Being charged for a contract you explicitly said you wouldn’t sign, receiving a welcome email for an agreement you never executed, and then getting passed between departments every time you ask for a copy of the document you supposedly signed is a recognizable pattern from a company with a long history of exactly this kind of dispute.
That’s the situation one new homeowner is dealing with after inheriting a Vivint security system from the previous owners and making the reasonable decision to use it temporarily during a renovation. She was clear from the first phone call that she was not agreeing to a contract. Two Vivint representatives acknowledged that. She was charged a monthly fee, received a welcome email announcing a 24-month contract she never agreed to, and has spent months trying to obtain a copy of a contract that Vivint insists exists but cannot produce.
💸 Take Back Control of Your Finances in 2025 💸
Get Instant Access to our free mini course
5 DAYS TO A BETTER BUDGET
The misspelling of her name on their correspondence raises an additional question about how she could have executed a document that doesn’t have her correct information on it. She followed their cancellation instructions, asked about returning equipment and was told it was too old to want back, and Vivint billed her for three more months anyway before the account went to collections.
What Vivint Is Actually Claiming
The contract Vivint says she agreed to was apparently formed verbally over the phone, which is legally possible in most states but comes with significant evidentiary requirements when disputed. A verbal contract requires offer, acceptance, and consideration, and the acceptance has to be clear and unambiguous. She wasn’t ambiguous. She repeatedly stated she was not agreeing to a contract, and the representatives acknowledged that. If Vivint’s position is that a contract was formed anyway, they need to explain how acceptance occurred when the other party was explicitly declining it throughout the conversation.
Their inability to produce a copy of the contract after multiple requests, combined with her name being misspelled on their correspondence, gives her strong grounds to dispute both the contract’s existence and its validity. A contract with incorrect identifying information raises questions about whose agreement is actually being claimed.
Her Rights With the Collections Agency
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act gives her specific rights once a debt goes to a third-party collector like Sequium. She has 30 days from the date of first contact to send a written debt validation letter demanding that Sequium provide verification of the debt. During the validation period, Sequium is required to cease collection activity until they provide verification. If they cannot verify the debt, they cannot legally continue collecting on it or reporting it to credit bureaus.
She should send that validation letter immediately by certified mail with return receipt requested, keep a copy, and document the date it was sent. The letter should state that she disputes the debt in its entirety and request verification including the name and address of the original creditor, the amount claimed, and documentation supporting the validity of the underlying obligation. If Sequium reports the debt to credit bureaus before validating it or after receiving her dispute, that’s a potential FDCPA violation.
The Credit Damage Question
If Sequium has already reported the collection account to the credit bureaus, she can dispute it directly with Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion through their online dispute processes. The dispute should reference that the underlying contract is contested, that she never executed an agreement, and that the original creditor cannot produce documentation of a signed contract. Credit bureaus are required to investigate disputes and remove items that cannot be verified.
The combination of a disputed contract, an unproducible agreement, incorrect personal information on Vivint’s correspondence, and documented verbal statements that she was not agreeing to a contract gives her a strong factual basis for the dispute. It’s not guaranteed to result in removal, but it’s a much stronger position than someone who simply doesn’t want to pay a bill they acknowledge owing.
Whether an Attorney Makes Sense
Vivint has accumulated enough complaints about this exact pattern that consumer protection attorneys are familiar with them. If Vivint or Sequium violates the FDCPA during the collections process, those violations can result in statutory damages and attorney fees paid by the violator, which means some consumer protection attorneys handle these cases on contingency. A free consultation with a consumer protection attorney in her state would tell her whether the specific facts of her situation, particularly the verbal disclaimer, the unproducible contract, the name misspelling, and the continued billing after cancellation, add up to something worth pursuing beyond the dispute process.
She should also file complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and her state attorney general’s office. These complaints create a paper trail, sometimes prompt companies to resolve disputes to avoid regulatory attention, and add to the documented record of Vivint’s practices that regulators track over time.
What She Should Do Right Now
The most time-sensitive action is the debt validation letter to Sequium, because the 30-day window from first contact may already be running. Even outside that window a dispute letter is still worth sending, but the FDCPA protections are strongest within the initial period. After that, disputing the collections account with all three credit bureaus, filing complaints with the CFPB and state attorney general, and consulting a consumer protection attorney are the next steps in roughly that order.
Paying the $547.15 to make it go away is an option she has, but it would validate a contract she has strong grounds to dispute and wouldn’t necessarily guarantee the credit impact disappears. Disputing it properly takes more effort but preserves her position that the debt isn’t legitimately owed.
Featured on Cents + Purpose: