Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FDCPA Fair Debt Collection Practices Act FTC Federal Trade Commission CFPB Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a notification from XXXX Reporting Credit that Credit Corp Solutions added a new collection XXXXXXXX for Account Reference # XXXX # XXXX which is considered continued collection activity. I am disputing for all of the reasons listed below : 1. The XXXX is scheduled to expire on XXXX 
2. I am in the middle of a mortgage closing process and CCS is suddenly using this XXXX as leverage to intimidate me to pay the outstanding balance. Parking this account will result in sub-prime rates and loan terms. ( FDCPA violation ) 3. I am currently a defendant in a frivolous debt lawsuit from CCS ( Plaintiff ) for another alleged debt. In that case, CCS has yet to dismiss the case or set a trial date during the legal process filed in XXXX. I have been to court hearings at least 6 times and will be attending a 7th date on XX/XX/XXXX with no resolution. The plaintiff has violated my due process rights throughout the entire legal process by not showing up at hearing dates and have never sent me official notifications for court dates. To date, CCS attorneys have neither dismissed the lawsuit or scheduled a trial date which is an indication that the suit is frivolous. I have spent over {$7000.00} in travel expenses since I no longer live in Illinois and am a resident of South Carolina. As part of my legal defense for a new suit against CCS, I will be using the claim that CCS is retaliating against me for the current debt lawsuit by adding a new negative XXXX to my credit reporting.

4. I will claim that CCS parked the account on my credit reports with malicious intent to cause financial harm to my credit due to : 1 ) The current mortgage loan approval process or 2 ) As retaliation for the current CCS debt lawsuit which I am defending. Either way, why would CCS choose now to submit a negative reporting ( collection account ) with only 4 months remaining on the XXXX for any reason other than malintent?

5. CCS has never properly validated this account. As part of debt validation, CCS provided a blank stock version of the Loan Agreement with blank details during validation as well as a fabricated account statement. The Truth In Lending Statement is only an ESTIMATE. ( See attachments ) 6. CCS reported a balance of {$1200.00}, a balance which has never been submitted to myself or validated by CCS. CCSs original claims was for {$960.00}.

7. CCS did not inherit the right to earn interest nor are they not allowed to collect interest on a charged off account. The original creditor stopped charging interest after Charge-off ( FDCPA Violation ) 8. And if even CCS were allowed to charge interest, they are required to provide a monthly periodic account statement outlining the charges. CCS has never provided such statements ( FDCPA Violation ) 9. The original debt sale affidavit only states a pool of charged accounts and does not provide any proof that my individual account was purchased from XXXX XXXX ( See Court Case CCS vs XXXX XXXX XXXX ) or does not prove any chain of assignment or any mention of this specific account 10. Given the above circumstances, I will not hesitate to see legal recourse and file suit against CCS for : a. Financial harm due to lower mortgage rates or sub-prime lending options as this is the only collection on my report b. Full amount for any difference due to sub-prime rates c. In addition to financial recourse, I will be seeking damages for any duress caused from my interactions with CCS .

d. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) and the higher courts has set precedent for illegal debt collection practices by lawsuit mills and debt buyers in which CCS falls into this same category of debt collection practices ; i. CFPB vs XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Case No. XXXX ) ii. CFPB vs XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( Civil Action No. XXXX  ) iii. CFPB vs XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  CFPB vs XXXX XXXX XXXX  11. Refer to CCS vs XXXX XXXX XXXX ( OK Supreme Court Case XXXX XXXX/Lower Court Case XXXX  : Photocopies of barely legible mass-produced documents arent enough to compel payment of a past-due debt.

CCS failed to provide authenticated exhibits : o The appellate judges observed that in its petition for relief, Credit Corp Solutions states that XXXX, a XXXX industrial bank using the web-based platform XXXX XXXX XXXX , provided a loan to XXXX.

o CCS wrote that it purchased XXXX loan from XXXX, and subsequently XXXX defaulted on the loan and thus became indebted to Credit Corp Solutions.

o The court file contains a photocopy of an Original Debt Sale Affidavit signed by XXXX XXXX, XXXX of XXXX XXXX ; the letter is dated XXXX XXXX XXXX, and was typed in XXXX XXXX, California. In the notarized affidavit, XXXX states that on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX sold a pool of charged off accounts to CCS.

