Consumer complaint received 2026-04-13 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Rental debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: T.S. Holdings
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an initial collection notice from IQ Data International , Inc. ( reference # XXXX ) for an alleged debt of {$770.00} originating from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( operated by XXXX Residential ) in XXXXXXXX XXXX. The alleged debt consists of three move-out charges from a Move-Out Statement dated XX/XX/XXXX : Cleaning ( {$200.00} ), Full Paint ( {$160.00} ), and Carpet Replacement ( {$350.00} ). On XX/XX/XXXX, well within the 30-day validation window under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ), I sent IQ Data a written dispute requesting verification of the debt, including third-party invoices, proof of payment, documentation of damage beyond normal wear and tear, and an Inventory and Condition Form comparing move-in and move-out conditions. IQ Data did not respond for over six months. On XX/XX/XXXX, they finally responded with only two documents : the original creditor 's own billing statement and a copy of the move-out inspection. No third-party invoices, no proof of payment, no photographs, no condition reports, and no move-in documentation were provided. They also added {$28.00} in interest, bringing the alleged balance to {$800.00}. They then reported this disputed tradeline to consumer reporting agencies. I consider none of the three charges lawful : ( 1 ) Cleaning ( {$200.00} ) Under Paragraph 26.1 of my TAA lease, a tenant is liable for cleaning charges only when cleaning is inadequate beyond normal wear that is, soiling occurring without negligence, carelessness, accident, or abuse. IQ Data has not provided any photographs, cleaning vendor invoices, receipts, or any other objective documentation establishing that any condition in the unit exceeded normal wear and tear. A flat {$200.00} line-item on a landlord-generated statement, without supporting documentation, does not satisfy the verification standard of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) or establish a valid charge under the lease. ( 2 ) Full Paint ( {$160.00} ) My lease does not obligate a tenant to repaint the unit at move-out. A " Full Paint '' charge is recoverable only if the walls exhibited damage beyond normal wear and tear attributable to the tenant. IQ Data has provided no photographs, painter 's invoices, receipts, or condition documentation demonstrating any such damage. Under Paragraph 26.1, normal wear including routine scuffs, minor marks, and fading over a 15-month tenancy is not chargeable to the tenant. ( 3 ) Carpet Replacement ( {$350.00} ) This charge is factually false. I currently reside in the same apartment complex ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, TX ) one floor above the unit in question. My wife, at my request and on my behalf, personally inspected Apartment XXXX with the current tenant, XXXX XXXX, in XX/XX/XXXX. There is no carpet in the apartment a different type of hard-surface flooring is installed. No carpet replacement was ever performed. Attached photographs and a written statement from the current tenant confirm this. Once one charge in a single document is proven factually false ( the {$350.00} carpet replacement ), the remaining charges in the same document can not be treated as reliable. All three charges originate from the same Move-Out Statement prepared by the same party on the same date, with no independent corroboration for any of them. The demonstrated falsity of one line item compromises the credibility of the entire document. Additionally, no one ever explained on what objective basis " wear beyond normal '' was determined for any of these charges. No move-in Inventory and Condition Form was referenced or produced. No photographs of the unit 's condition at move-out ( aside from the inspection form ) were shown. Without a move-in to move-out comparison, there is no factual basis to attribute any alleged condition to me rather than to pre-existing conditions or normal wear over the 15-month tenancy ( XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ). IQ Data 's " verification '' response fails the standard of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). Continuing to report and collect a debt that contains a demonstrably false charge violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ), 1692e ( 8 ), and 1692f ( 1 ). The inaccurate tradeline has already caused me quantifiable credit harm. I submitted two separate disputes to Experian ( resulting in reports # XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX and # XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX ), both of which were " verified '' by IQ Data through automated responses without any actual reinvestigation of the underlying facts. I do not seek partial balance adjustment or settlement my sole objective is complete deletion of this tradeline from all consumer reporting agencies to which it has been reported, as the debt is both procedurally unverified and substantively inaccurate.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief