Consumer complaint received 2018-05-04
Company: CAVALRY INVESTMENTS, LLC
State: CA
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Credit card debt
Issue: Written notification about debt
Sub-issue: Didn't receive enough information to verify debt

Complaint:
In XX/XX/XXXX, I received a letter from Cavalry Portfolio Services claiming that I owe them {$1000.00}. I responded on XX/XX/XXXX with a letter requesting that they validate the debt and they responded on XX/XX/XXXX with printouts of old account statements and a bill of sale from XXXX whom they purchased the original debt from. They did not provide an original signed contract as proof of debt so I sent them another letter on XX/XX/XXXX stating what they sent me did not meet the Federal Trade Commission 's guidelines of what constitutes proper debt validation and also this : " In the case of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, No. XXXX ), the court ruled that : 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ( emphasis added ). 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 XXXX at XXXX. 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. '' However, they were still reporting the collection on my credit report and their response, on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX to the letter I sent them on XX/XX/XXXX was the exact same printouts they sent me on XX/XX/XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation