Consumer complaint received 2025-08-15 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Rental debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: FAIR COLLECTIONS & OUTSOURCING, INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
I recently moved out of XXXX XXXX Apartments ( XXXX XXXX, MI ), managed by XXXX, and XXXX disputing a carpet replacement charge that was assessed without proper documentation and referred to Fair Collections & Outsourcing ( XXXX ) just XXXX days after I received my Statement of Deposit Accounting ( dated XX/XX/year> ), which explicitly stated I had 30 days to pay. Its clear the complex is attempting to offload the cost of a full-unit carpet replacement onto meeven though I left the apartment in excellent condition. I have video and photo evidence to prove this. Theyve withheld my full security deposit ( {$600.00} ) and are now seeking over {$1000.00} more. 

The charge is based on a vague and unsupported claim of a XXXX smell. I was never notified of any odor concern, nor was I given a chance to verify or respond. I wasnt allowed to attend the move-out inspection, and no professional documentationsuch as an odor treatment report, cleaning invoice, or third-party assessmentwas ever provided. 

The original move-in inspection marked the carpet only as XXXX, with no indication it was new. The only carpet-related invoice in my lease file was a {$150.00} extractionnot a full installation. It was only after I challenged the charge that the property XXXX claimed the carpet had been new at my move-in, but this was never disclosed to me during my tenancy. 

After multiple follow-upsand a hostile response from the property managerI received an invoice dated XX/XX/year>, for an installation supposedly completed on XX/XX/year>, just XXXX day after I formally requested proof. The invoice is marked as a reprint and includes a suspicious job description that parrots the managers language : After thorough inspection, the carpet can not be professionally cleaned to remove the odors and must be replaced due to its condition and the extent of pet-related damages. This language appears retrofitted to support the charge, not to reflect any objective vendor assessment. Even more troubling, the dollar amount on this invoice doesnt match the charge listed on my SODA, and none of the dates or totals aligna pattern that further erodes the credibility of their claim. 

If the carpet had truly been damaged beyond repair, management would have replaced it immediately after I vacated to prepare the unit for the next tenant. Instead, they waited more than XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX schedule and complete a full-unit carpet replacement. That delay cost them rent, triggered a full replacement instead of targeted treatment, and resulted in a $ XXXX charge they now frame as prorated in my favor. If this were truly about tenant-caused damage, they would have pursued more cost-effective optionssuch as enzymatic cleaning or partial replacementright after move-out. The lack of urgency or mitigation suggests this was part of a planned upgrade, not a necessary repair, with the cost wrongfully shifted to me. 

Additionally, this unit has a known issue with flooding during heavy rains. Just weeks before I moved out, I submitted an emergency work order due to soaked carpet near the laundry room. It took days to receive a response, and when maintenance and the carpet cleaner finally arrived, both casually remarked they deal with this all the time in these units. Around the same time, I also submitted a separate request for a foul mildew smellone that was never addressed at all. 

There are other concerning patterns. During my lease, I was double-charged for both rent and pet feeserrors eventually corrected, but indicative of broader financial mismanagement. I also received multiple emails about major property renovations leading up to an owners tour, including driveway repaving, pool upgrades, and landscaping. It raises a legitimate concern that former tenants are being unfairly targeted to absorb costs associated with these capital XXXX. 

Whats most egregious is the timeline. I received a debt collection letter from XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX 18 days after receiving the XXXX. XXXX XXXX appears to have written off the alleged debt by XX/XX/XXXX, only XXXX days after emailing me the chargedespite the XXXX clearly stating that tenants have 30 days to pay. I formally disputed the charge on XX/XX/XXXX, the same day I received it. This premature referral XXXX violate federal protections under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). 

All I wanted was for the charge to either be reversed or clearly justified with legitimate documentation. Instead, Ive faced misleading communication, aggressive tone, and what increasingly appears to be financial coercion. The more Ive looked into this, the more XXXX convinced that whats happening is not only unethical, but potentially unlawful. I have documentation supporting every claim made in this complaint.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation