Debt collection -- Attempts to collect debt not owed -- Complaint #6617699

Complaint Overview

Complaint ID: 6617699

Company: Lewis, Mcdonnell & Associates

Product: Debt collection

Sub-Product: I do not know

Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed

Sub-Issue: Debt was result of identity theft

State: Ohio

ZIP Code: XXXXX

Date Received: 2023-02-25T12:00:00-05:00

Date Sent to Company: 2023-02-25T12:00:00-05:00

Company Response: Closed with explanation

Timely Response: Yes

Consumer Disputed: N/A

Submitted Via: Web

Consumer Narrative

I reviewed my credit report on XXXX at XXXX and seen I have a fraudulent collection account appearing on my credit report. This is not my account and I have submitted fraud claim to XXXX. You are to remove this fraud account immediately before i pursue legal action. Under federal regulations this does not qualify as a " valid verification of debt ". I have previously sent you a request to validate my debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and all I received was an itemized list of the alleged charges you claim I owe you. This does not meet the Federal Trade Commissions guidelines of what constitutes proper debt validation. In addition, in the case of Spears Vs. Brennan ( IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, No. 49A02-0003-CV-169 ), the court ruled that : 15 U.S.C . 1692g ( b ) ( emphasis added ). On XX/XX/XXXX nineteen days after the date of Brennans debt collection letter, Spears counsel Shepard sent Brennan a letter declaring that Spears disputes your debt collection-related allegations, denies the same, and demands strict proof and verification thereof. Record at 21. As such, Brennan should have ceased his debt collection efforts immediately upon receiving that letter. Instead, Brennan proceeded to obtain a default judgment against Spears on the debt collection claim before he had mailed Spears the necessary verification and, thus, violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). Brennan maintains, however, that there was no violation of the FDCPA because he sent adequate verification of the debt [ to Spears ] in the October 30, 1996 notice of claim. Brief of Appellee at 13. Specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). We can not agree. The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spears loan, including a 17.99 % annual interest rate and the original loan amount of {$2500.00}. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. Indeed, the existing unpaid contract balance at the time Brennan sent the debt collection notice was at least {$350.00} more than the original loan amount.

Frequently Asked Questions

Disclaimer

This analysis is AI-generated based on publicly available CFPB complaint data. It does not constitute financial or legal advice.

Related Pages

• Lewis, Mcdonnell & Associates Company Profile
• Debt collection Complaints
• Attempts to collect debt not owed Complaints
• Ohio Complaints
• Company Rankings
• Company Directory
• Search Complaints