Product: Debt collection

I am responding to the correspondence that National Credit Systems Account # XXXX had stated in the previous complaint filed with the CFPB on XXXX with the response date of XXXX. Unfortunately, However, your " client " the original creditor, has not furnished a valid lease agreement bearing my signature in reference to the date listed and has supplied an inaccurate lease date. I first entered a lease agreement with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OH XXXX that ran for 1 year. After completing the lease, it was placed as month to month with no lease agreement. Then on XX/XX/XXXX I entered into a 1 year lease agreement at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OH XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX. After completing the lease, it was placed as month to month with no lease agreement. I signed the lease on XXXX. I still have the original lease agreement signed on XXXX  and ran from XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX. I was month to month on XXXX while residing at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OH XXXX. I havent signed or agreed to any new leases after XXXX Your documentation does not support or bear my signature to any leases signed on XXXX The document supported is not valid and does not validate as any constitutional debt under the FTC regulations. On XX/XX/XXXX I had vacated the premises and left. I have not resided there Since XXXX XXXX XXXX In addition, I received an itemized list of the alleged charges you claim I owe you. This does not meet the Federal Trade Commissions guidelines of what constitutes proper debt validation. In addition, in the case of Spears Vs. Brennan ( IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, No. 49A02-0003-CV-169 ), the court ruled that : 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ( emphasis added ). On XX/XX/XXXX, nineteen days after the date of Brennans debt collection letter, Spears counsel XXXX  sent Brennan a letter declaring that Spears disputes your debt collection-related allegations, denies the same, and demands strict proof and verification thereof. Record at 21. As such, Brennan should have ceased his debt collection efforts immediately upon receiving that letter. Instead, Brennan proceeded to obtain a default judgment against Spears on the debt collection claim before he had mailed Spears the necessary verification and, thus, violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). Brennan maintains, however, that there was no violation of the FDCPA because he sent adequate verification of the debt [ to Spears ] in the XX/XX/XXXX notice of claim. Brief of XXXX at XXXX. Specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and XXXX XXXX attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). We can not agree. The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spears loan, including a 17.99 % annual interest rate and the original loan amount of {$2500.00}. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. Indeed, the existing unpaid contract balance at the time Brennan sent the debt collection notice was at least {$350.00} more than the original loan amount.