Consumer complaint received 2026-04-27 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Rental debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: National Credit Systems,Inc.
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is a continuation and escalation of CFPB complaint # XXXX and # XXXX. The responses provided by National Credit Systems ( NCS ) and XXXX fail to address the core issues raised and do not reflect a reasonable or legally sufficient investigation. Since my initial complaint, it has become clear that the alleged debt is supported only by the following documentation : * An undated itemized statement, produced only after my CFPB complaint * A copy of my lease agreement * A revised statement issued approximately XXXX months after move-out. These documents are insufficient, internally inconsistent, and fail to establish the existence of a valid, enforceable debt. 1. Untimely and Non-Contemporaneous Documentation The lease agreement explicitly states that any portion of the security deposit not applied to damages must be addressed within 30 days after the end of the lease. However : * The revised statement was issued approximately XXXX months after move-out ( XX/XX/year> ) * No contemporaneous itemized deductions were provided within the required timeframe * The itemized statement produced is undated and was only generated after I initiated a dispute. This raises serious concerns that the documentation is not contemporaneous and may have been created after the fact to justify a previously non-existent balance. 2. Direct Contradiction with Final {$0.00} Balance Statement. At the time of move-out, I was issued a final statement reflecting a {$0.00} balance. Despite repeated disputes : * This document has been ignored and not reconciled * No explanation has been provided as to how a XXXX balance later became a collection account * No evidence has been presented showing that any charges were assessed within the required timeframe This is a material contradiction that has not been addressed by either the furnisher or XXXX. 3. Unsupported and Vague Damages Charge The only charge referenced is a vague damages amount of {$170.00}, which : * Appears on a document listing {$0.00} across all standard categories * Is not supported by photos, invoices, inspection reports, or receipts * Is not tied to any documented move-out condition While the lease references reasonable wear and tear, it does not : * Establish automatic tenant liability for carpet replacement * Eliminate the requirement to distinguish between normal wear and actual damage * Override the requirement to provide timely, itemized deductions No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the alleged damage exceeds normal wear and tear. 4. Failure to Provide Proper Debt Validation The documentation provided does not meet the standard for proper debt validation because it is : * Untimely ( produced months after move-out and after dispute initiation ) * Incomplete ( lacking supporting evidence such as invoices or inspection reports ) * Inconsistent ( contradicting the original {$0.00} balance statement ) Providing a lease and a late-generated statement does not constitute sufficient validation of a debt. 5. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation ( FCRA Violations ) Despite clear inconsistencies and material evidence submitted : * The account continues to be reported * The investigation appears to rely solely on information provided by the furnisher without verifying its accuracy or timing * Critical evidence, including the {$0.00} balance statement and timing requirements under the lease, has been disregarded Additionally, I received XXXX written responses from XXXX, each containing identical language and conclusions, despite the submission of new and specific evidence. This raises serious concerns that : * My dispute was not meaningfully reviewed * No independent or reasonable reinvestigation was conducted as required under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 6. Failure to Cease Collection Activity After Timely Validation Request ( FDCPA Concerns ) I submitted a timely debt validation request within 30 days of receiving the initial collection notice. Despite this : * Collection activity was not properly ceased * The account continued to be reported * The documentation later provided does not constitute proper validation These actions raise serious concerns regarding compliance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The alleged debt is based on untimely, non-contemporaneous, and unsupported documentation, which directly contradicts a final {$0.00} balance issued at move-out and fails to comply with the leases XXXX requirement. The continued reporting of this account is inaccurate, misleading, and harmful, and reflects a failure to properly investigate and verify information before reporting it.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation