Complaint sub-issue: Debt is not mine

Dear BWW LAW GROUP , L LC ( " BWW '' )  : On  XXXX / XXXX /  XXXX   I received a communication from you dated  XXXX / XXXX /  XXXX  .     Your letter states : Our firm has been informed by the  Servicer  that as of  XXXX   XXXX ,   XXXX  , the amount of the debt is {$260000.00}.     Your letter further states " This is not a demand for payment '', yet includes in bold print an " IMPORTANT NOTICE '' stating, " This communication is from a debt collector attempting to collect a debt... Unless you dispute the validity of the debt, or a portion thereof... this firm will assume the debt is valid. '' [ Emphasis added ] I found your communication to be confusing, misleading and deceptive. I am aware that BWW is in the regular business of collecting debt in the state of Virginia, and that because BWW " regularly collects or attempts to collect debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another '', using the mails and other instrumentalities of interstate commerce, pursuan t 15 USC 1692a ( 6 )  BWW is a " debt collector ''.     It is also notable that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 's ( " FDCPA '' or " Act '' ) definition of debt collector does not include any requirement that a debt collector be engaged in an activity by which it makes a " demand for payment '', in order for its misrepresentations or other prohibited conduct to be actionable. In other words, because BWW regularly collects or attempts to collect debts allegedly owed another ( i.e., is a " debt collector  '' ), the fact that you allege your communication " is not a demand for payment '' in no way immunizes BWW from liability for misrepresentations you made or other behavior prohibited by the FDCPA when collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt directly or indirectly. To the contrary to violate the FDCPA, a debt collector needs only to have used a prohibited practice " in connection with the collection of any debt '' or in an " attempt to collect any debt. '' Your communication is confusing, misleading, and deceptive, because the statement " This is not a demand for payment '' creates confusion and uncertainty about the need to respond and about the true nature of the risk associated with not responding. Your letter creates the false impression that because it purportedly is not a demand for payment failing to respond is inconsequential. Yet, on the other hand your communication admits that failing to " dispute the validity of the debt '' would result in BWW  assuming the alleged debt is valid -- an assumption that could impact the   Consumer negatively.
For example, an incorrect assumption about the validity of the alleged debt if unrebutted would leave the Consumer vulnerable to fraudulent activity, like the furnishing of forged financial instruments and other documents for the purpose of fabricating the appearance of a secured interest in the Consumer 's personal dwelling and homestead ( an interest that otherwise can not exist absent a valid debt ). Next, the attempt to collect the alleged debt could potentially escalate into so call foreclosure proceedings and the possible illegitimate dispossession of the Consumer 's personal dwelling and homestead via illegal asset forfeiture, which may have been avoided if not for deceptive and confusing debt collection communication. This is precisely why the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors   from using " misleading representations ''.     It is a fact that BWW is a " debt collector '' and was directly or indirectly attempting to collect an alleged debt in behalf of its principal  ( s )   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX ,  XXXX   XXXX  "  XXXX  '' ) the alleged Servicer, and/or  XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX , AS TRUSTEE OF  XXXX    XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   XXXX   '' ), the alleged creditor, when mailing its communication to the Consumer.      XXXX   and/or   XXXX , who are also both debt  collectors  as defined under the FDCPA, have contracted