Product: Debt collection

Borrower filed Bankruptcy Chapter  XXXX  on or about  XX/XX/XXXX . Borrower 's first post- petition payment was due on  XX/XX/XXXX . The servicer of the loan,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX , posted that first post petition payment to a pre-petition payment due date of  XX/XX/XXXX . The servicer,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  and  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  misapplied more than six ty ( 60 ) tim ely payments as past due. The borrower has not received any billing statements or any other statements or notices from the servicer,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  from  XX/XX/XXXX  through  XX/XX/XXXX  because  XXXX  is currently sending all statements and notices to an address that is NOT the borrower 's address of record.  <P/> The Borrower sent a RESPA QWR to  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  on  XX/XX/XXXX , requesting specific certain information.  XXXX  used a form letter to respond to the borrower 's concerns that her payments were being misapplied and to imply that the servicer had not reasonably investigated her error claim.  XXXX  further did not respond completely until more than  one-hundred seventeen ( 117 ) d ays after their confirmed receipt of this borrower 's QWR, that specifically requested the payoff balance of the loan.  XXXX  has failed to provide an accurate payoff of the loan within the time allowed by FDCPA.  XXXX  has further provided more than  XXXX  different alleged default amounts. On  XX/XX/XXXX   XXXX  alleged the balance due was {$3900.00} which is ; different from the {$2300.00} as in the Notice  of Default Letter an d both of those balances are different from the Billing statement of  XX/XX/XXXX  that shows a balance of {$4800.00}.  <P/> Aside from  XXXX  never sending to the borrower nor her attorney  the Debt Validation Letter, t he  letter in itself is violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e because it misstates the law, omits a material term required by 1692g ( a ), and misrepresents consumer rights under the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. 1692g.   <P/> The communication alleged in this case omitted a material term required by 1692g ( a ). Specifically, the letter did not inform the borrower that she must dispute her debt in writing to trigger her verification  rights under 1692g ( b ). By omitting this requirement, the Collectors instructed the borrower that she could invoke 1692g ( b ) by disputing her debt by callinga misstatement of the law surrounding debt-verification requests. This misrepresentation was not apparent on the face of the letter ; it would thus state a claim even in jurisdictions that apply the competent lawyer standard The FDCPA exists to protect consumers against debt collection abuses. 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( e ). Consumer-protection laws are not made for the protection of experts, but for the public.   <P/> Fr om  XX/XX/XXXX to  XX/XX/XXXX , the b orrower has never received any billing statements, Notice of Default Letters, Debt Validation letter or any other information regarding the mortgage account from the servicer,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX , because  XXXX  has sent all billing statements and notices to an address, that has NOT been the borrowers address since  XX/XX/XXXX . Attached see the proof obtained by borrower RESPA QWR that the most recent billing statement was NOT sent to the same address that  XXXX    XXXX   XXXX   and Rubin Lublin , LLC has as the address of record for the borrower. This in itself violate FDCPA.   Also,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  sent this Debt Validation letter to that said address which was not the borrower 's address, during the time when the Borrower was actively under Chapter  XXXX  Bankruptcy and while the borrower was represented by an Attorney.    XXXX  at no time sent thi s Debt Validation Letter to t he borrower 's Bankruptcy Attorney. Thereby leaving the borrower and her attorney unaware of any default and thereby  XXXX  has denied the borrower her rights under FDCPA. The borrower NEVER received any statements or the Debt Validation Letter until on or about  XX/XX/XXXX  when  XXXX  responded to borrower 's RESPA request from  XX/XX/XXXX .  <P/> Because  XXXX  did not provided to the borrower the payment transaction history from  XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX  for more than 117 days past her date of requesting in her  XX/XX/XXXX  QWR, those actions were intentional and contributes to the timeliness of the borrower 's discovery of more than 60 misapplied payments by  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  and  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX . In  XXXX  's letter dated  XX/XX/XXXX ,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  admitted to have discovered at least  1 mi sapplied payment as proof provided by the borrower. Between the time frame of  XX/XX/XXXX  throught  XX/XX/XXXX ,  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  and   XXXX    XXXX   XXXX  has misapplied and reapplied more than  seventy-five ( 75 )   payments. Most of which were during an active Chapter  XXXX  Bankruptcy protection post-petition phase. On  XX/XX/XXXX  the borrower sent to  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   ,   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  Attorney Rubin Lublin , LLC  XXXX  and all other parties ( TBD ) involved has committed more than  5  RESPA violations which is a pattern or practice of non-compliance with the servicing requirements of RESPA.    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   &   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX  and Rubin Lublin , LLC has committed the following acts that violate TILA and more to be determined later  : 1 ) Fail ed to proved accurate payoff in 7 days because of misapplied payments.    2 ) failed to promptly credit payments 3 ) Pyramiding late fees and other misc. fees 4 ) fa iled to send monthly statements and default notices due to being sent to an address that is different from the address  XXXX  and Rubin Lublin , LLC used to respond to QWR responses.  XXXX  was aware of address changed in  XX/XX/XXXX .    5 )   XXXX  sen t Debt Validation Letter dir ectly to the borrower BUT to an address previously used by the borrower BUT never sent the letter to the attorney representing the borrower in an active Chapter  XXXX  case.