC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
Company 's Response We have received your complaint dated XX/XX/XXXX. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Your account, XXXX, with XXXX XXXX XXXX, was placed with Fair Collections and Outsourcing ( FCO ) on XX/XX/XXXX for {$3100.00} and has a current balance owed of {$0.00}. The account was paid in full on XX/XX/XXXX at which point, our records indicate we advised that FCO does not perform credit deletions on paid accounts but that it would be updated to reflect the paid status. As the account already accurately reflects the appropriate status, no changes will be made to the credit report. Additionally, a verification of debt was mailed to the same address provided in this complaint prior to payment being made. As the account is now closed, no further action will be taken. We prepared this response in compliance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and CFPB response guidelines, providing complete, accurate, and provided information timely after receipt of the complaint. Thank you for the opportunity to address your concerns. If you have further questions, please contact Fair Collections and Outsourcing. 

It is notable that the company asserts a validation notice was mailed, yet failed to provide a copy of that notice or proof of mailing in its response. If such documentation exists, it should be readily available and easily produced. The absence of supporting documentation raises concerns regarding the adequacy of the companys investigation and compliance with 15 U.S.C. 1692g and 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). Unsupported assertions do not satisfy statutory obligations. 

In addition to FCOs response dated XX/XX/XXXX, I have identified multiple deficiencies that remain unaddressed. The companys reliance on generic policy statements does not resolve the statutory concerns raised. I intend to continue escalating this matter to ensure compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and related federal protections. 

Statutory Noncompliance : The company continues to report this account despite failing to provide documentation supporting its accuracy after formal dispute.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), a furnisher of information has a legal obligation to conduct a reasonable investigation upon notice of dispute and to review all relevant information. A conclusory statement that a validation notice was mailed does not satisfy the statutory requirement to investigate or verify the accuracy of the information being reported.

Further, under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), consumer reporting agencies must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Continued reporting of a disputed account without producing supporting documentation raises serious concerns regarding compliance.

If the company relies on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692g, it must be able to demonstrate that proper validation was provided. No such documentation has been produced.

Absent competent evidence establishing contractual liability and an itemized accounting of the alleged balance, continued reporting may constitute willful or negligent noncompliance with federal law. 

This matter is being forwarded to the Missouri Attorney General for further review.

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