o Credit Corp submitted seven exhibits that constituted the evidentiary basis for its alleged undisputed facts. XXXX attorney, XXXX, disputed them as inadmissible. Those exhibits did not qualify as business records because there was no accompanying affidavit or testimony as required by state law, she pointed out. 
o The Court of Civil Appeals concurred because CCS failed to authenticate its exhibits with written declarations. 
Inconsistent terms o The Civil Appeals court pointed to inconsistent contractual terms. For example, the loan agreement includes a principal balance between {$1000.00} and {$35000.00}, a loan term of either three or five years, and the truth-in-lending disclosure includes an interest rate of 21.69 % but the interest rate on the purported payment schedule includes an interest rate of 19.24 %. 
o A contract that is indefinite and uncertain in its terms can not be enforced and therefore is invalid, state courts ruled in a 1946 lawsuit.

o CCS produced no admissible evidence proving it had obtained all rights to a valid contract from a person entitled to enforce it, XXXX insisted. 
o The length of the loan agreement necessitated that XXXX sign a contract, but none of the exhibits CCS submitted includes XXXX signature, the appellate judges noticed. 
o In this case there is no contract or verified evidence that XXXX alleged loan was purchased by Credit Corp, the Court of Civil Appeals wrote. Without evidentiary support showing it is the party in interest, Credit Corp does not have standing to bring this lawsuit. 
o Consequently, the trial judges summary judgment in favor of CCS was reversed. 

At this time, I will also inform you that CCS is reporting invalidated information to any of the three major credit bureaus ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX ), this action constitutes fraud under both federal and state laws. Due to this fact, any negative mark found on any of my credit reports by CCS, I will not hesitate in bringing legal action against CCS for the following : Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Defamation of Character. I am sure CCS will agree that non-compliance with this request could put CCS in serious legal trouble with the CFPB, FTC and other state or federal agencies.

Since CCS as not provided the proper documentation within my rights, I will require that CCS delete the reported account immediately. If CCS fails to delete the account, I will consult with my current legal counsel for suit as well as reaching to FTC and the offices of Attorney General within South Carolina. This includes any listing of any information to a credit-reporting repository that could be inaccurate or invalidated. All references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file and a copy of such deletion request shall be sent to me immediately.

If CCS does not delete any negative XXXX reporting immediately, I will not hesitate to file a lawsuit for damages for both alleged debts ( Current lawsuit and negative XXXX reporting account ) First Affirmative Defense Alleged Debtor denies the balance owed due to a variance in Demand Letters and insufficient details from CCS ( FDCPA Violation/Dodd-Frank Act/FTC Act ) during the initial validation period a. On XX/XX/XXXX, Alleged debtor received the initial Demand Letter from CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS ( CCS ) INC which stated : 1. all rights, title, and interest in the above listed debt have been assigned to CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC 2. Because of interest, late charges and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater.

3. The CCS is not entitled to interest, late charges and fees since the original account is a Charged-Off balance. 
b. On XX/XX/XXXX, Alleged debtor requested the following documentation for Debt Validation which CCS failed to provide : 1. Agreement with the original creditor that authorized CCS to collect on the alleged debt 2. Complete Payment History on this account along with an accounting of all additional charges being assessed 3. CCS is licensed to collect in the State of Illinois 4. CCSs License Numbers and Registered Agent c. On XXXX CCS responded to initial request for Debt Validation which included : 1. Written statement on CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC letterhead : we confirm that on XXXX XXXX XXXX all rights, title and interest in the above listed debt have been assigned to CCS. Therefore, no bill of sale agreement was provided.

2. CCS provided an account statement fabricated on CCSs letterhead with a starting balance as of XX/XX/XXXX. Since the CCS failed to provide a bill of sale agreement nor a complete account history from the original creditor, the start date and balance were ambiguous and confusing to the least sophisticated customer. 
d. On XX/XX/XXXX, Alleged debtor sent a 2nd request for the following documentation for Debt Validation which CCS failed to provide prior to Summons and Complaint : 1. Agreement between original creditor and CCS that authorizes CCS to collect on this alleged debt 2. Agreement bearing my signature stating that I agreed to assume the debt 3. CCS is licensed to collect in the state of Illinois 4. CCSs License Number and Registered Agent 5. Agreement that I entered into a binding contract with CCS ( also known as Repudiation ).

6. Explanation on how the CCS calculated the alleged debt e. On XXXX, CCS responded with Second Response to Dispute stating : We are of the firm view that our initial response is adequate to demonstrate how your liability has arisen in this matter and to confirm the accounts assignment to CCS. Should you have any genuine concerns with respect to the veracity of the accounts assignment to CCS, we invite you to confirm this directly with the original credit provider. 

As the appropriate documentation has now been provided to verify the debt, CCS has closed your dispute. Please note that further communication of the same nature may not be responded to.

In the said letter, the CCS claimed that the Outstanding Balance Owed equals {$970.00}. In the said letter, CCS closed the Alleged debtors dispute and considered the matter closed. The CCS requested additional documentation such as Affidavits of Fraud and Police Reports to be provided by the Alleged debtor. Per FDCPA rules, it is the accountability of the CCS to provide accurate debt validation.

fXXXX On XX/XX/XXXX, Alleged debtor sent 2nd request for debt validation g. CCS misstated a debt which may constitute a false statement in an attempt to collect a debt which is an FDCPA Violation with no tie back to any Account Summary : h. While it is typical for collection letters to state an amount due or an balance outstanding, it is not typical for a letter to state that the amount owed is as of a specific date as such language would imply the potential of a different balance on a different date. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Dist. XXXX XXXXXXXX ( " If a collection letter is ambiguous as to interest, then it violates 1692e. Alleged debtor recognizes that ambiguity can be indicative of a misleading or deceptive communication. But Alleged debtor compels the conclusion that any ambiguity as to post-dated accruals in a collection notice gives rise to a claim under the general prohibition of 1692e even if the ambiguity does no harm or even inures to the benefit of the debtor. '' Language such as the " Balance Outstanding '' is insufficient disclosure to a debtor that her balance is either dynamic or static.

i. The FDCPA requires debt collectors, when notifying consumers of their account balance, to disclose that the balance may increase due to interest and fees ; failure to include such disclosures would harm consumers such as the Alleged debtor who may hold the reasonable but mistaken belief, that timely payment will satisfy their debts and it would abrogate the Congressional purpose of full and fair disclosure to consumers that is embodied in Section 1692e.

j. Collection notices that state only the Balance Outstanding, but do not disclose that the balance might increase due to interest and fees, are misleading within the meaning of Section 1692e.

k. The CCS violated 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) for misrepresenting the amount of the debt owed by the Defendent.

l. 15 U.S.C. 1692e of the FDCPA provides : A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section : ( 2 ) The false representation of -- ( A ) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or ( 10 ) the use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer. 

m. CCSs demand letters are in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692e ( 2 ), and 1692e ( 10 ), for failing to clearly state the correct amount of the debt, which is due and owing, by implying that a payment sooner rather than later will be more economical for the consumer and by employing false, deceptive, and misleading representations in connection with the collection of a debt.

n. Alleged debtor suffered injury in fact by being subjected to unfair and abusive practices of the CCS.

o. Alleged debtor suffered actual harm by being the target of the CCSs misleading debt collection communications. 
p. CCS violated the Alleged debtors right not to be the target of misleading debt collection communications.

q. CCS violated the Alleged debtors right to a truthful and fair debt collection process.

r. CCSs communications ( via XXXX reporting ) were designed to cause the debtor to suffer a harmful disadvantage in charting a course of action in response to CCSs collection efforts. 
s. The FDCPA ensures that consumers are fully and truthfully apprised of the facts and of their rights, the act enables them to understand, make informed decisions about, and participate fully and meaningfully in the debt collection process. The purpose of the FDCPA is to provide information that helps consumers to choose intelligently. The CCSs false representations misled the Alleged debtor in a manner that deprived Alleged debtor of her right to enjoy these benefits and these materially misleading statements trigger liability under section 1692e of the Act.

t. These deceptive communications additionally violated the FDCPA since they frustrate the Alleged debtors ability to intelligently choose her response. 


Second Affirmative Defense Affirmative Defense : Debt Buyer Can not State Prejudgment Interest Owed for Period After Debt Charged Off. 
While charging off a debt does not extinguish the consumers obligation, card issuers often have a voluntary policy of not charging interest on a debt for the period after a charge-off, in part because this may eliminate their obligation to continue sending out periodic statements. If the creditor has waived the right to such interest, a debt buyer assignee can not seek such interest either. ( 1 See National Consumer Law Center, Collection Actions 5.2.3.4 ( 3d ed. 2014 ), updated at XXXX 2 See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). See also National Consumer Law Center, Collection Actions 5.2.3.5 ( 3d ed. XXXX ), updated at XXXX  ) Debt Buyers Statement That Prejudgment Interest Owed Results in FDCPA Liability At least one debt buyer has sought to evade this prohibition by seeking not contract interest after the charge-off, but statutory prejudgment interest. The Sixth Circuit on XX/XX/XXXX has just ruled that filing a complaint stating that demanding prejudgment interest is owed in this context violates the FDCPA. ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at *10 ( 6th Cir. XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Interpreting Kentuckys usury statute, the Sixth Circuit found that the original credit agreement had replaced the statutory prejudgment interest rate with the interest rate specified in the credit card contract. The court ruled that, under Kentucky law, the statutory prejudgment interest rate was not revived when the original creditor waived its right to collect interest at the contract rate, saying the creditor can not recover the right it bargained away simply because it later chose to waive the right for which it bargained. ( Ky. Rev. Stat. 360.010 ( 1 ). ) A debt buyer can not acquire a right to statutory interest that its assignor did not possess. 
While under Kentucky law prejudgment interest may be awarded by Kentucky courts in certain cases as a matter of equity, the Sixth Circuit distinguished the debt buyers complaintnoting that the debt buyer asserted its entitlement to prejudgment interest as a factual matter rather than including a request for interest in the prayer for relief. 

