Consumer complaint received 2025-09-29 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Medical debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: PlusFour, Inc
State: NV

Complaint narrative:
I submit this complaint regarding PlusFours reporting and collection of a {$1700.00} account allegedly owed to XXXX XXXX. Despite my formal disputes submitted to the credit bureaus on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, the tradeline continues to be marked verified. 

When I contacted XXXX XXXX XXXX ( will later be referred as XXXX XXXX for short ), their representatives admitted they possess no signed documentation establishing that I am financially responsible for this account. Instead, they stated they only maintain a balance sheet, my name, an address, a telephone number, the last four digits of my Social Security number, and the physician/facility name. They further stated they never received a verification request from PlusFour in connection with my disputes.

PlusFour has represented that they mailed me a bill and itemized statement. I never received such correspondence. Even if PlusFour did send documents, delivery to an incorrect address does not meet the statutory requirement that the consumer actually be provided validation. The FDCPA requires cessation of collection until proper validation is furnished. 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). Courts have held that a debt collectors duty is not satisfied by unverified or misdirected paperwork. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( holding that mere itemization of the debt without proof of liability fails to constitute proper validation under 1692g ). 

XXXX XXXX informed me that they intend to investigate for another 45 days. This is inconsistent with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FCRA provides that a reinvestigation shall be completed not later than 30 days after the agency receives the notice of the dispute. 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). The period may only be extended to 45 days if the consumer submits additional information relevant to the dispute. I submitted no such new information. As of this filing, PlusFour is 61 days late on the XX/XX/XXXX dispute, 55 days late on the XX/XX/XXXX dispute, and 49 days late on the XX/XX/XXXX dispute. PlusFour stated that they did not read this in the notes, sent to them by XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

The Ninth Circuit has confirmed that a furnisher or bureau must conduct a reasonable investigation within the statutory window. Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC , 629 F.3d 876, 890 ( 9th Cir. 2010 ) ( The investigation an agency conducts must be a reasonable one, and must be completed within the 30-day window established by Congress. ). XXXXXXXX XXXX claim that they may take another 45 days unlawfully extends that deadline and denies me the protections of the FCRA. 

When I contacted PlusFour, I was told by a representative that PlusFour owns the debt and therefore does not forward verification requests to XXXX XXXX. I was further told that possession of a bill alone was sufficient to collect and report a debt, and that I must submit an additional written request for validation even though I had already disputed the account three times through the credit bureaus.

Each of these statements misrepresents both the debt collectors duties and my rights under federal law. The FDCPA prohibits any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. 15 U.S.C. 1692e. In Clomon v. Jackson, the Second Circuit held that misstating or constraining consumer rights under the FDCPA constitutes a deceptive practice. 988 F.2d 1314, 1320 ( 2d Cir. 1993 ).

My call with PlusFour was escalated to a supervisor identified as XXXX. During this exchange, he repeatedly interrupted me, refused to permit me to state my position, and attempted to coerce me into declaring the account identity theft. I made clear that I would not be forced to respond in such a limited and misleading way. XXXX then stated that if I did not provide the answer he demanded, he would terminate the call. 

This conduct constitutes harassment and misrepresentation under the FDCPA. The statute prohibits any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. 15 U.S.C. 1692d. The Eleventh Circuit has held that coercive and oppressive communication by collectors violates 1692d. Jeter v. Credit Bureau , Inc., 760 F.2d 1168, 1179 ( 11th Cir. 1985 ). Further, the Fourth Circuit has held that reporting or verifying disputed information without a good-faith If further substantiation is required, I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exercise its investigative authority under 12 U.S.C. 5562 to compel PlusFour and XXXX XXXX XXXX to produce all relevant call recordings, phone records, and account-level documentation. Such evidence will directly corroborate the coercive, obstructive, and noncompliant conduct set forth in this complaint. 

" For clarity, I do not concede that this account is mine or that I owe this debt ; this complaint is based on PlusFours conduct in reporting and handling my disputes. ''

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