Consumer complaint received 2019-11-19
Company: Law Office of Linda Strumpf
State: CT
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation
Sub-issue: Attempted to collect wrong amount

Complaint:
On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I, XXXX XXXX XXXX, a natural person, entered into a contractual agreement with XXXX XXXX XXXX ( herein referred to as XXXX ) for an unsecured credit card, for all intents and purposes, to be used for personal or household purchases. Due to unforeseen circumstances, my debt with XXXX was placed into charge off status as of XX/XX/XXXX. 

Within the attached documents are the following relevant to my compliant : Exhibit A/ Bill of Sale within my suit, XXXX had a purchase agreement dated XX/XX/XXXX between XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX and through its general partner XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with an effective date of XX/XX/XXXX. This Bill of Sale included 18,902 accounts for a total of {>= $1,000,000}. This Bill of Sale from XXXX is unsigned. 

The second Exhibit A/ Bill of Sale reflects the debt sale from XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX and through its general partner XXXX  XXXX XXXX , XXXX to XXXX  XXXX XXXX effective as of the File Creation Date of XX/XX/XXXX. This Bill of Sale included 169 accounts for a total of {$770000.00}. This Bill of Sale from XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX and through its general partner XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX only has one signature from the seller, but no signature from the purchaser, nor is this document dated. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX acquired my debt from XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, but did not proceed with a Small Claims case against me until XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX is a Domestic Corporation.  Per New York State of Corporate Records, XXXX XXXX ( herein referred to as XXXX ) is the Chief Executive Officer and DOS Process recipient for XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX operates XXXX XXXX XXXX alongside her husband, XXXX XXXX , who has been known to use an alias, XXXX XXXX . XXXX XXXX XXXX is a known Debt Buyer. 

I learned of this suit after my checking and savings accounts had been garnished. Two attempts to garnish were made. The first on XX/XX/XXXX and again an attempt was made on XX/XX/XXXX. I received a total of 5 levy fees from my bank, 3 in XX/XX/XXXXand 2 recently in XX/XX/XXXX. In an effort to understand this debt as I did not have the documents for the suit in hand, I contacted the Small Claims court for a copy. I received the documents in the mail not long after, and immediately noticed an issue. The Bill of Sale from XXXX was unsigned, and I had brought this to XXXX attention in a letter directly to her on XX/XX/XXXX, requesting that she provide circumstances on how my debt was acquired. Another letter was sent on XX/XX/XXXX via fax, email and USPS certified mail, again questioning that the documents were not validation of my debt to XXXX XXXX XXXX. An additional objection to the validity of the debt was made in two letters to the Small Claims court dated XX/XX/XXXX and a revision with the same date sent on XX/XX/XXXX. Unfortunately, several spelling errors graced my first letter and a second letter was sent to ensure I had accurately stated my concerns to the Court. On page three within section 3 of both the Original Letter and the Corrected Letter, I specifically called these two Bills of Sale into question. I also pressed XXXX during the Motion to Open hearing in XX/XX/XXXX, while she was under oath, when she attested that these documents were an accurate foundation for the lawsuit. I paid the debt for 6 months under the promise that she would provide me validation of the debt. When that validation never came, I ceased any and all payments to XXXX XXXX XXXX in early XX/XX/XXXX. Due to prolonged health issues, I hadnt had the time to address this matter at the time. Unfortunately, due to the Consent Order expiring XX/XX/XXXX and unexpected medical leave, I now have time to do so. I also want to make sure anyone else who may be harmed by this Debt Buyer is aware of the questionable practices deployed when attempting to collect debts that XXXX and her firm may be using. 

Fast forward to present day. XXXX tends to sit on these cases until just before the Statute of Limitations is set to expire. She then files Wage and Bank Account garnishment documents with the court. Under normal circumstances, had XXXX XXXX been the rightful holder of this debt, she would be well within her rights to do so. But given the Administrative Proceeding and Consent Order between CFPB and XXXX XXXX ( File No. XXXX ) and questionable practices concerning robosigning of documents, Bulk Records sales to Debt Buyers, such as XXXX, and I do believe that not only my specific case but the additional 3,196 cases XXXX has filed between XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX all for XXXX XXXX XXXX have been filed improperly and all documents provided lack the proper evidentiary basis to prove the debt. XXXX was not acting as an attorney for XXXX, rather acting as the attorney for XXXX XXXX XXXX. Neither she nor anyone in her office can attest to how affidavits were handled and processed, nor can she or anyone in her office attest to how XXXX  processes Charge Off items within their financial books and records, nor can they verify if or if not the Earnings Per Share valuation is affected by Charge Offs. In fact, within my lawsuit documents, XXXX has stated that paralegals work under her supervision, meaning she is liable for whether or not proper documentation is enclosed within legal documentation that serves as the basis for any and all lawsuits she may file.

Given the fact that in XX/XX/XXXX, 161 cases were filed for XXXX XXXX XXXX, in XX/XX/XXXX, 1,450 cases were filed, in XX/XX/XXXX, 992 cases were filed, in XX/XX/XXXX, 419 cases were filed, in XX/XX/XXXX, 99 cases were filed, XX/XX/XXXX, 53 cases were filed, in both XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX only 5 cases were filed, in both XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX only 4 cases were filed and in XX/XX/XXXX, only 2 cases were filed, it is safe to say that had this been a valid means and method of attempting to collect debt, the quantity of lawsuits would have remained approximately the same and not ceased after XXXX stopped selling debts in XX/XX/XXXX. 

I would like you to investigate this matter and answer the following questions : How many of the 3,197 cases just within Connecticut were filed with robosigned documents? 
How many of these cases were witnesses, such as XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX, made available at hearings in order to answer questions under oath? 
How many of these suits were a direct result of the debts in question from XX/XX/XXXX-XX/XX/XXXX per the aforementioned Administrative Proceeding and Consent Order generating a combined {$80.00} XXXX fine/penalty payment? 
Does XXXX have the legal right to collect more for the debt than she legally paid, as the contract was not initially with her, yet through XXXX bank and consumers? 
What does XXXX do with charged off debt within its corporate books and records and would XXXX have intimate knowledge of thus information? 
If a debt is written off as a loss at year end, and claimed on corporate taxes, it affects Earnings Per Share valuations and renders the debt uncollectible. How can XXXX double dip on this debt? 
Can XXXX legally speak on behalf of debt generated by XXXX with data providing during a bulk sale? 

To acquire cases within CT, I used the State of CT Judicial website and searched by XXXX XXXX Juris #. When downloading to XXXX, there is a hyperlink embedded leading directly to the case listed under the hyperlink. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation