Consumer complaint received 2025-02-14 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Old information reappears or never goes away
Company: Collection Management Holdings, LLC
State: TN

Complaint narrative:
When recently applying for a mortgage the lender did a soft pull on my credit which we were able to get pre-approved for the loan. Once they did the hard pull on the credit they noticed that my credit score had dropped by XXXX points in 3 weeks. Upon further review it was determined that a company by the name oXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX had reported an XX/XX/XXXX deliquency on my credit report on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  for an alleged bill from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( ambulance ). The amount listed is {$3300.00}, noting it was opened on XX/XX/XXXX. I was unaware of this bill or that there were attempts at collections as I had insurance with XXXX XXXX in California at the time. I have received no information from a collections company regarding this. My wife reached out to this reporting company XXXX XXXX XXXX  3 times and was told that they no longer had the debt and it belonged to a company named XXXX XXXX and provided a phone number. When we reached that other number it wasn't for XXXX XXXX. My wife tried to get a valid number from XXXX XXXX XXXX 2 other times and was told that is the number they have, they have no additional information and that they couldn't help us any further. We did some research and saw that it's actually unlawful for a collection company to report to the credit bureau any medical bill as of XX/XX/XXXX, California Senate Bill 1061. As we never received any documentation etc regarding this previously we believe this to be predatory and has negatively affected our credit as we are no longer qualified for the mortgage that we had applied for. The California Senate Bill 1061 also notes that if an collection agency wrongly reports this that the alleged debt becomes void and unenforceable. It also states that they are subject to fines and penalties as well as revocation. I have included the California Senate Bill below. Though I do not fully understand the law, in California the statute of limitations is 4 years from what I was able to find online. As this has never appeared on my credit previously but appeared 6 years and 3 months after this alleged deliquency, it would seem that it would be barred by XXXX. We will also be reaching out to the California Attorney General 's office as well as filing disputes with the credit reporting companies. Please advise .... 
CHAPTER 520 An act to amend Sections 1785.3, 1785.13, 1786.18, and 1788.14 of, and to add Sections 1785.20.6 and 1785.27 to, the Civil Code, to amend Sections 1371.56, 1371.9, 1797.233, and 127425 of the Health and Safety Code, and to amend Sections 10112.8 and 10126.66 of, and to add Section 10112.75 to, the Insurance Code, relating to consumer debt. 

[ Approved by XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Filed with Secretary of State XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX ] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL 'S DIGEST SB 1061, Limn. Consumer debt : medical debt. 
Existing law, the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, defines and regulates consumer credit reports and consumer credit reporting agencies. The act prohibits a consumer credit reporting agency from making any consumer credit report containing specified items of information, including accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss that antedate the report by more than 7 years. Existing law, the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, defines and regulates investigative consumer reports and investigative consumer reporting agencies. The act prohibits an investigative consumer reporting agency from making or furnishing any investigative consumer report containing specified items of information, including accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss that antedate the report by more than 7 years. 
This bill would prohibit a consumer credit reporting agency or an investigative consumer reporting agency from making a consumer credit report or an investigative consumer report containing information about medical debt, as defined. The bill would prohibit a person who uses a consumer credit report in connection with a credit transaction from using medical debt listed on the report as a negative factor when making a credit decision. The bill would prohibit a person from furnishing information regarding a medical debt to a consumer credit reporting agency, make a medical debt void and unenforceable if a person knowingly violates this provision by furnishing information regarding the medical debt to a consumer credit reporting agency, require a contract creating a medical debt entered into on or after XX/XX/XXXX, to include a term describing these requirements, as specified, and make a violation of these provisions by a person holding a license or permit issued by the state to be deemed to be a violation of the law governing that license or permit. By providing that a violation of these provisions is deemed a violation of a licensing statute, and because the violation of some licensing statutes is a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 
Existing law requires the Department of Health Care Access and Information to review a hospitals policies regarding, among other things, charity care or debt collection for compliance with the law whenever a significant change is made and submitted to the department, as specified. Existing law, among other things, prohibits a hospital from selling patient debt to a specified debt buyer unless several conditions are met and requires a hospital to have a written policy concerning patient debt, as specified. 
This bill would require a hospital to maintain all records relating to money owed to the hospital by a patient or a patients guarantor, as specified. The bill would require any contract entered into by a hospital related to the assignment or sale of medical debt to require the assignee or buyer and any subsequent assignee or buyer to maintain records related to litigation for 5 years. 
Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law authorizes a noncontracting individual health professional to advance to collections only the in-network cost-sharing amount that an insured has failed to pay, and prohibits reporting adverse information to a consumer credit reporting agency for a minimum of 150 days after the initial billing to the insured. 
This bill would require a health insurer to send notices, with specified information, to an insured and provider if the insurer sends payment directly to the insured and not to the provider for services provided. If the provider does not receive the payment from the insured within 60 days of the notice to the insured, or within one year after initial billing for the service, whichever is later, the bill would authorize the insurers share of cost in possession of the insured that has not been paid to the provider to be reported to a credit reporting agency as medical debt.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1788.14 of the Civil Code proposed by XXXX XXXX to be operative only if this bill and SB XXXX are enacted and this bill is enacted last, and to Section 127425 of the Health and Safety Code proposed by XXXX XXXX to be operative only if this bill and AB XXXX are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. 
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. 
XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  : MAJORITY Appropriation : XXXX XXXX XXXX : YES Local Program : YES

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation