Consumer complaint received 2026-04-07 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: UPGRADE, INC.
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
XXXX. Company Name : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Account Number : XXXX XXXX. Original Creditor : Upgrade , Inc . XXXX. Original Account Number : [ This is also listed on the XXXX XXXX letter as XXXX ] Legal Argumentation : The Doctrine of Tainted Assignment & Statutory Estoppel I. Derivative Liability and the " XXXX XXXX '' Principle Under the foundational legal principle XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( " no one gives what they do not have '' ), Upgrade , Inc. can not transfer a valid, enforceable right to collect a debt that is currently legally defective. Because the original creditor failed to provide mandatory validation and engaged in documented XXXX ( deceptive account closure practices ), the " title '' to this debt is clouded. XXXX XXXX XXXX, as the assignee, has acquired a tainted asset and is now attempting to enforce a voidable obligation. XXXX. Strict Liability under FDCPA XXXX ( 15 U.S.C. XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX is acting as a " debt collector '' and is therefore subject to strict liability for any false, deceptive, or misleading representations. By asserting that a specific balance is " owed '' while the underlying account is the subject of an unresolved dispute regarding the original creditors refusal to allow account closure, XXXX XXXX is making a false representation of the character and legal status of the debt. XXXX. Willful Blindness and Failure to Verify XXXX XXXX XXXX can not claim " bona fide error '' if they failed to conduct due diligence on the accounts dispute history before initiating collection. The attached evidence proves that Upgrade , Inc. admitted in writing to procedural barriers ( the " inability to close '' the account ) that are legally non-existent. XXXX XXXX decision to proceed with collectionrather than returning the file to the creditor for cureconstitutes willful non-compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) and the FDCPA. XXXX Equitable Estoppel & Recoupment The consumers refusal to perform ( pay ) is 166 % justified as an act of Statutory Recoupment. The damages caused by Upgrade 's deceptive " lock-in '' tactics and both companies ' subsequent failure to report the debt as " Disputed '' ( FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ) create a liability that offsets the alleged debt. Until the " Best Evidence '' ( specifically the original wet-ink contract and the XX/XX/XXXX, call audio ) is produced, this debt remains an unproven allegation, not a financial obligation. XXXX XXXX A XXXX Description of Attached Evidence : Exhibit Case File [ XXXX ] Document Overview : The attached PDF contains a chronological record of the disputes, deceptive responses, and statutory failures of Upgrade , Inc. and XXXX XXXX XXXX. This file serves as the evidentiary basis for the alleged UDAAP and FCRA violations. Key Evidence Highlights : Page XXXX : The Deception ( The " Smoking Gun '' ) : Written correspondence from Upgrade, Inc. dated XX/XX/XXXX. Note the highlighted section where the creditor explicitly states they are " unable to close the account '' due to an outstanding balance. This constitutes a material misrepresentation of consumer rights and a coercive tactic under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. Page XXXX : Notice of Dispute & Cease and Desist : Copies of the formal disputes sent to Upgrade, Inc. dating back to XX/XX/XXXX. This proves the creditor had actual knowledge of the dispute and a legal obligation to provide " wet-ink '' validation, which they failed to do. Page XXXX : Failure to Validate/Conclusory Response : Upgrade, Inc.s refusal to provide the requested XX/XX/XXXX, call audio or the original signed contract. This page highlights their reliance on " internal records '' rather than the competent evidentiary matter required by the FCRA XXXX " Reasonable Investigation '' standard. Page XXXX : Transfer of Disputed Debt : The initial collection notice from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This proves that the account was assigned/sold after the dispute was formalized and while the original creditors deceptive " inability to close '' claim remained uncured. Page XXXX : Credit Reporting Evidence : Screenshots of credit monitoring showing that the trade line continues to be reported without the mandatory " Disputed '' notation required by FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). Summary of Proof : The enclosed documents demonstrate that Upgrade , Inc. knowingly provided false information regarding account closure to prevent the consumer from terminating the relationship and subsequently transferred that tainted debt to a third-party collector, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in an attempt to circumvent federal consumer protections.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation