Consumer complaint received 2024-04-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Telecommunications debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Prince Parker & Associates
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, my AT & T mobile account was accessed by resetting my PASSCODE at the XXXX XXXX XXXX store at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MN XXXX. An employee of XXXX XXXX XXXX by the name of XXXX, in the presence of his XXXX XXXX, offered my relative, who went to purchase a case for a brand-new XXXX XXXX Plus XXXX GB I just sent her, to upgrade to XXXX XXXX Pro XXXX GB for {$70.00}. Instead of charging her {$70.00}, XXXX XXXX XXXX added {$1100.00} in monthly installments for 36 months using my credit profile, and other changes that spiked my bill from {$130.00} a month to {$420.00} were added to my account. XXXX XXXX managed to reset my passcode by calling XXXX XXXX XXXX Customer Service and impersonating me using the Personally Identifiable Information ( PII ) contained in my AT & T account because my social security and zip code numbers are required to reset my passcode. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, after I received a confirmation email stating the change of my PIN, I reached out to AT & T customer service to Inform them that I did not make the change, and I changed my PIN back to keep the account secure. The representative claimed that someone called to reset my PIN, and no changes were made to my account. But, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received a call from XXXX, an employee of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MN XXXX, asking for my passcode to activate the XXXX XXXX Pro XXXX GB. I asked XXXX XXXX how she managed to upgrade the device in the first place. XXXX XXXX claimed that XXXX was responsible for upgrading the device and eventually failed to activate it. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX had taken the XXXX XXXX Plus XXXX and failed to activate the XXXX XXXX Pro XXXX. However, I received the customer service summary with changes made to my account and future bill estimates. I reported what happened to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the same day. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MN XXXX, for the first time. I spoke with XXXX XXXX to understand what went down at the store. XXXX XXXX promised to get back to me with more information on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted XXXX XXXX, who assured me he took care of the incident by taking disciplinary action against XXXX XXXX. I called the XXXX XXXX Sheriff 's Office the same day to report the incident. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX member reached out for more information. I explained to him everything that had happened in detail. In less than XXXX hours after the call, I received the final result of their investigation. AT & T claimed I was responsible for the changes made to my account, including the device that failed to be activated and still is in possession of XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

I offered XXXX XXXX XXXX several ways to resolve this issue, but they were unwilling to do so. As a result, I terminated all services from XXXX XXXX XXXX and tried to resolve the issue in several ways, including filing a complaint with the Federal Communication Commission ( FCC ). Unfortunately, I didnt succeed in resolving it. XXXX & XXXX refused to return my trade-in devices or replace their value but continued to send bills and collections and report derogatory remarks on my credit profile, which destroyed my reputation and defamed my personal character. 

Prince Parker and Associates, a debt-collecting agency acting on behalf of XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX seeking payment in the amount of {$4600.00}. This amount includes a device added to my account on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX by XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX refused to hand it in because the person was not an authorized user to make any changes to my account. After receiving the bill, I called Prince Parker and Associates, disputed it, and demanded that they provide proof that this was my debt per the Faire Debt Collecting Act ( FDCA ).

However, Prince Parker and Associates supplied credit bureaus with a collection and derogatory mark on my credit profile without providing the documents requested, which violated my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). I called Prince Parker and Associates again to obtain proof of the debt they reported to the credit bureaus under my profile. Per our conversation with the Supervisor at Prince Parker and Associates, He claimed that they don't have any evidence. Yet they continued to seek payment and destroyed my credit profile and personal character. 

XXXX & XXXX claimed no changes to my account were made on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX claims they returned a device and shipped it to my home address. XXXX XXXX XXXX claims they have obtained authorization to access my account on XX/XX/XXXX. This claim is a lie and fictional story covering the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 's employees. I have attached compelling evidence that supports my claim. If they had shipped the device to my address, why did XXXX & XXXX claim no changes were made to my account? why don't you provide proof of delivery or tracking number? Why doesn't XXXX & XXXX provide proof of authorization if they have received one? This is an organized attempt to hide criminal activity and an obvious damage control move to avoid liability. 
If you have my authorization, why do you need to reset my passcode? If no change was made to my account on XX/XX/XXXX, why are you lurking around seeking payment for a device activated on XX/XX/XXXX? Per the phone call record and call log attached, you will notice that none of the employees had any previous contact with me before XX/XX/XXXX. Even XXXX testified that XXXX & XXXX does not allow any transaction to be completed over the phone. 
Furthermore, you will see the difference between the devices I purchased on XX/XX/XXXX, on the receipt and the bill we received from Prince Parker and AssociateXXXX. Yes, XXXX XXXX XXXX is seeking payment for a device that was added to my account fraudulently and is still in their possession.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation