Consumer complaint received 2021-08-24
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: NY
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed
Sub-issue: Debt is not yours

Complaint:
On XX/XX/XXXX JPMORGAN CHASE & CO ( referred to as JPMC ) a debt collector pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1692a ( 6 ) has written a response through the bureau ( defined under 15 U.S. Code 1692a ( 1 ) ) to the consumer and Original Creditor. The response claims " We confirmed the debt associated with your accounts ending in XXXX and XXXX are valid. '' May I ask how they were validated, pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( a ) or 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( b )? The sentence immediately following that states, " We own the accounts .... '' If JPMC owns the accounts, how are they asking to have a XXXX XXXX consumer pay an alleged obligation that has not been verified or can be proven by contract the alleged obligation is lawfully owed? 

These accounts are an incident of a natural person granting credit to a debtor to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment, pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1602 ( f ). I must add that a 'creditor ' refers only to a person and pursuant to the TILA, the term person means a natural person ; 15 U.S. Code 1602 ( e ) lawfully supports that. 

JPMC has proved they have gotten my cease and desist, but is not honoring it pursuant to my right under, 15 U.S. Code 1692c ( c ). JPMC states, " Your accounts were previously updated with a cease and desist on XX/XX/XXXX. This means no outbound calls or mail are sent to you unless we are responding to your initiated action or escalation. Monthly statements will continue to be sent on your pre-charge off accounts. '' Okay, under the FDCPA 15 U.S. Code 1692a ( 2 ) communication means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium. So, why would JPMC deceive me into thinking ceasing communication relates ONLY to outbound calls or mails? From my understating of the FDCPA, 15 U.S. Code 1692c ( a ) clearly states, " Without the prior consent of the consumer given directly to the debt collector ... a debt collector may not communicate with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt .... '' My original cease and desist was received by JPMC on XX/XX/XXXX. 15 U.S. Code 1692c ( c ) states If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except for, 15 U.S. Code 1692c ( c ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ). I have attached a screenshot of this statue and code ; I made the bureau aware of this violation on XX/XX/XXXX case number XXXX. Congress has written explicitly what kind of communication shall come after a cease and desist, why would JPMC attempt to sway me into thinking differently? What lawfully established claim does JPMC cite in regard to my cease and desist? 

JPMC has known since XX/XX/XXXX of cease and desist according my green return receipt accompanied by tracking number XXXX - USPS. I also included this as an attachment. Communication, directly or indirectly should have lawfully stopped. Why does XXXX continue to communicate with me indirectly through the 3 major Consumer Reporting Agencies? That is a violation, isn't it? I asked for it to communication to cease and desist, kindly. 

JPMC states in their CFPB response, " The information we are sending to the credit-reporting agencies match our records. '' Pursuant t 15 U.S. Code 1692d ( 1 ) is looking to harm my reputation by indirectly speaking on private matters where congress has already identified, " There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. That was 15 U.S. Code 1692 ( a ). I asked for communication to stop with me through ANY and ALL mediums. 

JPMC states in their CFPB response on 8/23/2021, " Monthly statements will continue to be sent on your pre-charge off accounts. '' They continue to state, " The alleged facts and statements in your letter are legally insufficient, without merit, and do not require a response. '' As a consumer, I deem that to be obscene and profane language pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1692d ( 2 ). Does JPMC assume they may take adverse action against. consumer and charge off my account? 

JPMC states in their CFPB response on XX/XX/XXXX, " we are not required to verify the validity of the debt under oath and, therefore, decline to do so. '' JPMC has adhered to my request for validation on XXXX XXXX, XXXX by mail by only sending ( 1 ) the amount of the debt ; ( 2 ) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. What happened the mention of ( 3 ), ( 4 ) and ( 5 ) of that same statue? Validation is supposed to happen within five days after the initial communication with me a consumer, in connection with the collection of any alleged obligation, a debt collector, in this case JPMC shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication send the consumer a written notice with ( 5 ) a statement that, upon the consumers written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor ; pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( a ) ( b ) I submitted request for VERIFICATION pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1692g ( b. The NAME and ADDRESS of the Original Creditor ( pursuant 15 U.S. Code 1602 ( i ) ) was my specific demand. Tracking via USPS is XXXX and its contents are attached. JPMC claims " We own the accounts ... '' but, do they really and can they prove that lawfully? 

JPMC states in their CFPB response on XX/XX/XXXX, " We also confirmed you paid for the services of a debt settlement company to settle the debt on your behalf. This charge was made on XX/XX/XXXX, for {$1000.00} to XXXX on your account ending XXXX. '' Firstly, that was an invasion of my privacy. Nonetheless, I have attached screenshots confirming I purchased books, three to be exact. They are educational tools open to the public on XXXX as well ; please see attached. I did not understand what a " debt settlement company '' is so I had to study a bit more ; I have attached my findings about this as well. JPMC is belittling my knowledge as a consumer and is looking to discourage me from exercising my rights as a federally protected consumer, again. 

As a consumer, I deem that to be obscene and profane language pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1692d ( 2 ) because it is not backed by fact or Federal Law. Can JPMC provide proof of the process used to confirm that false statement? If JPMC can not, it has again tried to harass and abuse my knowledge gained, pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1692d ( 1 ).

Lastly, based on previous correspondence with JPMC it is as if I am speaking to a minor ; I deem it necessary to define person, credit and creditor in the same order Congress did in Title 15 Chapter 41. Pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1602 ( e ) person - means a natural person ; pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1602 ( f ) credit - means the right granted by a creditor to a debtor to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment ; This leaves me to define creditor. Pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1602 ( g ) the term creditor refers only to a person who both ( 1 ) regularly extends, whether in connection with loans, sales of property or services, or otherwise, consumer credit which is payable by agreement in more than four installments or for which the payment of a finance charge is or may be required, and ( 2 ) is the person to whom the debt arising from the consumer credit transaction is initially payable on the face of the evidence of indebtedness or, if there is no such evidence of indebtedness, by agreement. See attachments for further proof of what Congress wrote and this all boils down to unauthorized use, meaning a use of a credit card by a person other than the cardholder who does not have actual, implied, or apparent authority for such use AND from which the cardholder receives no benefit. 

There is no benefit to me the consumer and original creditor if I am alleged obligated to pay on this account. Especially since consideration has already been made.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation