Complaint Review: Palisades Collection - Bethlehem Pennsylvania

I am having a very negative experience with Palisades and Cingular (formerly AT&T Wireless) with a misleading contract agreement back in September 2002 in regard to a debt that was charged off. Palisades purchased this debt in February 2005. This company is not creditable. It displays no integrity and is disreputable.

Palisades contacted me in regard to collecting this debt of $386.78 that was charged off in February 2003 and April 14, 2003.

Around August 2002, BCSWS offered a promotion for two cell phones including accessories and the services rendered with AT&T. In September 2002, another person and myself together spoke with an AT&T representative to activate the service with stipulations that the accounts be split and we both would be responsible for our own separate accounts. At that time, AT&T authorized and agreed to these terms.

My AT&T Wireless account was opened in September 2002, last activity December 9, 2002. I paid this account off in full but for some reason it was charged off February 10, 2003. The other person account was opened in September 2002, last activity March 17, 2003. This account was closed for non-payment. This account was charged off April 14, 2003. Cingular Wireless (formerly AT&T), Record Management verified this information.

I requested a dispute. I received a reply from the Dispute Department by letter dated April 11, 2006, with enclosed documentation. The documentation was incomplete. Included were the AT&T statements for September and October 2002 and January 2003. January 2003 was incomplete. They gave a breakdown of two cell phone numbers' activities (1) for my account and (2) the other person. The January 2003, statement posted the early cancellation for account referring to my account.

I had requested AT&T to closed the account because of personal reasons. It was agreed upon and AT&T waiver the early cancellation fee. After I closed the account, I through my account was finalized until I started getting phone calls from the collection agency.

I called Palisades about the disputed documentation and asked for the complete files of both accounts. Palisades dispute department informed me that their organization only had to provide the opening and the closing statement. Palisades dispute department also refused my request to provide me the specified statements of February, March and April 2003, those of the other person account. It just so happened I did maintain some of my account statements from September thru December 2002.

Palisades also refuses to acknowledge claim that they had no account information on or about the other person. So instead, I just took it upon myself and called AT&T to see what records they could provide. AT&T stated that they only had partial records in their database and when Palisades purchased the debt they gave them the complete files. It is very obvious this was the other person account. My account was closed.

I considered these actions as deceivable practices. I believe that Palisades deliberately excluded these statements and all other records on purpose to make it seems as though there is only one account holder and that I'm responsible.

In the process of trying to collect this debt Palisades also reported to the credit bureau erroneous tradeline that I lived at the address of the other person in a January 1, 2006, Cingular Wireless (formerly AT&T) also verified that this was the other person address.

I am quite sure that Palisades had to know this information. Why was it that Palisades, want to avoid the issue of other person when I inquired about the records? There were two other collection agencies that got in touch with me about this debt but once I explained what the events were I was not brother anymore. Why is it not if the other collection agencies, Sunrise Credit Service and Superior Asset Management Inc., did not buy this account? Why did Palisades do so?

This gives me the impression that their are alternative motives and deceivable practices with Palisades and also gives the impression that this is the first time this debt was being reported in February 2005 to the credit bureaus when in reality it was reported in 2003. I closed my account in December 2002 and the other person account was still activated until March 2003. Why would I be liable for this debt? It seems to me AT&T would have deactivated the other person account at the same time I closed my account if I was responsible for both.

The relief that I sort from Palisades is to update the records with the three credit bureaus, to get their facts correct about who owes this debt (the other person), to stop the harassment and rudeness, to remove this debt off my credit reports and to correct the wrong address that was reported to the credit bureaus.

Also in this process, I received correspondence with two different address from the dispute department one for Englewood Cliff, NJ and the Bethlehem, PA.

Lillian

Temple Hills, Maryland
U.S.A.

Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Palisade Collections