The below is actually my complaint to the FTC but it says it all.
However, the actual compliant to the FTC ends with "Thank you."
I have not been contacted by Palisades. They used an outside attorney to contact me and I sent in a dispute to the attorney and I received a letter from the attorney that they closed the case and are returning the collection back to Palisades. The claim by AT&T has been on going for years with various collection agencies and when I ask for proof that the account is mine, there is no proof found and the collection agency closes the case only have it to show up from a different collection agency. Now, the collection has shown up on my son's credit report as well as mine, and it is from Palisades for AT&T for the same amount and the same referenced account number (ATT 5032735059). My son has never had AT&T either and evidently Palisades is placing the collection data by name rather than social security numbers. There may be numerous Edward Parker's who have this same collection on their credit report. Thank you.
I have time and time again requested proof from AT&T that the account is mine by providing a signed order and a list of called numbers, if an account actually exists, that I may contact those numbers to determine if I know the people called and the verification requested has never been received but the collection process goes on and on. For the above to have continued for years, it is apparent, Palisades is not intimidated that the FEDS could bust them if they have and continue to violate Federal Laws that regulate their type of business practices. Reading all the complaints noted on Palisades Collections, passes the litmus test that their adverse methods is their normal choice of operation. I do not understand why a Class Action Suit has not be filed against AT&T and Palisades. There must be thousands of people and their credit report that has been adversely affected by AT&T and Palisades.
I certify the above is factual, correct to the best of my knowledge.
(ror redacted last name for security purposes)
0 comments