Product: Debt collection

I am not satisfied on how complaint : XXXX, was handled. I am filing this complaint against Rubin & Rothman , LLC, regarding their handling of an alleged debt purportedly owed to XXXX XXXX. This case raises serious concerns about compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and relevant federal and state laws. Rubin & Rothman , LLC claims to have provided validation of the debt, yet the validation appears insufficient under both FDCPA requirements and case law precedents. The FDCPA ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ) specifies that debt validation must include evidence of the debts legitimacy, such as original account agreements or other substantive documentation. Simply providing a billing statement, as is common, does not meet the threshold for proper validation. Courts have also emphasized this principle. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), the court held that collectors must substantiate debts with adequate and clear documentation. Rubin & Rothman, LLCs mailed response did not include sufficient proof of my obligation to repay the debt under the specific terms cited. Without such evidence, I maintain the position that this debt remains unverifiable. Rubin & Rothman , LLC 's assertion that " charge-offs do not absolve the legal obligation to repay '' lacks clarity in addressing their role in ensuring the accuracy of credit reporting as required under FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). While they claim not to report to credit bureaus directly, their actions influence the information XXXX may report. XXXX, as the creditor, remains obligated to ensure the accuracy of information furnished about this account. Any continued reporting of an unresolved or unverifiable debt violates my consumer rights to accurate reporting under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). Rubin & Rothman initiated legal action in New York, while I am a resident of Ohio. The FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692i specifies that legal action must occur in the consumers place of residence or where the contract was signed. Initiating a case in New York violates this provision and disregards my rights as a consumer. Rubin & Rothman claims that XXXX did not issue a 1099-C. However, the lack of issuance does not negate the need for proper notification if cancellation of debt had occurred. If XXXX failed to file, this could raise questions about whether XXXX misreported financial events related to this debt to both me and the IRS. In IRS Publication XXXX, the guidelines require creditors to provide borrowers with a copy of the 1099-C to ensure transparency in reporting potential income from canceled debts. Rubin & Rothman, LLCs response to my initial complaint demonstrates an incomplete understanding of their obligations under federal law. The debt validation provided does not meet the standards required by the FDCPA, nor does it sufficiently address my concerns about FCRA compliance or legal jurisdiction. I urge the CFPB to investigate this matter and take appropriate action to ensure Rubin & Rothman , LLC operates in full compliance with applicable laws.