Consumer complaint received 2021-03-19
Company: Monterey Financial Services LLC
State: IL
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Other debt
Issue: False statements or representation
Sub-issue: Attempted to collect wrong amount

Complaint:
In addition to the below complaint I also have attached Attached exhibits and Affidavit I am a Consumer and Natural Person as defined by 15 U.S. Code 1692a ( 3 ) and is afforded certain Consumer Protections under Federal Law. 
I am competent to state the matters set forth herein. 
I have first-hand knowledge of the facts stated herein. 
All the facts stated herein are true, correct, and admissible as evidence. 
If called upon as a witness I will testify to the truthfulness of the facts stated herein. 
I have never created a debt with Monterey Collections. 
I do not owe Monterey Collections any money. 
Monterey Collections has failed to provide any documentation support their right to collect a debt from me or the authenticate any debt that is owed to them by me. 
I received a letter from Monterey Collections aka Monterey Financial Services LLC purporting to be a Collection Agency attempting to collect a consumer debt on behalf of XXXX XXXX from me dated XX/XX/XXXX ( EXHIBIT 1 ). 
I have never heard of or been involved in any business transactions with Monterey Collections. 
I responded to Monterey Collections by submitting a debt validation letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( EXHIBIT 2 ) via XXXX certified mail. 
I requested the following reasonable documents to validate and prove that Monterey Collections has both the legal right to collect a debt from me and that the alleged debt belongs to me and is accurate : a. Any contract or agreements between me and Monterey Collections creating an alleged debt. 
b. Any contract or agreement between Monterey Collections and the alleged original creditor authorizing a debt to be collected from me. 

c. Any certified documents of reassignment between Monterey Collections and the alleged original creditor that authorizes the legal collection of any debt from me d. An itemized statement from the alleged original creditor that a debt is owed by me for an alleged business transaction to include ( 1 ) the charge-off balance and itemized principal, interest, charges and fees ; ( 2 ) itemized post charge-off interest, charges and fees ; and ( 3 ) a description of the debtors obligation to pay. 

e. A signed contract between me and the alleged original creditor bearing the signature proving a legal and binding contract actually exist. 

f. A copy of Monterey Collections business license issued by the City of Chicago that is required of any debt collection agency attempting to collect a debt on Chicago residents effective XX/XX/XXXX as defined by XXXX of the Chicago Municipal Code. 