Holding that the FDCPA applies to claims made in a state court collection suit and that the content of the debt buyers complaint, like any alleged FDCPA violation, must be viewed from the standpoint of the least sophisticated consumer, the court found violations of 1692e ( 2 ) 5 and 1692f ( 1 ) 6 to be adequately alleged. Noting that the XXXX XXXX had previously concluded that complaints and other court filings may constitute threats under the FDCPA, the court also concluded that the least sophisticated consumer could take the debt buyers statement that it was entitled to prejudgment interest as a threat under 1692e ( 5 ).

( 15 U.S.C.A. 1692e ( 2 ) ( The false representation of ( A ) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt ) ; 15 U.S.C.A. 1692f ( 1 ) ( The collection of any amount ( including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation ) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. ) ; 15 U.S.C.A. 1692e ( 5 ) ( The threat to take any action that can not legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. ). ) Third Affirmative Defense Language is confusing and vague in the initial validation notices for both CCS.

Payment instructions are vague or non-existent in the initial validation notices for both CCS and CCSs Attorney.

Initial Validation Notices do not specify a payment due date or address to send payment to for both CCS and CCSs Attorney. 
Balances Owed varies for each Demand Letter leading to ambiguity and confusion for the least sophisticated consumer. 

Fourth Affirmative Defense Affirmative Defense : CCS used verbatim Safe Harbor language in its dunning letter dated XX/XX/XXXX that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, Alleged debtor received the initial validation notice ( i.e., dunning letter ) from CCS which included XXXX XXXX language on a Charged-Off account. 

1. Dunning Letter from CCS stated, As of the date of this letter, you owe {$960.00}. Because of interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater. Hence, if you pay the amount shown above, an adjustment may be necessary after we receive your check, in which event we will inform you before depositing the check for collection. For further information, write the undersigned or call XXXX. 
2. The CCS is not entitled to interest, late charges and fees since the original account is a Charged-Off balance.

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ( covering Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin ) ruled that a debt collector who used the Seventh Circuits recommended safe harbor language in its dunning letter to a debtor violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Court determined that the debt collectors use of the safe harbor language was deceptive when applied to the facts of the case. The dunning letter stated that the debtor might owe late charges and other charges when, in fact, the debt collector could not impose such charges. Therefore, the Court concluded that the debt collector was not entitled to safe harbor. 
In XXXX, the Seventh Circuit took the unusual step of drafting specific language for debt collectors to use in their dunning letters. This safe harbor language advises debtors that : As of the date of this letter, you owe $ [ the exact amount due ]. Because of interest, late charges, and other charges that may vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater. Hence, if you pay the amount shown above, an adjustment may be necessary after we receive your check, in which event we will inform you before depositing the check for collection. For further information, write the undersigned or call XXXX [ phone number ]. 
In XXXX, the Court that authored the safe harbor language has made it clear that the safe harbor is not completely safe. In that case, the debt collector used the Seventh Circuits safe harbor language thinking that by simply using the language it was immune from liability under the FDCPA. The Court disagreed, stating that a debt collector can not copy and paste the safe harbor language. The Court explained that use of the safe harbor language created by the Court is not the same thing as complying with the FDCPA. The language used must be tailored to the facts of the case. A debt collector is only entitled to safe harbor protection if the information he furnishes is accurate and he does not obscure it by adding confusing other information ( or misinformation ). Because the debt collector in the XXXX case used the safe harbor late charges and other charges language, despite the fact that late charges and other charges were not permitted by law, the Seventh Circuit determined that the debt collector failed to comply with the FDCPA. 
The debt collector must match the recommended language to the facts of the case and tailor the language accordingly. Failing to tailor the language when required by the facts, likewise, takes away the safe harbor and has failed to comply with the FDCPA.