Reliant Capital Solutions LLC

Ms. [redacted]’s delinquent account was placed in our office on November 16, 2015.  On February 10, 2016, Ms. [redacted] phoned our office to discuss repayment. During this call, Ms. Cassel stated she wanted to make payment arrangements as she couldn’t afford to pay the entire balance off. ...

While speaking with a supervisor, Ms. [redacted] informed us she was trying to close on a home purchase and would see what she could do and phone back later the same day with specific details regarding the repayment.  Later that evening, Ms. [redacted] phoned our office and spoke with the supervisor. During this conversation, while discussing options, Ms. [redacted] stated, “I have a deal for you, I’ll pay $250 bi-weekly for ten months” and continued to confirm that would entail 22 payments of $250 each for a total of $5,500 in less than a year.  The supervisor informed Ms. [redacted] it wouldn’t resolve the account, but it would be close.  Ms. [redacted] then asked, “Are you guys ok with that?”.  The supervisor set up the payment details.  We didn’t speak with Ms. [redacted] again until she phoned our office on April 7, 2016.  During this call, Ms. [redacted] requested to lower her payments.  Ms. [redacted] asked if she would be able to make a $1,500 down payment followed by lower monthly payments; or whether she could pay $4,000 to settle her account.  The agent explained to Ms. [redacted] that our client, [redacted] did not allow us to settle accounts.  At this point in the conversation, Ms. [redacted] realized she hadn’t been making payments towards a $5,500 settlement as she believed.  At this point in the call, the agent transferred Ms. [redacted] to the supervisor to discuss further. Ms. [redacted] asked the supervisor if her debt would be absolved after ten months. The supervisor confirmed our client does not authorize settlements on their accounts, Ms. [redacted] stated that she was under the impression she was settling her account.  The supervisor advised that after paying the amount agreed for the ten months, Ms. [redacted] could make a new arrangement for the remaining balance. The supervisor informed Ms. [redacted] he would review the situation and get back with her to resolve.  Ms. [redacted] phoned later the same evening after the supervisor had left for the day and requested a return call.  The supervisor phoned Ms. [redacted] the following morning and confirmed there was not a clear discussion of a settlement during the February 10th conversation.  He noted Ms. [redacted] did state “I have a deal for you” which may have led to the misunderstanding.  Ms. [redacted] agreed to stick with the payment arrangement despite the confusion.  Later we found out she had contacted the client regarding her misunderstanding.  Upon notification from our client, we immediately investigated this matter and removed the remaining payments from our record.  We understand how the misunderstanding occurred and are willing to make a new arrangement with which Ms. [redacted] is comfortable.  We encourage Ms. [redacted] to contact Jaimie M[redacted] directly to make the new arrangements.  Jaimie can be reached directly at ###-###-####, extension [redacted]

This [redacted] loan was placed for collections with Reliant Capital Solutions, a third party collection agency, by its client, [redacted], on March 12, 2014. The account was paid in full over the course of several payments dated January 15, 2015, February 16, 2015, and April 1, 2015. The account...

was closed by Reliant as paid in full and returned to the client on May 1, 2015. There was an incoming call on May 28, 2015, from the consumer. She indicated that she wanted a letter stating the account was paid in full. Unfortunately no letter was generated as a result of that request. The employee who took the call is no longer employed. The consumer telephoned again on June 11, 2015, and requested a letter. The representative properly processed the letter and it was mailed out to the address we have on file, which is consistent with the address the consumer has put on this complaint. A copy of the letter is attached to this reply. This loan was owed directly to [redacted]. We suspect that the consumer believes the [redacted] matter she mentioned is the same loan, but it is not. If there is any additional information we may provide, we remain willing to do so. This loan is in fact paid in full and it has been reported as such to [redacted].

Ms. [redacted], thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.  We take all claims seriously and evaluate each thoroughly on a case-by-case basis.  In your complaint you stated the representative was rude and refused to provide you documentation requested.  We do our best to train...

each of our representatives on how to properly handle issues in a professional manner, including how to escalate problems that they are unable to assist with.  We have taken steps to address the representative involved and will monitor to ensure we continue to provide the highest level of service moving forward.  Our review found the Ohio Attorney General placed your delinquent account with our office on July 10, 2017.  We mailed the validation notice on September 13, 2017 to [redacted], Florence, KY 41042, your address on record.  For your convenience, we have enclosed a copy that is password protected with the last five (5) digits of your Social Security number.  If you have further questions or concerns, or if we can assist you with making arrangements, please contact us toll-free at ###-###-####

Upon review of this complaint, we found our office has called ###-###-#### once and left a message on August 5, 2015. We have updated our records and removed Ms. [redacted]'s number from the account records to prevent future calls in regard to this matter.

It is unacceptable that a private company in contract with public entity (Ohio Attorney General) and collecting portions of public tax dollars such as my school district income tax (SDIT)  for profit, is permitted to have an internal policy allowing them withhold recorded conversations. If a company contracted through a public entity and accepting portions of collected tax dollars to pay for recording equipment, all the phone recordings should be public record or in the very least accessible by the civilian paying the taxes collected and being recorded. These recorded phone calls will prove that Richard did indeed answer the phone on at least one occasion implying he was employed by the Ohio Attorney Generals office and NOT disclosing he was with Reliant Capital Solutions LLC. The recordings will also prove that Richard Knight did indeed state in late July that I had a tax lien on the property at [redacted] prior to the actual date of 09/10/2015 when the lien was placed on the property. Richard at Reliant Capital Solutions LLC also told me that I can NOT pay the original debtor because the account was turned over to Reliant Capital Solutions LLC which was NOT true and deceptive business practices as stated in my original complaint. This deceptive statement was also completely ignored in the Revdex.com reply message from the Business. Reliant Capital Solutions LLC. needs to be held accountable for there actions or immediately cease all collection attempts of public tax dollars
Regards,
[redacted]