The request for validation letter was received by Monterey Financial Services LLC on XX/XX/XXXX under XXXX certified mail # XXXX ( EXHIBIT 3 ). 
Monterey Collections responded with a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( EXHIBIT 4 ) attaching a copy of an alleged contract from XXXX XXXX containing a Truth in Lending disclosure ( EXHIBIT 5 ) and a copy of a alleged Loan Summary from XXXX XXXX ( EXHIBIT 6 ). Ignoring the request for the remainder of the reasonable documents requested by the Consumer as part of the debt validation process. 
I ( the Consumer ) then submitted a second letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( EXHIBIT 7 ) requesting the remainder of the documents I required to validate the alleged debt via XXXX certified mail # XXXX ( EXHIBIT 8 ). 
The second request for validation/verification documents were received by Monterey Collection on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX. 
Monterey Collections responded to me with a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( EXHIBIT 8A ) attaching a copy of an alleged contract from XXXX XXXX XXXX EXHIBIT 5 ) and a copy of a alleged Loan Summary from XXXX XXXX XXXX EXHIBIT 6 ) as they did in the response to the first validation letter still ignoring the additional documentation requested to prove their authority to collect a debt from me and the accuracy of said debt. 
Upon reviewing my Consumer Credit Report on I noticed that Monterey Collection Services had placed a collection/charge off on my XXXX Consumer Credit Report on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX credit report on XX/XX/XXXX negatively affecting my credit score ( EXHIBIT 9 ). 
SCHEDULE 1 ( EXHIBIT 10 ) is a XXXX XXXX amortization schedule assuming satisfactory participation in the XXXX XXXX XXXX throughout the life of the loan. This provides the timeline and amortization on a simple-interest basis with XXXX payments made at 17.99 % annual interest SCHEDULE 2 ( EXHIBIT 1XXXX ) is simply the information in the Loan Summary that Monterey Collections provided in their validation response that has been transcribed into an XXXX spreadsheet showing the current history of the alleged loan. 
SCHEDULE XXXX ( EXHIBIT XXXX ) is the analyzation and recalculated loan history based on terms and activity the XXXX XXXX contract containing a Truth in Lending disclosure ( EXHIBIT XXXX ) and Loan Summary ( EXHIBIT XXXX ) that Monterey Collections provided in their response to a debt validation request of the consumer. This is a combination of the information provided regarding payments made, mixed with recalculations based on the terms stated in the XXXX in XXXX. In this schedule, any fonts in XXXX are actual amounts or information as provided, and the XXXX fonts or yellow highlights are recalculated amounts based on terms and simple interest amortization. The summarized info in the documentation states amounts Through XX/XX/XXXX, so I have extended the schedule through that date for purposes of recalculating accrued interest and missed payments. This schedule also allows for inputting additional information at the bottom of Schedule XXXX and XXXX XXXX, as well as updating the orange highlighted thru date to arrive at new updated totals. 
The below listed factual conclusions are calculated using basic mathematics after reviewing the alleged Sapphire Resort contract containing a Truth in Lending disclosure ( EXHIBIT XXXX ) and the Loan History Report ( EXHIBIT XXXX ) submitted to me from Monterey Collections in response to my request for debt validation : Amounts are recalculated assuming participation in Sure Pay Plan through XX/XX/XXXX. For those amounts recalculated after XX/XX/XXXX, the standard payment amount is assumed. It is unclear as to what would trigger termination of participation in the XXXX, however based on the schedule it appears as the missed payment moves the required payment amounts up to the standard amount based on 18.99 % interest. 

The XXXX contract containing the XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) says that late fees are to be charged at the greater of 5 % of the payment due or {$30.00}. For the lines where a late fee was charged, this was assumed to be {$30.00} XXXX as this is greater than 5 % of the payment ), as compared to the {$25.00} that was actually charged. In the lines where a payment was returned as Not Sufficient Funds Charge, it was assumed that the actual {$15.00} fee was accurate, however nothing is stated in the Truth in Lending Disclosure related to this amount. Based on the documentation provided to me from Monterey Collections, the total fees owed related to this are {$150.00}, however the recalculation based on the above arrives at a total fees owed of {$180.00} making the TIL inaccurate. Pursuant to XXXX XXXX Code XXXX XXXX Truth in Lending ) I would like a detailed mathematical accounting explanation as to why the information provided to me by Monterey Collections does not comply with the contract containing a Truth and Lending Disclosure provided to me in response to a request for debt validation/verification. 


There are inconsistencies in how the principal and interest amounts have been allocated based on a simple interest loan amortization. The total payment owed each month is {$120.00}, which is inclusive of Principal, XXXX, and the monthly {$7.00} Impound charge as stated. With simple interest, the portion of this payment that should be charged as interest should be calculated as the beginning principal balance XXXX annual interest rate XXXX. The remaining amount left after subtracting the impound charge and interest amount from the total payment would then be applied as principal paid. It is unclear how this is being applied in the actual loan history information, however you can see the XXXX columns noted as Paid Principal and Paid Interest in Schedules XXXX and XXXX are not consistent. This data is all predicated on information provided to me from Monterey Collections as the alleged response to the debt validation request. Pursuant to XXXX XXXX Code XXXX XXXX Truth in Lending ) I would like a detailed mathematical accounting explanation as to why the information provided to me by Monterey Collections does not comply with the contract containing a Truth and Lending Disclosure provided to me in response to a request for debt validation/verification. 


In the XXXX History Report XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the stated principal remaining is {$4100.00}, however based on the recalculations, it appears as though the remaining balance should be {$4100.00}. This can be seen in row XXXX of XXXX XXXX in the End Principal column. Pursuant to XXXX XXXX Code XXXX XXXX Truth in Lending ) I would like a detailed mathematical accounting explanation as to why the information provided to me by Monterey Collections does not comply with the contract containing a Truth and Lending Disclosure provided to me in response to a request for debt validation/verification. 

In the XXXX History Report XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the stated unpaid interest is {$880.00}, however based on the recalculations, it appears as though the remaining balance should be {$850.00}. This can be seen in row XXXX of Schedule XXXX ( EXHIBIT XXXX ) in the Unpaid Interest column.Pursuant to XXXX XXXX Code XXXX XXXX Truth in Lending ) I would like a detailed mathematical accounting explanation as to why the information provided to me by Monterey Collections does not comply with the contract containing a Truth and Lending Disclosure provided to me in response to a request for debt validation/verification. 

In the XXXX History Report XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the stated equity balance is {$1800.00}, however based on the recalculations, it appears as though the balance should be {$1800.00}. This can be arrived at by adding the Principal Paid amount to the {$600.00} downpayment. Pursuant to XXXX XXXX Code XXXX XXXX Truth in Lending ) I would like a detailed mathematical accounting explanation as to why the information provided to me by Monterey Collections does not comply with the contract containing a Truth and Lending Disclosure provided to me in response to a request for debt validation/verification. 

In the XXXX History Report XXXX XXXX XXXX ), the stated amount due is {$1700.00}, however based on the recalculations, it appears as though the amount due should be {$1700.00}. This is a sum of the Unpaid Impound, Missed Payment Balance ( XXXX payment at the Sure Pay Plan amount + XXXX payments at the Standard amount ), and Late Charge Balance. The reason this is higher than the stated amount is likely due to the recalculation on the loan charge, with the assumed {$30.00} rather than {$25.00}. Pursuant to XXXX XXXX Code XXXX XXXX Truth in Lending ) I would like a detailed mathematical accounting explanation as to why the information provided to me by Monterey Collections does not comply with the contract containing a Truth and Lending Disclosure provided to me in response to a request for debt validation/verification. 


XXXX. Based on the debt collection communication documents and the documents provided in response to the debt validation request I find the following Violations. 

XXXX XXXX a ). In the letter dated XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Monterey Collections states XXXX XXXX will accept the above stated balance in full satisfaction of the debt if the payment is received by XX/XX/XXXX. Please be advised that in the event payment is not received by this XX/XX/XXXX, the above amount XXXX increase by the accrual of the addition interest and fees. I believe I was threatened with cost and fees within the 30 days required of statue from initial contact overshadowing my XXXX rights. In addition to that XXXX gave me 5 days to pay an alleged debt from date the initial letter was written and mailed which, if that was a fair option ( but it was not XXXX it would have been impossible to do because I did not receive the letter until XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX days beyond XX/XX/XXXX. Thus violating XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX. In the letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( EXHIBIT XXXX ), which is Monterey Collections response to my timely submission request for debt validation/verification. Monterey Collections Representative XXXX XXXX uses the term you had 30 days from the date you were notified by Monterey Collections that your account had been with Monterey Collections to dispute this debt. This statement by the representative infers that I ( the XXXX ) did not submit the original request for validation in a timely manner. This was a very deceptive and misleading statement and can be proven by reviewing ( EXHIBIT XXXX & XXXX ) which shows that my request for validation letter to Monterey Collections was sent and received in their offices on XX/XX/XXXX within the 30 day window required by the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act after receiving the initial communication from Monterey Collections dated XX/XX/XXXX ( EXHIBIT XXXX ). I believe the statement was an effort to convince me ( the Consumer ) that I was out of compliance with the FDCPA thus violating XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX US Code XXXX ( XXXX ). 

XXXX. In the letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( EXHIBIT XXXX ) Monterey Collections Representative XXXX XXXX states as a courtesy the requested proof of debt is attached referring to the debt validation documents that were requested in a timely manner in compliance with the FDCPA. Compliance can be established by reviewing EXHIBITS XXXX & XXXX. Part of the XXXX XXXX legal definition of courtesy is defined as a kind favor. I believe the implication of the representative in making a statement of that nature was to imply that the provision of the requested documents was not a requirement under XXXX XXXX XXXX but rather a favor the debt collector chose to do for me XXXX the XXXX XXXX This was deceptive and misleading and causes the consumer to believe that the collector is not obligated by the statue to comply with providing the consumer validation documents. This was not a courtesy but was a requirement. I believe the statement was an effort to convince me ( the Consumer ) that compliance with the FDCPA was optional and not a requirement thus violating XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX US Code XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX within the context the statement was used. 

XXXX. In the letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( EXHIBIT XXXX ) Monterey Collections Representative XXXX XXXX states any future request for proof of debt will not be responded to per your request to cease contact. This statement was both misleading and deceptive in that Monterey Collections received my request for validation letter XXXX EXHIBIT XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX in which I stated I am writing to you to demand that you cease and desist any telephone communications with me as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act XXXX XXXX XXXX Paragraph XXXX ( c ) XXXX. However, on the second page of the same letter I stated other than forwarding me via mail the aforementioned documents I request that you cease any communication with me about the alleged debt The documents requested from XXXX were : XXXX. Any contract or agreements between me and Monterey Collections creating an alleged debt. 

XXXX. Any contract or agreement between Monterey Collections and the alleged original creditor authorizing a debt to be collected from me. 

XXXX. Any certified documents of reassignment between Monterey Collections and the alleged original creditor that authorizes the legal collection of any debt from me XXXX. An itemized statement from the alleged original creditor that a debt is owed by me for an alleged business transaction to include ( XXXX ) the charge-off balance and itemized principal, interest, charges and fees ; ( XXXX ) itemized post charge-off interest, charges and fees ; and XXXX XXXX XXXX a description of the debtors obligation to pay. 

XXXX. A signed contract between me and the alleged original creditor bearing the signature proving a legal and binding contract actually exist. 

XXXX. A copy of Monterey Collections business license issued by the City of XXXX that is required of any debt collection agency attempting to collect a debt on XXXX residents effective XX/XX/XXXX as defined by XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX. Therefore XXXX XXXX Representative XXXX XXXX knew or should have known that she was making a false statement in an effort to deny me the balance of the validation/verification documents I requested as part of the debt validation process. Thus violating XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX US Code XXXX ( XXXX ), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. As further proof there was no validity to her statement she sent yet another letter dated XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX. Monterey Collections has been steadfast in their position as representatives of an alleged original creditor ( Starpoint Resorts ) .Based on the validation documents ( Truth in Lending Disclosure & Loan History Statement XXXX provided by Monterey Collections XXXX response to my debt validation request they knew or should have known that the calculations provided to me ( The Consumer ) were inaccurate according to the Truth in Lending Act. Monterey Collections should be held to the same level of accountability as the alleged original creditor because of their negligence in ensuring that the debt is legally accurate and failure to comply with XXXX statues in their debt collection activities. Monterey Collections ignored a plethora of inconsistent numerical calculations in the validation documents and totally disregards the mandates of the FDCPA thus violating my consumers rights. The most appropriate course of action against Monterey Collections for violating my consumer rights under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, Fair Credit reporting Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act is to hold accountable Monterey Financial Services LLC which, encompasses Monterey Collections. Under Civil Liability for violations of the Truth in Lending Act XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Criminal Liability for violations of the Truth in Lending Act XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Civil Liability for violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) and XXXX US Code XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), and The Fair Credit Reporting Act. Specifically the responsible parties of Monterey Financial Services LLC such as Chief XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Representative XXXX XXXX. 

XXXX. After the failure of Monterey Collections to properly respond to my request for validation and shortly thereafter they fraudulently reported the negative account on my XXXX Credit Report ( Exhibit XXXX ) significantly decreasing my credit rating. Causing me to lose access to a substantial line of credit significantly affecting my creditworthiness and ability to acquire new credit. Therefore I have suffered injury to my financial reputation and credit record. XXXX has continued to make false, deceptive, and misleading representations about the amount and status of the alleged debt they have violated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( A ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation