Consumer complaint received 2021-10-14
Company: SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL
State: MI
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: I do not know
Issue: False statements or representation
Sub-issue: Attempted to collect wrong amount

Complaint:
Next, in regards to the statements made in those counts 2-4, I can not verify as true for several reasons. The first reason is that I have made SEVERAL requests for the contract signed by me, as well as the reconciliation of the said account that the plaintiff is alleging I owe. These requests have been made to both Synchrony Bank as well as the office representing the plaintiff on various occasions. They have FAILED to supply me with such information and honor my which is a clear and repeated failure of both FCRA and the FDCPA. 

Additionally, the plaintiff goes on to make the FALSE statement in count 5 that there were no objections made regarding the validity and proof of indebtedness of the said account. The letters to prove the validation debt in accordance to the law has never been provided. It is unclear why the office representing the plaintiff knowingly made a false statement regarding this in the summons. 


Furthermore, the plaintiff goes forward in outright lying to state that did not object to the accuracy nor has the Defendant ( s ) raised a legally recognized objection in this matter. The fact of the matter is in addition to over 20 calls to the said creditor, written objections regarding this account has in fact been made to not only the said creditor, but the office representing the original creditor in XXXX. At that time, I was not in any way contacted by the current office that has submitted the summons regarding the said debt. 
I have no legal proof that this office is permitted by law outside of this summons to collect on the said debt. Such is my legal right under Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) as well as the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act governed by the Federal Trade Commission. 
These letters were mailed first-class, and have not been returned to me as of date. I have enclosed a copy of these letters for your review. IF the plaintiff has attempted to contact me by mail, I demand verifiable proof in writing to be provided to be for my personal and legal review. 

Likewise, it is important to note that the following request for validation of the debt was made by myself or, a third-party company legally authorized to make such request ( s ) on my behalf : XX/XX/XXXX request to Synchony Bank XX/XX/XXXX request to Synchony Bank XX/XX/XXXX request to Synchony Bank XX/XX/XXXX request to Synchony Bank XX/XX/XXXX request to Synchony Bank From XXXX XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX request to Synchony Bank XX/XX/XXXX XXXXequest to Synchony Bank XX/XX/XXXX request to Synchony Bank XX/XX/XXXX request to Synchony Bank XX/XX/XXXX XXXX to Synchony Bank XX/XX/XXXX request to Synchony Bank XX/XX/XXXX request to Synchony Bank Again , there have been NUMEROUS attempts to lawfully and timely request validation of the said debt. It is also important to note that the same request was made to a previous law office regarding this manner. Oddly, both office that practice debt collection can not seemingly provide with such a simple request that has spun nearly a two-year time frame. Moreover, as previously stated, because the current office representing the plaintiff has failed to provide me with such information, I can not assume that they have ANY legal capacity to collect on the said debt. Per FCRA and the FDCPA, the documentation that has been requested time and time again has not been provided, thus violating several of my consumer rights. I am sure as attorneys who have passed the State Bar Exam and practice in the field of debt collections they are well versed in educated in knowing that a billing statement in no ways validates a debt or merits their legal ability to collect on such. 

In addition, this office has never communicated their interest in the said debt until the transaction with your court. While again, this office has not communicated in any fashion, they filed a summons on XX/XX/XXXX in regards to the said debt. The summons state the defendant copy on page 3, YET I have not received any mail from this office prior to the summons. Thus, highlighting another failure and violation. Either by deliberate actions or failure, this office did not provide process service while attaching the defendants copy to your summons. The defendants copy is dated for XX/XX/XXXX yet, I was not made aware of such until this information was provided this by a process server on XX/XX/XXXX. It is unclear what transpired with the defendants copy dated XX/XX/XXXX was not provided to the defendant until 52 days later. Additionally, the defendants copy provided to your court is vague at best. I highlight that anytime communications were sent regarding this issue, a timely response was sent on my behalf. This begs to display that this office does not properly serve court documentation as required by law. 

Until this date, I had no idea of the name of this office, their practice capacity, or their authority to even act as a debt collector in the State of Michigan. It is unclear of how or why the office would submit court paperwork without listing the name of the said firm. It is unclear as to why several requests made about the said debt was not communicated with the office the original creditor retained to collect on the said debt. What is obvious is either there is a gross failure of communication between the office and their alleged client, or, the office disregards such communication and requests in the hopes to profit from them. 

As I was concerned by the unethical practices by this office, I began to do some personal discovery on my own. I found that the name of office is XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and the Law Offices of XXXX XXXX. What I found is that this national firm consistently had multiple violates of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. I have also found that they were sued for the EXACT unethical practices in the US District Court here in Michigan in XX/XX/XXXX. But what is MOST concerning is that, the obviously outsourced company used by PPC deliberately misrepresented how payments were going to be applied to the account and that status of the said account. These representatives repeatedly said that the payments would be applied to the account and keep the account from going delinquent. However this was not the case. When made aware of the misrepresentation of the representatives, it was claimed they did not have any notes of this. However all calls are recorded, supposedly.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation