Consumer complaint received 2018-12-13
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: MA
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
Sub-issue: Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged

Complaint:
This complaint is based on violations of the FCRA, the FDCPA and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act M.G.L. Chapter 93A sec. 2 ( hereinafter the MCA ) by XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ). 

___ XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, I reviewed my credit reports and saw a collection account reported by XXXX claiming they purchased a debt from XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

___ On XX/XX/XXXX, I mailed to XXXX a demand letter pursuant to Chapter 93A of the Mass. Consumer Protection Act. My demand letter advised XXXX that they violated the MCA because they are not licensed to collect debts in my state, yet they are doing so by placing a debt on my credit report. XXXX may attempt to rely on a recent decision by the Mass Supreme Court in the following case : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, where the court ruled that XXXX is simply a passive debt buyer because it only hires licensed debt collectors on its behalf, and therefore does not engage in collection activity. However, XXXX has not followed this role in my case. For example, several courts have ruled that reporting a debt to a credit bureau constitutes an attempt to collect a debt. In my demand letter, I cited three cases and one opinion letter from the FTC to support this. The most relevant case on point is a decision that was made in Massachusetts just months prior to the XXXX case, where the court ruled as follows : XXXX is at least the nominal reporter of XXXX debt to three national credit reporting agencies. Accordingly, XXXX is, in our view, required to submit to the licensure requirements and corresponding oversight and supervision mandated under G.L. c.93, 24B and 209 Code Mass. Regs., and subsequent sections. XXXX XXXX, XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX. XXXX. I have attached a copy of my demand letter to this complaint which contains multiple citations from multiple courts, including Massachusetts in support of this conclusion. 

___ In my demand letter, I reasonably described XXXX  unfair or deceptive acts or practices as described above, and the injuries suffered. 

___ XXXX did not make a reasonable written tender of settlement within 30 days of receiving my demand letter as required by M.G.L. c.93A. 

___ XXXX misconduct as described above was willful and knowing. 

___ My letter dated XX/XX/XXXX also included a request for validation of debt. I requested all of the required materials under Mass. law 940 CMR 7.08 ( 2 ). These materials include ( a ) all documents, including electronic records or images, which bear the signature of the debtor and which concern the debt being collected, and ( b ) a complete transaction history which reflects the date and amount of payments, balances, and charges concerning the debt. My letter also included the very same form letter requesting validation of debt as provided on the website of the CFPB. 

___ At no time did XXXX validate the debt as required by the MCA or the FDCPA, yet theyve continued collection activity thru use of the credit reporting system. 

___ On XX/XX/XXXX, I disputed the account thru the credit reporting agencies. My dispute included that ( a ) I had no knowledge of the account, ( b ) that [ XXXX  ] is not licensed to collect debts in my state, and ( c ) that XXXX failed to validate the debt ''. 

___ Between the dates of XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX of XXXX, I received the results of the investigations from the credit reporting agencies, where XXXX had falsely verified the account as accurate. They did this without providing the required materials under the MCA to validate the debt, and with no authority to report a debt because by doing so, theyve engaged in collection activity without a license as a debt collector. In a recent case against another debt buyer who received a dispute thru the credit bureaus where the consumer challenged ownership of the debt, the court ruled as follows : [ a ] reasonable jury could find that the documentation reviewed was insufficient to prove that the [ two accounts ] belonged to [ plaintiff ] and that [ the buyer ] therefore had a duty to report the account as can not be verified. A jury could also find that because [ the buyer ] retained the right to seek account-level documentation through its agreements with [ the creditors ] [ it ]  behaved unreasonably when it reported the accounts as verified without first exercising those rights. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX, XXXX XXXX  XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) ___ XXXX appears to rely on the XXXX decision to protect itself from liability from not only myself, but likely other Massachusetts residents by knowingly reporting debts to credit reporting agencies where the court in the XXXX case was NOT aware that XXXX reports to the credit bureaus. Whereas in the case of XXXX XXXX XXXX, that particular debt buyer was required to be licensed because the court KNEW that it reported debts to the credit bureaus, and in which courts in nearly all other jurisdictions ( including the FTC ) agree that reporting a debt to a credit bureau does in fact constitute a collection activity. 

___Based on the aforementioned facts ( and supported by the attached Exhibit ), XXXX  conduct includes the following : ___ ( a ) Violation of the FCRA 15 USC 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) in that they failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of my dispute thru the credit reporting agencies. 

___ ( b ) Violation of the FCRA 15 USC 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) in that they failed to review all relevant information provided in my dispute to the credit bureaus ( including the fact that XXXX has no authority to report a debt to any credit bureau without a license to do so ). 

___ ( c ) Violation of the FCRA 15 USC 1681s-2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( E ) in that they failed to modify, delete, and/or permanently block the reporting of inaccurate information on my credit reports.

___ ( d ) Violation of the FDCPA 15 USC 1692g in that they failed to validate the debt and were and are continuing collection activity.

___ ( e ) Violation of the MDCPA 940 CMR 7.08 ( 2 ) and MGL c.93A sec . 2 for continuing collection activity while failing to provide all of the required materials that would validate the debt under Mass. law.

___ ( f ) Violation of 940 C.M.R 7.07 ( 8 ) and M.G.L. c.93A sec . 2 in that it engaged in false, deceptive, or misleading representation, communication, or means in connection with the collection of a debt.

___ ( g ) Violation of the FDCPA 15 USC 1692 ( e ) in that they have taken action that can not legally be taken.

___ ( h ) Violation of the FDCPA 15 USC 1692e ( 10 ) in that they employed false or deceptive means to collect a debt.

___ ( i ) Violation of the FDCPA 15 USC 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) in that they misrepresented the character, amount of legal status of the debt.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation