Consumer complaint received 2025-12-28 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Halsted Financial Services, LLC.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Re : Failure to Validate Debt, Conflicting Balances, Fraud Flags Ignored, and Continued Collection/Reporting I am submitting this new complaint to request regulatory review of XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding their handling, verification, reporting, and collection of an alleged XXXX account. The materials the company provided in response to my dispute do not meet the statutory requirements of validation under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), nor do they satisfy the furnisher duties imposed by FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ). Their internal documents contain multiple unresolved inconsistencies- including conflicting balances, duplicate transfer dates, and a fraud designation in their own system- while the company continues to report, update, and collect on the account without providing the documentation necessary to verify ownership, accuracy, or legitimacy of the alleged debt. I am requesting the CFPBs review and intervention due to the companys failure to validate the debt, failure to investigate the dispute reasonably, and continued furnishing of unverified or contradictory information. 

My XX/XX/year> dispute remains unresolved, and the company continues collecting and reporting without proper validation. In fact, following my initial written dispute, XXXXand later XXXX XXXX XXXXattempted to restart the dispute process by assigning multiple new dispute reference numbers, directing me to different mailing addresses, and requesting that I submit a new dispute despite having an active, unresolved dispute on record. This conduct appears designed to confuse the consumer, fragment the dispute history, and circumvent the requirements of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). Halsted Financial Services was copied on each supplemental dispute communication and still failed to provide any response or validation, despite being an active servicer at the time. This repeated reassignment of dispute reference numbers and redirection of correspondence raises concerns about whether the company is intentionally hindering the dispute process and avoiding the statutory obligation to validate the debt before continuing collection and credit reporting activities. 


1. Failure to Validate Debt Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) The company explicitly stated it declines to provide the purchase and sale agreement for this account. This is the only type of documentation capable of confirming whether my specific account was included in any sale or assignment. The company also did not provide : A bill of sale Assignment agreement Schedule of accounts linking my account number Chain of title Proof of ownership Proof of transfer Itemized accounting Licensing for any prior servicers The companys claim that it is not obligated to provide the purchase-and-sale agreement is legally incorrect under FDCPA 1692g ( b ), because verification requires documentation sufficient to prove ownership, and the purchase-and-sale agreement is the only document capable of doing so. 

Without these documents, the company has not validated the debt. 

By refusing validation and continuing to collect/report, the company violated : FDCPA 1692g ( b ) FDCPA 1692e ( 10 ) FDCPA 1692e ( 2 ) FDCPA 1692f FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) - ( D ) FDCPA Violations : 1692g ( b ) : Failure to validate and continued collection 1692e ( 2 ) : Misrepresentation of the amount or legal status 1692e ( 10 ) : Use of deceptive or misleading means 1692f : Unfair or unconscionable conduct 2. Internally Created Documents Are Not Validation The company submitted internally generated Account Summary documents. These are non-creditor documents created by the servicer. They do not establish ownership or accuracy. 

Internal documents do not satisfy 1692g ( b ). 

3. Conflicting Balances Indicate Inaccurate, Unverified Reporting The companys own documents contain three materially different balances : XXXX balance : {$60000.00} XXXX charge-off : {$66000.00} Internal XXXX write-off : {$58000.00} ( shown in the internal servicing log ) These numbers can not all be correct. No itemization or explanation was provided for : Why balances differ How the balance increased How the balance decreased How interest was calculated Why the companys internal balance does not match XXXX or XXXX FCRA Violations : 1681s-2 ( b ) : Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Failure to review all relevant information 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) - ( D ) : Failure to correct, update, or provide accurate results 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) : Continued furnishing of inaccurate or unverified data 4. Fraud Designation in Company Records Was Ignored The internal servicing file provided by the company shows a clear fraud-related warning ( confirmed fraudulent account ) This information came from the companys own system. 

This fraud designation was not acknowledged, addressed, explained, or investigated in the companys response. 

For clarity, I am referencing the companys own internal notation only because it appears in their records and was not explained. 

This omission alone demonstrates that the investigation was not reasonable. 

Violations : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) : Must conduct a reasonable investigation FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ) : Must accurately report investigation results FDCPA 1692e ( 10 ) : Omission of material information 5. Duplicate and Conflicting Transfer Dates The ownership history shows multiple transfers all occurring on XX/XX/year> : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  No documents were provided to confirm these transfers or explain why all events have the same date. 

This raises questions regarding : Accuracy Completeness Proper chain of custody Whether the alleged account was ever legally transferred Violations : FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) : Reporting without verifying accuracy FDCPA 1692e ( 10 ) : Misleading representations 6. Prior Written Dispute Was Ignored My original validation request was sent to Halsted Financial Services on XX/XX/year>, delivered on XX/XX/year>. Halsted never responded, never validated the debt, and continued collection activity by transferring the account during an active dispute. 

The companys response contains : No record of Halsteds response No validation from Halsted No resolution of the dispute Transferring a debt during a pending dispute violates 1692g ( b ). 


7. Improper Restarting of the Dispute Process XXXX issued a letter instructing me to dispute the account again, despite receiving the existing active dispute. Restarting the dispute process through new reference numbers is misleading and interferes with my rights. 

Violations : FDCPA 1692e ( 10 ) FDCPA 1692g ( b ) 8. Continued Reporting Without Validation The company confirmed they continue reporting the account as disputed. Because the dispute has not been resolved and no validation was provided, this raises issues under : FDCPA 1692e ( 8 ) reporting information known to be disputed FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ) furnishing inaccurate or unverified information 9. No Licensing Documentation for XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX Both entities attempted to collect the debt. Neither provided evidence of : New York State licensing Authority to collect Authorization from the creditor This is required under state law and relevant to whether the collection activity was lawful. 

Violations : FDCPA 1692e ( 5 ) - threat or attempt to take action not permitted by law Attached are documents with my original request, along with a new attachment submitted by XXXX by way of CFPB. The attachment uploaded does not validate the debt. Thank you.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation