Consumer complaint received 2019-10-08
Company: ONLINE Information Services, Inc.
State: NC
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Other debt
Issue: Written notification about debt
Sub-issue: Didn't receive enough information to verify debt

Complaint:
I sent two debt validation letters, requesting for validation not verification of this debt but this collection company Online Information Services never validated this debt they say I owe, also they never produced a license to collect in my state.

In the first debt validation letter I stated : To Whom It May Concern : This letter is being sent to you in response to notices sent to me from your company and more importantly, due to your erroneous reporting to the Credit Bureau { s }, the highly negative impact on my personal credit report. Please be advised that this is not a refusal to pay, but a notice sent pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g Sec. 809 { b } that your claim is disputed and validation is requested. This is NOT a request for verification or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION made pursuant to the above-named Title and Section. I respectfully request that your offices provide me with competent evidence that I have any legal obligation to pay you. Please provide me with the following : What the money you say I owe is for : Explain and show me how you calculated what you say I owe : Provide me with copies of any papers that show I agreed to pay what you say I owe : Provide a verification or copy of any judgment if applicable : Identify the original creditor : Prove the Statute of Limitations has not expired on this account : Show me the you are licensed to collect in my state : Provide me with your license numbers and Registered Agent or Agent of Service : In the second debt validation letter I sent to them, I stated : To Whom It May Concern : I have previously sent you a request to validate my debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and all I received was an itemized list of the alleged charges you claim I owe you. This does not meet the Federal Trade Commissions guidelines of what constitutes proper debt validation In addition, in the case of Spears Vs. Brennan ( IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, No. 49A02-0003-CV-169 ), the court ruled that : 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ( emphasis added ). On XX/XX/1996, 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/1996 notice of claim. Brief of Appellee at 13. 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.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief