Consumer complaint received 2025-12-18 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: Halsted Financial Services, LLC.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding repeated and ongoing violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) involving an alleged XXXX XXXX XXXX personal loan account. 


XXXX. Timely Written Dispute to Halsted Financial Services ( No Validation Provided ) On XX/XX/year>, I sent a written dispute and request for validation via USPS Certified Mail to Halsted Financial Services , LLC, the first entity to contact me regarding this alleged debt. Delivery was confirmed on XX/XX/year> ( see attached ) In that dispute, I requested validation pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), including : proof of ownership and authority to collect, the complete chain of title, an itemized breakdown of the balance, and proof of licensing to collect in New York State. 

Halsted Financial Services never responded, never provided validation, and never supplied proof of authority or licensing. 

Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), Halsted was required to cease all collection activity upon receipt of my written dispute until validation was provided. No validation was ever sent. Despite this statutory obligation, the account was transferred to other entities and collection communications continued. This constitutes continued collection activity while a dispute was pending, in violation of federal law. 


2. Unlawful Transfer of a Disputed Debt Instead of validating the debt or ceasing collection, Halsted transferred the disputed account to XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX issued a new letter using a different reference number and instructed me to submit a written dispute again, despite the fact that a valid written dispute had already been submitted to Halsted and remained unresolved. 

I notified XXXX in writing that ( see attached ) : the debt had already been disputed, validation had never been provided, and the dispute remained active and unresolved. 

XXXX did not provide validation. 

Transferring a disputed debt and attempting to restart the dispute process through new reference numbers interferes with a consumers statutory rights under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). 


3. Continued Reassignment, Restart Attempts, and Consumer Confusion The account was then transferred again to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which issued another notice using yet another reference number and again instructed me to dispute the account. 

I responded in writing that this was not a new dispute, but a continuation of the original XX/XX/year> dispute, and that validation was still outstanding ( see attached letter ) XXXX XXXX also failed to validate the debt. 

As a result, I received collection notices from three different entities, operating from multiple states and addresses, each using different reference numbers for the same alleged account, without any validation ever being provided. 

This pattern caused significant confusion and required repeated certified-mail responses at my own expense ( see attached for all certified tracking numbers ). 


4. Credit Reporting Without Validation Despite the unresolved dispute and total failure to provide validation, XXXX XXXX XXXX later reported the account to consumer reporting agencies. 

Reporting a disputed debt without first providing validation constitutes : collection activity during a pending dispute, in violation of FDCPA 1692g ( b ), and the communication of credit information without properly resolving or acknowledging the dispute, in violation of FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ). 

This conduct also violates the FCRA, as XXXX could not reasonably certify the accuracy of the information furnished given : unresolved validation requests, inconsistent balances ( see internal summary ), multiple ownership claims, and the absence of a complete chain of title. 


5. Licensing Concerns - - New York State I requested confirmation of Halsted Financial Services authority and licensing to collect debts in New York State. 
Halsted never provided any licensing information or proof of authority despite a written request. 

This raises serious concerns regarding unlawful collection activity under New York law. 


6. Constructive Knowledge and Reasonableness Failures Each subsequent entity had actual or constructive knowledge of the dispute. The dispute was sent via certified mail, referenced consistently, and the same underlying account number and consumer information were used throughout the collection process. 

Additionally, XXXX XXXX XXXX could not have conducted a reasonable investigation under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ). The balance reported conflicted with XXXXis own payment history, ownership changed multiple times within a short period, and no collector ever produced a complete chain of title or itemized balance. Furnishing this information under these circumstances was not reasonable. 

7. The document provided by XXXX is not a legally sufficient chain of title. It lists transfer dates but does not include any bill of sale, assignment contract, or documentation linking the alleged account to any sale. Additionally, the dates and balances listed contradict XXXX own internal payment history, date of transfer - making it impossible for any furnisher to certify accuracy under the FCRA ( see attached ). 

Harm caused : As a result of these actions, I experienced : confusion caused by multiple collectors and reference numbers, repeated out-of-pocket costs for certified mail, unlawful credit reporting, ongoing credit harm despite a timely dispute, emotional distress, and significant wasted time addressing an issue that should have ceased upon my initial dispute.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation