Complaint Review: Palisade Collections Inc - AT&T - Duluth Georgia

In regard to Palisade Collections Inc., and their use of non-demonstrable AT&T unpaid balance accounts, this situation is now in the realm of the gross indifference and blatant disrespect of the credit reporting agencies as well as these bogus companies themselves.

AT&T and Palisade have been able to maneuver their not-so-elaborate but certainly damaging scheme upon the public for the simple reason that there is no one who is pushing them to alter their woefully incompetent and highly dubious practices.

Meaning, the ending avenue (at least before regulatory agencies are brought into the picture) is the credit bureaus themselves. This is where the system is breaking down. I have been through the drill twice now with these same cast of characters, still without results.

Let me clarify a few things that have been confused by popular misconception.

It is commonly reported that should one demand (whether through the credit bureaus, attorneys, or directly) that a company verify their information of unpaid balances or other derogatory remarks against one's credit report, that the company will have anywhere from 30 to 90 days to authenticate the information or by law, it will have to be removed.

I can tell you unequivocally, that this is not only not always the truth, it is getting to where it rarely is the truth in any shape or form. The idea that these credit bureaus will insist upon evidence of these claims is simply untrue. The bureaus will NOT make these companies show proof whatsoever. All they do is ask the company to confirm or deny the accuracy of the claim. If the company states that the claim is accurate, the credit bureau simply accepts this without ANY evidence of said claims. This is the real deal of how it works.

Reports of items coming off credit bureau reports are strictly due to a company failing to respond to the credit bureau at all. However, should the company reply on time, even if just to say, yes, the claim is accurate (again without ANY proof!), the credit bureau will NOT remove the derogatory and inaccurate claim. The bogus remarks will remain.

I'll offer one solid example with regard to this very matter:

Back in April I had my PrivacyGuard.com credit monitoring agency challenge a bogus unpaid balance AT&T bill reported from Palisade. After this was ineffective, I summonsed my attorneys to also challenge the claim with certified letters on legal letterheads. Upon both efforts, Palisade simply ignored both requests altogether. Similar reports were sent to AT&T in which they also simply ignored both attempts. Eventually, I contacted the credit bureau directly, in this case, Experian. They agreed to submit a verification request to Palisade. Palisade simply told them that the claim was accurate without ever asking Palisade to demonstrate anything. (This is the policy of Experian and the others. Just ask them they'll tell you this themselves.) Therefore, the derogatory remarks remain and continue to damage me.

It is not that Experian is unaware of my position. After all, I had them make comments upon my credit report stating the following: I have disputed the authenticity of this claim. I have engaged with legal council toward the verification of dept on April 29th, 2003 by certified mail. Creditor has not verified nor responded as of October 16th, 2003. I am reengaging with council for legal action against creditor.

Yet, despite this acknowledgment, Experian refuses to remove the item simply because Palisade states that the claim is real, despite showing no evidence or even responding whatsoever to any inquires about said claim. All Experian will do is repeat their policies to the victim, good, bad or indifferent, even by their own admission. This is the sad truth of how the process functions. It is woefully flawed. This is where there must be change.

What we need to do then is formulate an alliance of diligent consumers who share information and collectively push this to the right sources. I feel the regulatory agencies (like consumer affairs, the attorney general's office and the state attorney's office, etc.) will have to get involved. The way to prompt this is through the media. I am going to push for both local and national media outlets to pose an interest in this matter. Obviously, we have the numbers on our side.

Additionally, I have been trying to engage communication for several weeks with AT&T. Too often I have been reduced to the wayward filtering system of the customer service reps which fight hard to resist my communication with management, probably per their training protocol.

Upon each communication, I am assured that a managerial person will contact me, but this has yet to happen. The latest attempt was on 11-7-03 when I spoke with "Kris Raymond" in Cincinnati, Ohio at 4:18PM who again assured me such managerial communication toward my clearly expressed dispute/arbitration matter. As of 11-25-03, this has never materialized.

Even upon the AT&T website, arbitration stipulations (not that I am a contracted AT&T customer whatsoever) are asked for in regard to the mechanism for small claims court per the following language:

B. Arbitration Information: Before you take a dispute to small claims court, you must first contact our customer account representatives at the toll-free service number on your AT&T bill (which I do not of course, have) for the services to give us an opportunity to resolve the dispute.

I have done my part. AT&T has not done theirs.

Therefore, I am proceeding with the arbitration claim in small claims under the AAA arbitration rules in Dallas, Texas and the demand for arbitration will be set. I will demonstrate gross neglect and indifference on the part of AT&T at the very least, and at most, a woeful irresponsibility toward fair and accurate billing procedures and customer service standards.

I will spare no one, including the credit bureaus and AT&T directly for their gross negligence in this troubling and enduring set of circumstances. Their is certain culpability on their part and its high time they be made accountable for this. This action on their collective part is criminal, after all. The record will show this. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681s-2) provides that only accurate, complete and updated information may be furnished to credit reporting agencies.

If we unite, we can prevail over this cancer.

Christopher

Tamarac, Florida
U.S.A.

Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Palisade Collections

Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on AT&T