Product: Debt collection

Sent To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Pennsylvania Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission This is a formal complaint against XXXXXXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, VA XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, PA XXXX. The complaint is filed due to multiple infractions that infringe upon the principles and specific provisions of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act ( PFCEUA ). 

Background Information On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX merged, and after a separate entity amendment, XXXX XXXX  emerged. My dealings with XXXX, a former XXXX Bank subsidiary, led to an unexpected and unfairly surprising lawsuit served on XX/XX/XXXX, by XXXX Bank, as filed in XXXX XXXX, Pennsylvania. Ratchford Law Group is the collection company that filed the complaint for XXXX. This lawsuit alleges a debt that I contend is fraught with irregularities and procedural violations under the FDCPA and PFCEUA. 

Violations of FDCPA and PFCEUA  Statute of Limitations Concerns : The lawsuit filed on XX/XX/XXXX, for a debt last acknowledged before XX/XX/XXXX, surpasses Pennsylvania 's four-year statute of limitations for such actions. This action directly violates FDCPA and XXXX  mandates by attempting to enforce a debt outside the allowable period and attempting to mislead me about the enforceability of the debt. 

XXXX XXXX, the entity that emerged on XX/XX/XXXX, and Ratchford Law Group initiated a lawsuit against me, alleging a debt arising from my interactions with XXXX, a subsidiary of XXXX. This lawsuit, filed in XXXX XXXX, Pennsylvania, on XX/XX/XXXX, has violated any adherence to the FDCPA and XXXX. 

I. Violations of FDCPA and PFCEUA through the Statute of Limitations 1. Initial Violation Post-XXXX XXXX The last payment towards the alleged debt was made on XX/XX/XXXX. Under Pennsylvania law, this sets the statute of limitations ( XXXX ) expiring in XX/XX/XXXX. The commencement of legal action on XX/XX/XXXX, and service in XXXX XXXX significantly exceeds this limit, violating PFCEUA 's fair debt collection principles by attempting to enforce a time-barred debt. 
2. Violation Following XX/XX/XXXX, Agreement A new agreement on XX/XX/XXXX, with debt collectors, Ratchford Law Group, allegedly required monthly payments of {$300.00} before the XXXX of each month. This alleged agreement was breached on XX/XX/XXXX, when a payment wasn't made per the alleged terms. Even if XXXX and Ratchford stated this set a new timer, the XXXX expired on XX/XX/XXXX. The lawsuit filed after this date represents an attempt to enforce a debt outside the legal timeframe, contravening the FDCPA and PFCEUA guidelines against deceptive practices in debt collection. 
3. Violation PostXXXX XXXX Payment Despite what XXXX and Ratchford Law Group avered in a sworn and verified complaint to the Court, the last {$300.00} payment ever made on the XX/XX/XXXX, alleged agreement was in XX/XX/XXXX, and it was only one of four ever, so even if XXXX and Ratchford argued this started the clock again, the XXXX expired in XX/XX/XXXX. Furthermore, subsequent irregular, smaller payments do not constitute a clear acknowledgment of the debt, especially in the absence of creditor communication. The lawsuit filed after this period exemplifies a breach of the FDCPA and PFCEUA mandates against collecting time-barred debts. 
4. Violation Post-XXXX XXXX Merger The merger between XXXX and XXXX & XXXX, and later entity amendment where XXXX Bank emerged, and the subsequent lack of communication left me unaware of any debt obligation to Truist. I never even heard of XXXX until I was served with a lawsuit in XXXX XXXX. Payments made without knowledge of XXXX 's claim can not reset the XXXX. Legal action initiated after the merger and entity amendment, without prior notice, undermines the debtor 's right to fair treatment and clear information as stipulated by the FDCPA and PFCEUA. It should be noted that I never received any writings from XXXX or Ratchford about this alleged debt ever. NOTHING. EVER. 

In early XX/XX/XXXX, I had one conversation with a collections representative who told me we're just located in downtown XXXX, so don't worry. Other than the XX/XX/XXXX, new agreement that came in regular mail and with nothing else, never a validation, never a dispute note, absolutely nothing, I never had one single communication in any form ever again from Truist or Ratchford Law Group until I was served with a complaint in XXXX XXXX in blatant and obvious violation of the FDCPA and PFCEUA. 

Violation of the FDCPA and PFCEUA The detailed concerns outlined above highlight instances where XXXX Bank and Ratchford Law Group have pursued collection or legal action beyond the XXXX, in direct contradiction to the FDCPA and PFCEUA provisions designed to protect consumers from deceptive, unfair, or misleading practices in debt collection. Filing a lawsuit on an expired debt, without clear and continuous acknowledgment of that debt, or notice of who the creditor even is, misleads consumers about their legal obligations and rights, a core issue the FDCPA and PFCEUA address. 

II. Lack of Communication/Notice Post-Merger Since the merger and then entity amendment resulted in the emergence of XXXX Bank , I have received zero communication regarding the status of my alleged debt or the change of creditor. This absence of notice, communication, and transparency violates the FDCPA and PFCEUA 's requirements for fair and clear communication in debt collection, impairing my ability to manage or dispute the alleged debt or seek validation of the same. 


Lack of Communication/Notice Post-Merger Following the merger and subsequent entity amendment that gave emergence to XXXX XXXX  XXXX communication with XXXX and Ratchford Law Group remained dark ; I never received any communication at all regarding the status of my alleged debt ; I never received anything regarding changes in creditorship or ownership ; I never even knew about the existence of XXXX XXXX  itself . This complete lack of communication directly contravenes the FDCPA and PFCEUA 's mandates for fair debt collection practices, emphasizing the importance of clear and timely communication between creditors ( or their representatives ) and debtors. The absence of engagement from XXXX and Ratchford Law Group has significantly impaired my ability to manage, dispute, or recognize the alleged debt, undermining the principles of transparency and fairness that the FDCPA and PFCEUA seek to uphold. If you do a search for Ratchford Law Group or XXXX the phone number on their website, XXXX, several other consumers are making the same complaints about non-existent, fraudulent, or deceptive communications from Ratchford Law Group ; in my instance, there was zero communication at all from XX/XX/XXXX until even now as XXXX XXXX of Ratchford Law Group, representing XXXX XXXX, continues to ignore me, which, if online comments are to believed, seems to be their modus operandi. 

Extended Period of Complete Silence Of particular violation is the extended period of silence from XXXX XXXX  and Ratchford Law Group, lasting at least XXXX days ( XX/XX/XXXX, to XX/XX/XXXX, the service of the complaint, although silence persists even now ). I received no communication, notice, or information regarding the alleged debt or any collection efforts during this time. Years of non-communication, with a solitary contact XXXX days ago, highlights a severe breach of the FDCPA and PFCEUA 's requirements for notice, validation, right to dispute, and continuous and constructive engagement with the debtor. Such a lengthy period of silence, followed by sudden legal action, not only violates the spirit and letter of the FDCPA and PFCEUA but also places an unreasonable burden on me as a debtor, leaving me unprepared and unable to adequately address or dispute the claims made against me. 

This lack of notice and engagement, especially considering the solitary conversation amidst an overwhelming silence, has significantly disadvantaged me, undermining my rights and ability to engage in informed discussions about the debt 's status or to seek a fair resolution. XXXX XXXX and Ratchford Law Group 's inaction starkly violate the FDCPA and PFCEUA 's core principles of ensuring fair, transparent, and equitable treatment in debt collection processes.

III. Mismanagement of Debt Records A ledger, just created by Ratchford Law Group on XX/XX/XXXX, and attached to the amended complaint, blatantly and conspicuously lists XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, not Truist, as the creditor. This error in record-keeping contravenes the FDCPA and PFCEUA 's mandates for accuracy and transparency, questioning the integrity of their alleged debt records. 

The ledger blatantly lists XXXX XXXX, not XXXX XXXX, as the creditor, despite the merger and entity amendment that formed XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX, and their claims that XXXX owns the alleged debt. This misrepresentation occurred within a document created for and intended for legal proceedings, undermining the integrity of the information presented and significantly impacting my rights as a consumer. Furthermore, this discrepancy and the lack of communication from both XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX post-merger and entity amendment violates the fairness and legality of their debt collection practices. 

Extended Silence and Lack of Communication The period of radio silence lasting at least XXXX days shows a blatant disregard for the fundamental right of consumers to be informed about their alleged debts. This absence of communication, followed by a sudden and unexpected lawsuit, contravenes the spirit of the FDCPA and PFCEUA, which seeks to ensure consumers are treated fairly and are fully informed of their obligations and the identity of their creditors. 

Several other violations of the FDCPA and PFCEUA exist related to XXXX XXXX  and Ratchford Law Group 's inaction and methods in this matter. They include : Misrepresentation of Creditor Identity- Ratchford Law Group 's presentation of a ledger that incorrectly identifies the creditor violates the FDCPA and PFCEUA 's prohibition against false, deceptive, or misleading representation in debt collection. This action misleads the debtor about the nature and status of the debt, directly impacting my ability to make informed decisions regarding the alleged obligation. 

Inadequate Record-Keeping and Mismanagement of Debt Records- The ledger discrepancy highlights a failure to maintain accurate and transparent records, a cornerstone of fair debt collection practices. This failure violates the FDCPA and PFCEUA and undermines the trust and rights of consumers, potentially leading to confusion and misinformed decisions regarding debt resolution. 

Use of Legal Processes Despite Clear Violations- The initiation of legal action despite the clear expiration of the statute of limitations and the failure to provide adequate notice or communication represents an abuse of legal processes. This approach, tantamount to legal bullying, leverages the resources of XXXX Bank and Ratchford Law Group to compel litigation, further violating the principles upheld by the FDCPA and PFCEUA. 

Misleading Representation and Deceptive Practices - Legal documents and communications that include incorrect information about the creditor 's identity mislead me regarding the nature and status of the alleged debt, violating the FDCPA and PFCEUA 's prohibition against misleading representations in debt collection. 

Failure to Provide Adequate Notice of Debt Collection- The absence of formal or even informal communication ( literally zero communication at all ) regarding debt collection efforts deprives me of my right to verify, dispute, or negotiate the debt, a clear violation of the FDCPA and PFCEUA. 

Radio Silence and Sudden Legal Action- Initiating legal action without prior engagement or notice, after a prolonged period of absolutely no communication, absolutely constitutes unfair or deceptive collection practices under the FDCPA and PFCEUA. 

Failure to Validate the Alleged Debt- There has been no attempt by Truist or Ratchford Law Group to validate the alleged debt upon request, nor was I provided an opportunity to dispute the debt 's validity before legal proceedings, violating the FDCPA and PFCEUA 's requirements for fair debt collection. Even if XXXX and Ratchford Law Group try to say that XXXX didn't have to validate, they are again wrong and misleading. The FDCPA and PFCEUA emphasize the importance of informing consumers about alleged debts regardless of corporate changes or mergers. Both statutes are designed to protect consumers from unfair debt collection practices, including clear and accurate information about the debt and the identity of the current creditor. A merger and entity amendment doesn't exempt them from this requirement in the FDCPA and PFCEUA. The rights of consumers under these laws don't diminish because of corporate transactions. 

XXXX XXXX  and Ratchford Law Group 's actions not only contravene specific FDCPA and PFCEUA provisions but also undermine the foundational principles of fairness and transparency in consumer debt collection. I request a thorough investigation and appropriate actions to ensure compliance with federal and Pennsylvania consumer protection laws. 

The sequence of events starkly highlights the disregard for procedural and statutory obligations by XXXX XXXX  and Ratchford Law Group, starting with a single communication in XX/XX/XXXX and culminating in a bullying lawsuit served on XX/XX/XXXX, in XXXX XXXX, Pennsylvania, which violates the FDCPA and PFCEUA. Despite promptly filing Preliminary Objections on XX/XX/XXXX, under Pa.R.C.P. 1028 against XXXX XXXX 's original complaint and again on XX/XX/XXXX, against their amended complaint filed on XX/XX/XXXX, these legal exchanges have underscored the stark violation of the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act ( PFCEUA ) and federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). Notably, the filing of the lawsuit on XX/XX/XXXX, and its subsequent service in XXXX XXXX, blatantly exceed Pennsylvania 's statute of limitations, as per 42 Pa. C.S . 5525, for actions upon this type of action, further illuminated by the last payment recorded on XX/XX/XXXX, and no acknowledgment since, and the ensuing lack of any communication since. 

This protracted absence of communication, spanning at least XXXX days, reveals a profound breach of the duty to notify and engage with me about the alleged debt, the creditor 's identity, and any changes therein following the merger and entity amendment that birthed XXXX Bank on XX/XX/XXXX. This egregious failure not only undermines the very fabric of the FDCPA and PFCEUA 's intended consumer protections but also represents a deliberate strategy by XXXX Bank and Ratchford Law Group to obscure critical information, effectively disenfranchising me from fair and informed participation in the legal process concerning the alleged debt. 

Therefore, I request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Pennsylvania Attorney General Bureau of Consumer Protection conduct an exhaustive investigation into these matters. The detailed timeline of events, the clear expiration of the statute of limitations, the strategic legal maneuvers employed by XXXX XXXX  and Ratchford Law Group, and their total failure to provide any semblance of notice or communication about XXXX XXXX  's claim or existence demand immediate and rigorous scrutiny. This complaint underscores the necessity for robust regulatory intervention to correct the significant violations committed, ensuring accountability and the enforcement of the FDCPA and the PFCEUA to protect consumers from such predatory and opaque practices. 

This situation not only demands rectification of the immediate injustices faced but also calls for measures to prevent the recurrence of such blatant disregard for consumer rights, transparency, and fairness. Again, a quick XXXX search of Ratchfor Law Group or their phone, XXXX, reveals many similar complaints. The integrity of federal/United States and Pennsylvania 's consumer protection laws and the trust placed in the regulatory bodies and legal system hinge upon the diligent enforcement of statutes designed to safeguard against the exploitation of consumers by financial entities and their representatives. It is incumbent upon the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Pennsylvania Attorney General Bureau of Consumer Protection to uphold these principles, ensuring that the protections afforded under the FDCPA and PFCEUA are not merely theoretical but are vigorously applied and enforced. 

I'm requesting your office 's assistance with the following resolution : XXXX XXXX  and Ratchford Law Group Cease Collection Efforts ; Withdraw the filed lawsuit that violated FDCPA and Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act ; Waiver of alleged debt ; Assurance of Non-Repetition ; Removal of Negative Credit Reporting ; Monetary Compensation in line with the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act and FDCPA 's authority. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Respectfully, XXXX XXXX