Product: Debt collection

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY LLC fails to validate this so-called debt. Portfolio Recovery is not removing an adverse account and has yet to provide me with proper verification proving the account does belong to me. I've sent three certified mail letters and been asking them repeatedly where is a contract with my signature agreeing to pay this so-called debt. They still have not provided me what I asked for. 


On a previous CFPB I submitted, ( XXXX ) This company claims they have no record of a response or a dispute being received in relation to our initial notification letter WHICH is a lie. They received all my USPS certified mail which required a signature during delivery. Evidence of this company receiving all the disputes ( Return Receipts ) I've sent them is attached to this complaint. This company lied to the previous CFPB complaint. I've sent another USPS certified mail to this company on XX/XX/XXXX, and they didn't respond. 

This company also claims " We purchased the account and contract XXXX XXXX XXXX had with XXXX  XXXX to pay the balance due, no other contract between XXXX XXXX XXXX and PRA is required to validate the account. '' That is also a lie, This " debt '' this company claims I owe them does not meet the Federal Trade Commission 's guidelines of what constitutes proper debt validation. 

I mailed and send Portfolio Recovery an example of the In addition, in the case of XXXX Vs. XXXX ( IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, No. XXXX ). I mailed and they received it on XX/XX/XXXX. 



In addition, in the case of XXXX Vs. XXXX XXXX IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, No. XXXX XXXX, the court ruled that : 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ( emphasis added XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, nineteen days after the date of XXXX debt collection letter, XXXX counsel XXXX sent XXXX a letter declaring that XXXX disputes your debt collection-related allegations, denies the same, and demands strict proof and verification thereof. Record at 21. As such, XXXX should have ceased his debt collection efforts immediately upon receiving that letter. Instead, XXXX proceeded to obtain a default judgment against XXXX on the debt collection claim before he had mailed XXXX the necessary verification and, thus, violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). 

XXXX maintains, however, that there was no violation of the FDCPA because he sent adequate verification of the debt [ to XXXX ] in the XX/XX/XXXX notice of claim. Brief of Appellee at 13. Specifically, XXXX claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between XXXX 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 XXXX 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 XXXX, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once XXXX stopped making the required payments. Indeed, the existing unpaid contract balance at the time XXXX sent the debt collection notice was at least {$350.00} more than the original loan amount. Therefore, XXXX violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) when he failed to cease collection of the debt by obtaining a default judgment against XXXX after XXXX had notified XXXX in writing that he was disputing the debt but before XXXX had mailed verification of the debt to XXXX. We reverse the trial courts entry of summary judgment in favor of XXXX on this issue.