Consumer complaint received 2025-11-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: RentDebt Automated Collections, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this second complaint because the collection agencys previous response to my CFPB complaint is itself proof that they violated the FDCPA and FCRA, and their own statements contradict the law. In their written response, they claimed they mailed an initial collection letter on XX/XX/XXXX, and relied solely on the statement that it was not returned as undeliverable as proof of delivery. That is not legally sufficient evidence of notice under FDCPA 809 ( a ), and they provided no actual proof it was mailed or received. They also admitted that they reported the account to all three credit bureaus on XX/XX/XXXX with permission from our client even though they had not validated the debt, which violates FDCPA 1692g ( b ) and FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), because a collector may not furnish information without first verifying the accuracy. They further admitted that on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, they received disputes through the credit bureaus, and their response was that they updated XXXX XXXX trade line to disputed and verifying that the disputed information was correct. They did not explain how the information was verified or what documents they reviewed, and this generic language confirms they did not conduct a reasonable reinvestigation as required under FCRA 623 ( b ). They also falsely claimed that they are unable to remove this trade line, which directly contradicts FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ), which requires deletion of any information that can not be verified. They then stated, As of the date of this response RDAC has not received a direct dispute from XXXX XXXX, which is irrelevant and legally incorrect because a dispute received through a CRA triggers the exact same reinvestigation duties under FCRA 623 ( b ). Their own response admits they only reviewed what the CRA forwarded, not the debt itself, which is not a reasonable investigation. They also stated they were attaching a final account statement and a signed application, but they did not provide a full ledger, itemized breakdown, move-out accounting, detailed charges, proof of ownership, chain of assignment, or any Metro-2 compliant documentation. A final statement and an application do not meet the validation requirements of FDCPA 1692g ( b ) or the verification standard under FCRA 623 ( b ). Their response also includes irrelevant statements about only calling twice, which has nothing to do with their legal obligations. Every part of their response shows that they did not validate the debt, did not verify the information being furnished, did not conduct a real reinvestigation, and do not have the documents required to collect or report this debt. Their response itself proves the tradeline must be deleted because anything that can not be verified must be removed under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). I am requesting that the CFPB take action because the companys own written statements show they are violating federal law.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation