Consumer complaint received 2021-04-09
Company: Medical Data Systems, Inc.
State: FL
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Medical debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Sub-issue: Debt was result of identity theft

Complaint:
Dear Sir/Madame, In connection with the collection of an alleged debt, this complaint is against Medical Data Systems Inc. ( herein known as MDS ), for violating the FDCPA ( Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, The FCCPA ( Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ), the FCRA ( Fair Credit Reporting Act ) and Florida Defamation/Libel Statute. See Wesley v. Cavalry Invs., LLC, No. 05-3523, 2006 WL 1285020 ( E.D. Pa. May 9, 2006 ) ( " Where two statutes are 'capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. ' ) ( citing Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1018 ( 1984 ) '' ).

FACTS - I, XXXX XXXX XXXX the Complainant, am a consumer as defined by FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 3 ) and FCCPA 559.55 ( 8 ) ; ( 1 ) MDS is a debt collector as defined by FDCPA 15 USC 1692a ( 6 ) and FCCPA 559.55 ( 3 ) ( 7 ) ; ( 2 ) MDS never did forward to me the " debt validation '' letter which would give the Complainant the right to dispute the alleged debt prior to MDS unlawfully communicating and willfully furnishing false information with malicious intent to XXXX XXXX and XXXX ; ( 3 ) MDS admitted through submitted written evidence that MDS does not own the alleged debt nor does MDS own the alleged account ; ( 4 ) MDS communicated without permissible purpose and willfully furnished false information to XXXX XXXX and XXXX credit reporting agencies with the intent to damage the Complainants credit reputation ; ( 45 ) MDS knows the information it furnished is information being furnished as a result of identity theft reported to the Federal Trade Commission.

IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION OF AN ALLEGED DEBT MDS violated FDCPA 15 USC 1692c ( b ) and FCCPA 559.72 ( 5 ) when MDS willfully communicated as defined by FDCPA 15 USC 1692a ( 2 ) and FCCPA 559.55 ( 2 ) without permissible purpose pursuant to FCCPA 559.72 ( 9 ) as a result of MDS not having and providing the required thirty ( 30 ) day notice of an assignment pursuant to FCCPA 559.715 to the Complainant prior to unlawful collection attempts against the Complainant. See Read v. MFP, INC., 85 So. 3d 1151 ( Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012 ) ( " a violation of section 559.72 ( 9 ), " it must be shown that a legal right that did not exist was asserted and that the person had actual knowledge that the right did not exist '' ) ; Edwards v. Niagara Credit Solutions , Inc., 584 F.3d 1350 ( 11th Cir. 2009 ) ( " another provision of the Act, which generally forbids an agency from communicating about the debt with a third party. See 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( b ) '' ). MDS then unlawfully furnished false information knowing it to be false regarding an alleged debt as defined by FDCPA 15 USC 1692a ( 5 ) and FCCPA 559.55 ( 6 ) MDS claims the Complainant allegedly owes. MDS admits through evidence that MDS never furnished a debt collection letter to the Complainant that would give the Complainant an opportunity to dispute the alleged debt. Thus, pursuant to 15 USC 1692f and 15 USC 1692e ( 8 ) ( 10 ) MDS used unfair practice and deceptive means in attempting to collect an alleged debt when MDS without permissible purpose communicated false information and MDS knowing it to be false to XXXX XXXX, and XXXX. The least sophisticated consumer may think a debt collector has every legal right to communicate at any and all times information to credit reporting agencies regardless of the nature of the communication.

IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION OF AN ALLEGED DEBT MDS used unfair practices along with false and deceptive means pursuant to 15 USC 1692e ( 10 ) and 15 USC 1692f in attempting to collect an alleged debt when MDS falsely represented the legal status of the alleged debt in violation of 15 USC 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i.e. MDS not having a notice of an assignment/not the real party in interest ) and took an action MDS was not legally able to take in violation of 15 USC 1692e ( 5 ) ( i.e. MDS unlawfully communicated and maliciously furnished false information and MDS knowing the furnished information was false to XXXX XXXX and XXXX while not being the real party in interest ). In addition, MDS unlawfully communicated and willfully furnished information MDS knew was false to XXXX XXXX, and XXXX  in connection to the Complainant. FCCPA 559.715 requires a thirty ( 30 ) day notice of assignment from MDS to the Complainant prior to collection attempts made by MDS. MDS unlawfully communicated and willfully furnished with malicious intent false information to XXXX XXXX and XXXX even when MDS did not send the validation notice letter to the Complainant MDS initiated unlawful collection activities against the Complainant. Quale v. Unifund CCR Partners, 682 F. Supp. 2d 1274 ( S.D. Ala. 2010 ) ( in Purnell, 303 Fed.Appx. at 304 n. 5, the Sixth Circuit recognized that the reporting of a disputed debt to a credit bureau without verification of the debt may constitute " collection activity '' in violation of 1692g ) ; Grace v. LVNV Funding , Inc., 22 F. Supp. 3d 700 ( W.D. Ky. 2014 ) ; See also Brindise v. US Bank Nat. Ass'n, 183 So. 3d 1215 ( Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016 ) ( " The written notice of assignment alerts the consumer that the creditor has delegated a right to recover to the assignee '' ). However, MDS did not provide the required thirty ( 30 ) day notice of assignment to the Complainant prior to collection attempts MDS made in the form of communicating and furnishing false information to XXXX XXXX and XXXX. Thus, MDS assumed and acted upon the assumption that it had a legal right to initiate collection activities against the Complainant contravening FCCPA 559.72 ( 9 ) when MDS unlawfully communicated with XXXX XXXX, and XXXX in contrast to FCCPA 559.715 requirement. The least sophisticated consumer can assume that MDS or debt collectors can initiate collection activities without have legal and proper documentation to collect against consumers.

IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION OF AN ALLEGED DEBT, MDS used unfair practices along with false and deceptive means pursuant to 15 USC 1692e ( 10 ) and 15 USC 1692f in attempting to collect an alleged debt when MDS was engaged in " collection of the debt '' in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) when it reported the alleged debt to the CRAs before sending a debt validation letter and verification of that alleged debt to the Complainant. MDS stated in the CFPB complaint that MDS does not own the alleged debt ( see MDS response in complaint # XXXX ). Furthermore, MDS concede that it did not provide the necessary thirty ( 30 ) day notice of assignment to the Complainant as required by FCCPA 559.715 before it began unlawful collection activities against the Complaint when MDS unlawfully communicated and provided knowingly false information to XXXX XXXX, and XXXX. Thus, MDS has always been barred by FCCPA 559.72 ( 9 ) when it began collection activities against the Complainant in the form of unlawfully communicating and furnishing false information to XXXX XXXX, and XXXX. The least sophisticated consumer may be deceived and think debt collectors can avoid their statutory duty of providing consumers with debt validation letters and/or verification of alleged debts all together and just report any information to CRAs in attempts to collect debts.

IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION OF AN ALLEGED DEBT MDS used unfair practices along with false and deceptive means pursuant to 15 USC 1692e ( 10 ) and 15 USC 1692f in attempting to collect an alleged debt when MDS presented documents that have been FORGED with my name on them pursuant to TITLE XLVI ; CHAPTER 831 ; 831.01 FORGERY. The Complainant denies having signed any documents presented by MDA in this matter and now will resort to filing a police report. Forgery in Florida is defined as -- Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges or counterfeits a public record, or a certificate, return or attestation of any clerk or register of a court, public register, notary public, town clerk or any public officer, in relation to a matter wherein such certificate, return or attestation may be received as a legal proof ; or a charter, deed, will, testament, bond, or writing obligatory, letter of attorney, policy of insurance, bill of lading, bill of exchange or promissory note, or an order, acquittance, or discharge for money or other property, or an acceptance of a bill of exchange or promissory note for the payment of money, or any receipt for money, goods or other property, or any passage ticket, pass or other evidence of transportation issued by a common carrier, with intent to injure or defraud any person, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. See Maddox v. State, 923 So. 2d 442 ( Fla. 2006 ) ( State v. Escobedo, 404 So.2d 760, 764 ( Fla. 3d DCA 448*448 1981 ) ( " Our forgery statute ... makes whoever `forges ' documents of specified classes `with intent to injure or defraud any person ' liable to a maximum of [ five ] years ' imprisonment. '' ) ( quoting Green v. State, 76 So.2d 645, 646 ( Fla.1954 ) ) ). Forgery gives the impression that a person did endorse said documents to create a debt. In this instance, MDS is providing false documents therefore misrepresenting the character and legal status of the debt when presenting forged documents that the Complainant never did sign which is a violation of FDCPA 15 USC 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i.e. MDS passing off forged documents to misrepresent legal status to collect ) and FCCPA 559.72 ( 9 ) ( i.e. MDS presenting forged documents to misrepresent that the debt is legitimate ). The least sophisticated may be deceived into thinking that forged documents presented by MDS that seem legitimate may have legal legitimacy.

IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION OF AN ALLEGED DEBT MDS used unfair practices along with false and deceptive means pursuant to 15 USC 1692e ( 10 ) and 15 USC 1692f ( 1 ) in attempting to collect an alleged debt when MDS unlawfully distributed to XXXX XXXX, and XXXX false information claiming the Complainant owes an alleged debt when IN FACT MDS knows the Complainant does not owe this alleged debt. MDS, in the ordinary course of business as a furnisher of information to credit reporting agencies, distribution of false information claiming the Complainant owes an alleged debt creates a false impression to XXXX XXXX, and XXXX that the Complainant owes a debt. Therefore, this distribution of false information from MDS to XXXX XXXX, and XXXX caused this false information to be printed by XXXX XXXX and XXXX. IN THIS INSTANCE MDS committed a libelous act against the Complaint pursuant to Title XLVI ; Chapter 836 ; 836.11 ( a ). See Blake v. ANN-MARIE GIUSTIBELLI, PA, No. 4D14-3231 ( Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2016 ) ( " [ A ] n action for libel will lie for a `false and unprivileged publication by letter, or otherwise, which exposes a person to distrust, hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy or which causes such person to be avoided, or which has a tendency to injure such person in [ their ] office, occupation, business or employment ). The least sophisticated consumer may think the information presented by MDS is accurate information therefore compelled to accept the results of the alleged investigation by MDS.

IN CONNECTION WITH THE COLLECTION OF AN ALLEGED DEBT MDS did commit Libel pursuant to Title XLVI ; Chapter 836 ; 836.11 ( a ) when MDS presented forged documents and distributed false information to XXXX XXXX, and XXXX and caused said false information to be printed by XXXX XXXX, and XXXX. MDS willfully distributed this false information with the malicious intent to injure the Complainants credit standing and reputation. MDS knows the Complainant does not owe this alleged debt, however, in complete disregard for the Complainants credit standing, reputation, and quality of life MDS with malice intended for this false information to be used to compel the Complainant into paying an alleged debt the Complainant does not owe. The Complainant has been damaged by this false information printed by XXXX XXXX, and XXXX as the Complainant has received less than favorable interest rates.

IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONNECTION OF AN ALLEGED DEBT MDS did intend to cause intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the Complainant. See LeGrande v. Emmanuel, 889 So. 2d 991 ( Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004 ). With malice in mind to inflict harm upon the Complainant MDS knew that willfully distributing false information to XXXX XXXX and XXXX would not only bolster MDSs libelous act of causing false information to be printed by XXXX XXXX, and XXXX but also damage the credibility and reputation of the Complainants. Furthermore, MDS knew unlawful debt collection would be the only way to recover a debt the Complainant does not owe. MDS would inflict this emotional distress upon the Complainant through the outrageous acts of unlawfully communicating and furnishing false information to the credit reporting agencies, not providing a debt validation letter to the Complainant, violating FCCPA and FDCPA provisions and forgery regarding documents as MDS is attempting to pass those documents off as valid documents in connection to the Complainant.

The actions and conduct of MDS are so severe and did cause emotional distress as the Complainant has anxiety attacks from MDS reporting information MDS know to be false. The Complainant is frustrated with anger which causes the Complainant to not stay focused at the school where the Complainant teach. MDS was so blatant to provide false information to the Complainant MDS showed no concern for providing this information even through the CFPB portal.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF. Now comes the Complainant for relief against the tortious actions of MDS. PRAYER FOR RELIEF pursuant to 15 USC 1692k ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( A ) in the amount of {$1000.00}. PRAYER FOR RELIEF pursuant to FCCPA 559.77 ( 2 ) for statutory damages in the amount of {$1000.00}. PRAYER FOR RELIEF pursuant to FCCPA 559.77 ( 2 ) for punitive damages in the amount of {$20000.00} for MDS intentional and flagrant disregard the FDCPA and FCCPA. PRAYER FOR RELIEF pursuant to FCCPA 559.77 ( 2 ) for enjoining MDS from present and future violations of the FDCPA and FCCPA. PRAYER FOR RELIEF pursuant to Title XLV ; Chapter 768 ; 768.73 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( b ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ) Punitive damages in the amount of {$50000.00}. PRAYER FOR RELIEF against MDS for intentional infliction of emotional distress in the amount of {$50000.00}.

Thank you for your attention to my Complainant and I look forward to hearing from you soon. 

Sincerely, 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