Consumer complaint received 2022-11-29
Company: Lloyd & McDaniel, PLC
State: MS
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Credit card debt
Issue: Written notification about debt
Sub-issue: Didn't receive notice of right to dispute

Complaint:
XXXX Bank Bank hired Lloyd & McDaniel , PLC to collect on a debt allegedly owed by a Mississippi resident. Lloyd & McDaniel , PLC became an agent and third party vendor of XXXX Bank at that time. XXXX XXXX XXXX is a XXXX law firm with no physical office in Mississippi. XXXX XXXX XXXX issued form letters, which were not signed by an attorney and/or anyone in the XXXX. This practice likely results from no attorney review and/or oversight prior to the form correspondence being sent. This suspicion is supported by the fact that numbers and/or amount owed and/or settlement offers varied up and down depending upon them being sent via form correspondence or later in the case by email from an actual attorney. XXXX XXXX XXXX failed to issue the required validation notice. XXXX XXXX XXXX filed a one-page form Complaint, which was deficient as it failed to incorporate necessary attachments. When the deficiency was pointed out, XXXX XXXX XXXX continued to push for a default judgment instead of amending and correcting the Complaint. At hearing, XXXX XXXX XXXX hired local counsel, who stated to the XXXX he did not have settlement authority. Upon information and belief, XXXX XXXX XXXX does not ever attend hearings- they practice in Mississippi via remote representation using local attorneys who are not given settlement authority. When XXXX XXXX XXXX 's failure to send the required validation notice was raised, XXXX XXXX XXXX did not provide a copy of the notice but continued using the XXXX system to try to obtain default and/or summary judgment - all while the original Complaint remains deficient and never amended. This action supports the XXXX 's failure to have timely sent the letter ( otherwise, why not simply provide a copy? ). XXXX XXXX XXXX 's use of form letters, form pleadings, and bullying tactics to obtain default and/or summary judgment through remote representation is tantamount to abuse of process. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's actions and/or inactions since being hired by XXXX Bank are collectively illegal collection practices geared towards obtaining the highest number of default judgments with the highest balance possible but with the least amount of work per case. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's actions and/or inactions since being hired by XXXX Bank are unfair, deceptive, and abusive. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's actions and/or inactions since being hired by XXXX Bank are designed to confuse the least sophisticated consumer, including many consumers who are unable to hire counsel to represent them. It is probable that the form correspondence and pleadings being used by XXXX XXXX XXXX are being used across Mississippi and Kentucky against unbanked consumers who ( i ) can not afford representation, ( ii ) would not realize what the validation requirement is, ( iii ) and/or recognize a deficient Complaint. XXXX Bank is responsible for XXXX XXXX XXXX 's actions and/or inactions as XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX and third-party vendor.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation