Consumer complaint received 2021-05-21
Company: Forster & Garbus LLP
State: NY
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Private student loan debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Sub-issue: Debt is not yours

Complaint:
XXXX and XXXX, acting as counsel to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, sued me on two debts that XXXX allegedly came to own. XXXX packages debts into trusts based on the years in which the original debt was incurred, therefore I will be referring to them as the XXXX and XXXX matters. Based on the amounts and because I live in XXXX, they sued me in the Supreme Court of the State of New York XXXX XXXX of New York. I was served papers for these lawsuits in XXXX of XXXX ( for the XXXX matter XXXX and XXXX of XXXX ( for the XXXX matter ). I had my attorneys draft a response to both lawsuits, as I am under the belief that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX does not own these debts. 

When we entered into discovery, I received some documentation for the XXXX matter, though not enough to satisfy me as to XXXX 's claim to the original debt. As to the XXXX matter, I received no discovery at all. I found that odd, since I do not recall with certainty the original debtor in that instance. On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a Stipulation Discontinuing Action from Forster and Garbus on the XXXX matter. They dropped the suit. Curious as to why, I found that New York 's Department of Financial Services filed suit against Forster and Garbus a mere 8 days prior ( XX/XX/XXXX ) for " not [ honoring ] requests by consumers for substantiation of debt, that is, requests for information proving the validity of the debt and Forster and Garbuss right to collect the debt. '' They had sued me and failed to uphold even the appearance of their duties as officers of the court to provide discovery, and attested to having reviewed documentation that they did not even provide me in the most high-stakes possible environment - a lawsuit that they themselves had initiated. And they engaged in this behavior knowingly. 

It was my understanding that as of XXXX of XXXX, this body ( CFPB ) had enjoined XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from entering into any lawsuit absent an audit that was to determine whether or not XXXX had sufficient paper-trail for Chain of Assignment to substantiate a lawsuit. It was also my understanding that under that agreement, XXXX was to communicate and make clear to counsel representing them that they were not to enter into any lawsuit from that date henceforth until that audit was complete. Either XXXX  did comply and its counsel did not heed this order ( there was an internal lapse in communication that led to an extreme collections action such as a lawsuit - a seemingly convenient mistake that would have led to collecting on a bad debt had I not been as diligent as I am ), or XXXX did not comply and its counsel was derelict in providing discovery to me, or the discovery doesn't exist because there was no documentation into the XXXX matter ( the likeliest scenario ). 

I am an XXXX XXXX  XXXX by profession, whose career has taken him through the process of remediating many shortcomings as a result of consent orders by federal and state regulatory authorities. I have been audited, and in my career I have created many procedures in anticipation of audits. I have wanted to look at this XXXX audit report myself, its methodologies ( whether or not the standards were lax or stringent ), and its determinations with respect to both the XXXX and the XXXX matters. I do not take kindly to violations of consent orders, especially when they lead to adverse actions that harass people who are otherwise going about their daily lives. 

Previous to my employment as an XXXX XXXX, I worked for XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) whose holding company holds major third-party debts ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ). I am very familiar with FDCPA, and coached other call center reps in compliance with FDCPA. Forster and Garbus also sued me ( I was served yesterday, XX/XX/XXXX ) on a debt that I had requested validation for from XXXX XXXX. It is my belief that this law firm engages in serious harassment whenever they are pressed to substantiate any amount of documentation undergirding the debts that they collect on.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation