An illegal debt collection action was brought against me, the consumer, by a debt collector acting as an attorney. Months later, that debt collector was replaced by another debt collector, also acting as an attorney. 

Neither debt collector communicated with me about the " changing of the guard ''. I had no notice of that happening, at least not when it took place. However, I later learned, via the public trustee 's public website, that a new ( replacement ) debt collector was spearheading the collection effort. 

I sent a notice to the new debt collector, asking, " who are you '', and to please provide verification and validation for the debt you claim that I own to you or your alleged client. The debt collector sent a dunning letter, and what was supposed to be verification and validation. 

The dunning letter was not an original communication as described in the FDCPA, or so this consumer believes. The notice to the public trustee, indirect as it was, was the initial communication, and it was to a third party. It contained no disclosures. I believe that had I not inadvertently come across the notice to the public trustee, I would never have learned of the replacement debt collector. 

The debt collector did not have my prior consent to disclose or acquire any location information, or to record or disseminate any information regarding the alleged debt. 
The Debt Collector subsequently sent me two notices, the first communication ( s ) sent directly to me. One was a dunning letter, the other was an attempt to provide verification and validation. I believe that neither notice rises to the level of " initial communication, '' the initial communication was the notice to the public trustee. 

The debt collector presented me with with false evidence in the form of electronic " data '', just information, not factual evidence of an alleged debt that could sufficiently discern some alleged obligation this consumer owed to the debt collector or to the person allegedly represented. The " data '' presented was redacted, incomplete, insufficient, nothing more than third-party depictions, bearing not a bit of factual evidence to support debt collector 's claim of some amount due and owing. The " data '' proffered as verification was not at all times relevant, nor was it sworn under oath. The debt collector never provided me with documents that rise to the level of " Original Account-Level Documentation. '' The debt collector 's alleged client, the one claimed as my creditor, was no more a creditor of mine than was the debt collector itself. The debt collector offered no proof via verification and validation showing otherwise. This consumer remains confused by these false and/or misleading representations. 

For a second time, I sent the debt collector a communication styled " Notice of Dispute, Demand for Verification and Validation of Alleged Debt. '' The debt collector responded, but neither verification nor validation were forthcoming in that communication, nothing. 

There is more to this than I have room for with this first attempt to present my case/situation. My consumer goods in the form of real property, was seized and sold at foreclosure. Subsequently I filed a lawsuit, a verified claim, against the debt collector in the United States District Court. The action continues.