Consumer complaint received 2026-07-07 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Rental debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: FAIR COLLECTIONS & OUTSOURCING, INC.
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
CFPB Rebuttal to Complaint No. XXXX I categorically reject the response submitted by Fair Collections & Outsourcing , Inc. Their response fails to validate this alleged debt and fails to establish that I entered into this lease, occupied this apartment, or am legally responsible for the alleged balance of {$12000.00}. Instead of producing competent evidence proving their claim, Fair Collections & Outsourcing submitted incomplete, contradictory, and internally inconsistent documents that raise serious questions regarding the identity of the actual tenant and the legitimacy of this account. The burden of proving that this debt belongs to me rests entirely with Fair Collections & Outsourcing and XXXX XXXX. That burden has not been met. Simply mailing internal account records, an unsigned ledger, and an incomplete electronic lease does not establish legal liability. The lease they submitted contains nothing more than an electronic DocuSign signature that they claim belongs to me. It is not my handwritten signature, and they have produced absolutely no evidence establishing that I was the individual who electronically signed the lease. Even more concerning is what they deliberately omitted. The lease packet does not include the DocuSign Certificate of Completion ( also known as the Certificate of Evidence or Signature Validation page ) that accompanies every properly executed DocuSign agreement. This is the document that authenticates an electronic signature and records the complete audit trail, including the DocuSign Envelope ID, timestamps, IP addresses, email addresses used during execution, authentication methods, device information, and every action taken during the signing process. Without the Certificate of Completion, there is no way to determine : Who actually signed the lease. What email address was used. What IP address the document was signed from. What device was used. Whether any identity verification occurred. Whether the signer successfully authenticated their identity. Whether the electronic signature is even attributable to me. An electronic signature page, standing alone, proves absolutely nothing. It is merely an image of a signature without the audit trail required to authenticate it. If XXXX XXXX genuinely possesses a valid electronically executed lease, then producing the complete DocuSign audit trail should be effortless. Their failure to produce the very document that validates the electronic signature is a glaring omission that completely undermines the reliability of the lease they rely upon. The financial records they submitted create even more doubt. Their own resident ledger reflects multiple credit card payments for application fees, deposits, rent, and move-in costs. Every one of those payments was later reversed or returned, and the ledger specifically identifies the payment method as an " unauthorized '' credit card. That raises an obvious question : Whose credit card was it? Every electronic credit card transaction generates payment processing records. XXXX XXXX should possess transaction records, authorization attempts, reversal or chargeback information, merchant processing records, and documentation identifying the cardholder or the individual who attempted to use that payment method. If the card was determined to be unauthorized, then who owned it? What name was associated with it? What billing address was used? What fraud investigation was conducted? Where are those records? None of this information has been produced. The ledger also reflects subsequent payments identified by payment numbers that appear to correspond to checks, money orders, cashier 's checks, or another negotiable payment instrument. Regardless of the payment type, those instruments are traceable through the issuing financial institution or payment provider. Again, the obvious question is : Who purchased or issued those payment instruments? If XXXX XXXX accepted those payments, then it either knows or can determine who tendered those funds. If those payments were dishonored or became part of the alleged balance, there should be documentation identifying the purchaser, remitter, account holder, or other identifying information associated with those transactions. Instead of identifying the individual who actually made those payments, Fair Collections & Outsourcing has simply attempted to assign liability to me without producing a single document connecting me to those payment instruments. Those payment records are among the strongest evidence available to identify the individual who actually rented this apartment. Fair Collections & Outsourcing ignored that evidence and instead chose to pursue me without first identifying the person who actually conducted these transactions. That is not debt validation. That is not a reasonable investigation. Their own accounting records further contradict their claim. Throughout the resident ledger are repeated entries labeled " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' and " XXXX XXXX XXXX. '' Vacant. Their own records repeatedly classify the apartment as vacant. If the apartment was vacant, then who was occupying it? How can XXXX XXXX simultaneously claim that I resided in the apartment while charging vacant utility recovery? Their own business records directly contradict their allegation that I was ever a resident. The reporting history is equally inconsistent. The original tradeline under XXXX XXXX Lofts 590 reports : Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Closed : XX/XX/XXXX Reported : XX/XX/XXXX Status : Account submitted to collection / Account transferred However, a second collection later appears under Fair Collections & Outsourcing , Inc., reporting : Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Collection account : XX/XX/XXXX First reported to the credit bureaus : XX/XX/XXXX Balance : {$12000.00} Status : Unpaid account disputed ; Account submitted to collection Term : One month Months reviewed : 31 These dates are inconsistent and unexplained. According to XXXX XXXX 's own records, this account allegedly closed in XX/XX/XXXX. If that is true, why did Fair Collections & Outsourcing wait until XXXX XXXXnearly three years laterto begin reporting this collection to the consumer reporting agencies? Why was the account dormant for years before suddenly appearing as a newly reported collection? No explanation has been provided. This reporting history raises serious questions regarding the accuracy and handling of this account and further undermines the reliability of the information being furnished. Most importantly, Fair Collections & Outsourcing has failed to produce a single piece of objective evidence establishing that I was ever physically present at this property. I have never lived at XXXX XXXX XXXX South, Apartment XXXX, XXXX, Virginia. I have never occupied this apartment. I have never received keys. I have never moved into this property. I have never entered into a lease agreement with XXXX XXXX. Despite attempting to collect nearly {$13000.00} from me, neither XXXX Collections & XXXX nor XXXX XXXX has produced : A government-issued photo identification presented during the leasing process. The verified rental application bearing my signature. The complete XXXX XXXX of XXXX. Identity verification records. The electronic XXXX XXXX. Leasing office surveillance. Key issuance records. Building access logs. Parking registration. Utility accounts in my name. Renters insurance records. Move-in inspection documents signed by me. Package delivery records. Any evidence placing me at this property. Apartment communities routinely require applicants to present government-issued photo identification before possession of an apartment is granted. If XXXX XXXX followed its own leasing procedures, then it should have retained documentation identifying the individual to whom it rented this apartment. Accordingly, I request that Fair Collections & Outsourcing and Equity Residential produce : The government-issued photo identification presented during leasing. The complete DocuSign Certificate of Completion and audit trail. All electronic signature authentication logs. IP addresses and device information associated with the lease execution. The rental application. Payment processor records identifying the owner of the unauthorized credit card. Documentation identifying the purchaser or issuer of the subsequent payment instruments. Any fraud investigation conducted after the payment methods were determined to be unauthorized or returned. Any documentation demonstrating that I personally occupied or took possession of Apartment XXXX. If they can not produce this evidence, then they can not establish that I was the tenant. What makes this matter even more troubling is that this is not the only apartment-related collection that has recently appeared on my credit reports for properties where I have never lived. Multiple rental collections from unrelated apartment communities have appeared despite the fact that I have never resided at those locations. This pattern raises significant concerns that my personal information may have been used by another individual. Regardless of the cause, Fair Collections & Outsourcing has made no meaningful effort to determine who actually incurred this debt before attempting to collect it from me. Fair Collections & Outsourcing has failed to validate this account. Their response consists of incomplete records, contradictory dates, missing identity verification, an incomplete DocuSign lease lacking its required audit trail, unauthorized payment methods with no explanation as to who used them, traceable payment instruments they failed to investigate, and absolutely no competent evidence establishing that I entered into this lease or occupied this apartment. The evidence they submitted does not prove their case. It raises more questions than answers. I therefore request that the CFPB require Fair Collections & Outsourcing and Equity Residential to either produce competent evidence establishing that I personally entered into this lease and incurred this obligation or immediately instruct them to delete this account from Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. I further request that all collection activity cease until competent evidence of my identity and legal liability is produced. This debt is not mine. I have never lived at this property, and after being given the opportunity to validate this account, Fair Collections & Outsourcing has failed to produce evidence sufficient to establish that I am the individual responsible. The continued reporting and collection of this account without competent proof of identity and liability is inaccurate and continues to cause substantial harm to my credit profile. I respectfully request that this matter be resolved by ordering the immediate deletion of this collection from all consumer reporting agencies.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation