Consumer complaint received 2023-09-07
Company: Credit International Corporation
State: OR
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Sub-issue: Debt is not yours

Complaint:
I was contacted by a collection agency : Credit International Corporation XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX WA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , WA XXXX Alleged Debt File Number : XXXX Regarding an unsubstantiated and invalid debt claim from : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ID XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Incident # XXXX I did not receive a Validation Notice from the collection agency Section 809 ( Validation of debts ) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) requires debt collectors to send a written Validation Notice to consumers within 5 days of the initial communication about the debt. 

The Validation Notice " must include a tear-off form that you can send back to the debt collector to dispute the debt or take other actions ''. ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) And A Validation Notice " must include an end date for a XXXX-day period when you can dispute the debt ''. 
( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) The letter I received from the collection agency did not include a tear-off form. Witholding the method to dispute the debt is an abusive tactic in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). The initial contact letter also did not include include an end date for the XXXXday debt dispute period. This is an unfair and deceptive tactic. 

Due to the collection agency 's failure to include all of the necessary components of a Validation Notice, I have not received a Validation Notice from them, in violation of Section 809 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). 

XXXX XXXX broke the law by sending an unsubstantiated claim to the collection agency. 

XXXX XXXX claims that I owe them penalties under ORS XXXX. They have never called the police on me, filed any civil or criminal charges against me, or obtained a judgment against me. 

ORS 30.875 ( 7 ) states that " Judgments, but not claims, arising under this section may be assigned. '' XXXX XXXX claims that I owe them money, but they do not have a judgment against me. Therefore, they are attempting to collect on an unsubstantiated claim, in violation of ORS 30.875 ( 7 ). 

This statute unequivocally restricts the legal assignment of civil damages for shoplifting to judgments only. Collecting on unsubstantiated civil claims directly contravenes state law. Furthermore, any attempt to unlawfully collect an invalid debt constitutes an abusive practice expressly prohibited under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 

XXXX XXXX is authorized by the State of Oregon by ORS 30.875 to fine customers based exclusively on the store employee 's opinions and without any reasonable suspicion even when the store has not lost any merchandise. XXXX XXXX cited this endorsement of their actions by the State of Oregon by sending me a copy of ORS 30.875. Their conduct shows knowledge of the law 's judgment requirement, but intentional violation of it anyway. 

The collection agency is also acting unlawfully by accepting assignment of the invalid claim.

ORS 30.875 restricts assignment of shoplifting claims specifically to prevent exactly this type of situation - collections efforts without due process. XXXX 's actions violate the Oregon statute 's clear procedural requirements for shoplifting penalties. XXXX XXXX assigns these types of claims frequently to the collection agency. Therefore, the collection agency is also well aware of the illegitimacy of the claims. 

Consumer protection laws The store and collection agency 's actions constitute violations of consumer protection laws. The federal government and Oregon have consumer protection statutes that prohibit unfair, deceptive or unconscionable trade practices. These include debt collection activities. Attempting to collect on a shoplifting penalty claim that is invalid and unassignable under Oregon law is a false and misleading representation that qualifies as a deceptive practice under consumer protection statutes. The store and agency are aware of the law but chose to violate it anyway in their dealings with consumers. This demonstrates knowledge and intent. Transferring invalid claims with knowledge that they can not be legally assigned or collected misrepresents the status and enforceability of the debt. This is a deceptive practice. Having a consumer pay or try to settle an invalid claim also qualifies as an abusive/unconscionable practice under consumer protection laws. 

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act In addition to consumer protection laws, the FDCPA ( Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ) also prohibits collection of shoplifting claims not reduced to judgment. Knowingly violating the Oregon shoplifting penalty law is reasonably seen as a deceptive and unfair trade practice violating consumer protection laws. The described conduct violates consumer protection laws prohibiting deceptive debt collection practices, in addition to the Oregon shoplifting penalty statute itself. 

Scope of the problem It has come to my attention that XXXX XXXX may have systematically assigned collection rights on potentially hundreds of thousands of unsubstantiated civil claims over past years, and ostensibly continues such practices unchecked. Furthermore, Credit International Corporation, doing business as XXXX, appears to have regularly collected on millions of legally invalid debts without complying with mandatory consumer notification laws. 

Remedies Sought It is requested that XXXX XXXX face meaningful penalties for the demonstrable pattern of assigning collection rights on civil claims lacking proper legal judgment, in contravention of statute. 

Additionally, substantial sanctions for Credit International Corporation, doing business as XXXX, are sought for apparent widespread noncompliance with Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provisions requiring the furnishing consumers a written Validation Notice within 5 days of the initial debt communication. 

Further, penalties for XXXX are also requested regarding collection of any material number of past assignments of legally invalid debts they accepted as legitimate. 

The State of Oregon and the federal government to begin enforcing the laws already in place that prohibit : Merchants from assigning legal debts absent judicial oversight Merchants illegally assigning debts absent substantiating documentation to collection agencies Collection agencies accepting the assignment of unsubstantiated debts Collection agencies initiating collection proceedures with a lack of mandatory consumer notification XXXX XXXX held accountable by reversing their illegal, unfair, deceptive, and abusive practice of sending their claim against me to XXXX. 

XXXX to send me a written Validation Notice as required by law. 

XXXX required to rescind the claim against me and return it to XXXX XXXX. 

To remedy the grievance, XXXX XXXX should be compelled to cease and desist from assigning unsubstantiated claims. XXXX should be required to provide the legally mandated validation notice and cease collection efforts of illegally assigned debts. These measures would demonstrate good faith adherence to consumer protections under statute. 

Please inform me of your planned actions in response to my complaint and provide regular progress updates. 


Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OR XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation