Product: Debt collection

I received a letter from Blitt and Gains P.C. stating I we a debt and to send payments. I sent the paper back certified mail stating provide the purchasing agreement to this debt that I owe you. I have not signed any written contract or agreement to pay you for any debt. I also sent a lawsuit about false " verified ' motions that this collection company is being sued for. 
XXXX weeks later, they send me XXXX debts collections to garnish my wages. 
1. Failure to Provide Verification of Debt : You requested the purchase agreement ( which could be seen as a form of verification of the debt ), but the debt collector did not send it and instead sent three additional debts. Under the FDCPA, when a consumer disputes a debt or requests verification, the debt collector must stop collection efforts until they provide sufficient verification of the debt. Adding new debts instead of providing the requested information could be seen as non-compliance.

2. Additional Debts without Explanation : Sending three additional debts two weeks later, especially if they weren't disclosed initially, could raise questions. A debt collector is required to provide clear and accurate information regarding the debt they're collecting. If they added more debts without explanation or proper validation, this may be a violation of the FDCPA.

3. Unclear Breakdown of the Debt : The letter mentions amounts but is vague on how interest and other charges are applied. The FDCPA requires that collectors provide a clear breakdown of what is owed, including the original amount, interest, fees, and payments made.

4. Timeframe for Dispute : The letter asks you to respond by XX/XX/XXXX, but the letter itself is dated XX/XX/XXXX. This appears to be an error or a typo, which may create confusion and could be considered misleading or unfair under the FDCPA 1. False Verification : The lawsuit against Blitt & Gaines centers on the allegation that they submitted false " verified '' motions, essentially fast-tracking the collection process without properly validating the debts. In your case, if Blitt & Gaines failed to provide you with a legitimate verification of your debt ( such as the purchase agreement you requested ), this could also be seen as an attempt to bypass proper validation and due process. Their failure to send you verification before continuing collection efforts might be a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), similar to the practices outlined in the class action.

2. Robo-Signed Affidavits : The class action highlights the use of " robo-signed '' affidavits, where signatures were falsely claimed to verify debt collection actions. If you received any affidavits or documentation from Blitt & Gaines, and these were similarly signed electronically without proper review, this could be another potential violation in your case.

3. Misleading Collection Efforts : The class action lawsuit claims that consumers were misled into believing their debt collection complaints were uncontestable because they appeared verified. If Blitt & Gaines sent additional debts to you without explanation or proper documentation, this could also be construed as an attempt to overwhelm you with collections without adequate proof, which might mislead you into not disputing the debts further.

4. Failure to Stop Collection Pending Verification : According to FDCPA, once you request verification of a debt, the debt collector must cease all collection activities until they provide the requested information. In your case, not only did Blitt & Gaines fail to send the purchase agreement, but they also sent additional debts XXXX weeks later, which may suggest non-compliance with the law.