Consumer complaint received 2022-11-23
Company: Atlanticus Services Corporation
State: FL
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Sub-issue: Debt is not yours

Complaint:
Previous Complaints eubmitted to CFPB case numbers ; XXXX & XXXX FORTIVA CREDIT RETAILER through predatory lending and in collusion with XXXX  XXXX XXXX has grossly violated my consumer rights through continued misrepresentations, disregard, dismissal and egregious damages to my credit report while obfuscating its actions once reported to the CFPB. Several complaints and lawsuits have proven consistent with this behavior as it has affected me personally. As listed below are numerous complaints in the manner of how FORTIVA has conducted business in my experience. I have already paid a significant amount for the equipment and the amount paid was the best fair market value but however contrary to terms provided regarding the validity of any remaining alleged debt. FORTIVA has repeatedly breached terms of contract, agreement or any such conditions on this credit matter and yet taken adverse negative actions in attempting to validate such debt which is in dispute as if it were never challenged by the consumer. 

Listed Violations Unfair issuance of a predatory loan through illegal means by illegal door to door sales. The issuance of a line of credit was predatory and abusive. The equipment allegedly purchased was substantially overpriced and no alternative options were presented in order to obtain the same purchase for the same service. 

Violation of consumer trust by making promises in writing to have the opportunity to redress any debt in question and upon such notice the promise of any adverse action such as and specifically, negative reporting to credit reporting agencies to be withheld until any such dispute could be investigated properly resolved. 

Violation of due process to consumer in attaining or acquiring any such conclusion and thereby providing any such reason for the outcome of any determination or conclusion of any such investigation on the question of validity of such debt in question. 

Violation and breach of duty under contract, agreement and supposed terms of any relevant agreement to investigate the validity of such debt. 

Violation and breach of contract to properly notify alleged debtor of the receipt of such request to investigate in a timely manner the validity of such debt in question. 

Violation of duty to respond properly to debtor within a guideline parameter of 30 to 45 days equal to the prescribed time frame concerning credit reporting matters aside from credit reporting practices. 

Bad faith actions which include significantly backdated correspondences which are received a significant time later by the debtor causing a diminished time of response action as afforded by consumer rights or meant to be afforded by consumer rights which sabotage any further amicable resolution. 

Deceptive information provided to the CFPB as a response to previous complaints such as the promise to remove the initial negative report for which why the initial complaints were submitted but then never having removed such negative report as promised. 

No material relevance to the crux of the matter concerning any such validity of such debt except for unrelated information which serves no purpose concerning the overall matter except to claim it as a response to the complaint as required by the CFPB. 

FORTIVA, as contractually provided and made apparent in language on the rear of monthly collection notices, was officially notified in writing by mail in about XX/XX/2022 of MY intent to invoke this such resolution clause. FORTIVA however ignored MY first written request. Having given a reasonable doubt about the receipt of such notice ( which was never returned as undelivered or such ) -another letter was sent in about Dated XX/XX/XXXX of XXXX by USPS . A secondary letter was sent via priority with a tracking number dated XX/XX/2022 requesting the same and having referred back to the initial letter invoking MY intent earlier. A willful dismissal and disregard of my request as provided under the terms of the issuance of such credit became clear and apparent later. 

A third notice disputing the validity of this debt is submitted following yet another letter from FORTIVA. 
A bad faith communication likely to confuse and convolute any well informed decision on behalf of the alleged debtor may have been established. Another violation in clear communication from FORTIVA then provided a delayed response and provided an unclear letter to ME by email communicating some unclear crediting action. As stated in this letter dated XX/XX/2022 The transaction amount of {$1400.00} has been credited to your account. Thank You! -Considering the circumstances this action is ambiguous to me. 

FORTIVA as vaguely understood by me in a practical manner-has supposedly credited my account for a sum total of {$1400.00}. This however still leaves a balance of {$2800.00}. When this credit line was issued, it was issued for more than what the purchase price of the equipment was. In fact, abusively enough, the equipment needed for the purpose of effecting the service was overpriced and no alternative option for purchasing this same equipment was provided. 

Fortivas response to the CFPB claimed that a letter dated XX/XX/2022 was sent to me advising me of the outcome of their investigation. Please see above reference to this. No such clear communication was relayed to me. This such letter again showed mis-action and bad faith in properly addressing this debt. Furthermore, the receipt of any such letter dated this such date is clear in showing a bad faith misdirection to mislead and circumvent consumers rights for FORTIVAs benefit at the cost of consumers rights. Also provided to CFPB by FORTIVA is that there was a re-investigation THIS IS NOT TRUE. I was never notified of any such effort. What occurred here is that given my complaint to CFPB which was visible to a FORTIVA representative upon providing some response, such idea of an investigation or re-investigation was alluded to only to dispute my complaint at face value when there was never one provided under a proper notion of consumers rights as provided by law. The truth of the matter is that FORTIVA never addressed my proper request for any such investigation as required by law to be provided and for such proper communication to be provided to the consumer who requests for there to be. Likely it appears that a letter was hastily created of some sort and perhaps backdated in order to deceptively create some semblance of plausibility when later questioned. 

FORTIVA entirely disregarded and dismissed my first initial written invocation of rights before the second which carried a USPS tracking number to prevent any further denial of having received any such request in writing which further testifies to FORTIVAS willful acting in bad faith. 

No itemization of the current amount of the debt that reflects interest, fees, payments, and credits since a particular date was provided that I may be able to recognize or verify with records. 
Nor was there any information about my debt collection rights including how to dispute the debt provided upon my clear communication to FORTIVA that I wished to do so. Instead, my request was ignored or dismissed. 
No such notice included a tear-off form that you can send back to the debt collector to dispute the debt or take other actions. 

As provided by the CFPBs debt collection rule- which requires debt collectors to provide certain information when they first communicate with you or soon after ( generally within 5 days ). No such validation notice was ever provided as outlined by the CFPB.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation