Consumer complaint received 2017-07-24
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Told you not to respond to a lawsuit they filed against you
Company: Law Office of Michael J. Scott, PC (TX)

A. Problem history synopsis : Medical ER visit in XX/XX/XXXX, got behind in payments. Final payment in XXXX which lasted until XXXX XXXX, then account charged off and went to collections for 30 days, then collection attorney. XXXX XXXX XXXX was told about medical hardship in XXXX before charge off several times as was the nonprofit and the attorney later. XXXX XXXX XXXX was asked to provide forbearance arrangements but none were offered or responded to. B. Dunning Letter issued in XXXX around 40 days after charge off. Call was attempted to dispute amount. C. Scott Associates filed a lawsuit filing in my County civil ( lower court ). XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX V. MY NAME D. I attempted to have account placed on Debt Management Plan DMP with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I had an account with before. XXXX XXXX took my money, told me in writing that I could show the DMP to the judge to waive and dismiss the suit, and then sent the money with a proposal to Bank. The Bank kept the money and said " no '' to the proposal since it was " in legal. '' E. I have a phone call documented and recorded with XXXX XXXX XXXX in which customer service representative who may have told me it was an attempt to collect a debt nevertheless told me they did not " own it '' anymore, implying that they sold it to XXXX XXXX and or Scott & Associates. It turns out that the Bank still owns it and the collection attorney only represents them. F. Call # 1 to collection attorney phone call documented and recorded : Scott & Associates representative coercing payment and arrangement plans against a default judgement that did not exist. Extended payment plan offered where the " judgement '' would stay and not be removed. " No other options '' existed etc. The color of law used against me to extract payment and collect a debt. My due process rights were usurped and obfuscated. The color of the law of a default judgement was used against me in order to collect a debt. Because Scott & Associates obfuscated and clouded my rights as a consumer with a false statement about a judgement which did not exist I did not have any moment to present an attorney for them to speak to. This was especially apparent with second phone call. G. Second Call # 2 to collection attorney I asked again about an extended payment plan so I asked for a copy of that to review. They told me I had 30 days to get it back to them, however upon receiving the balance was incorrect and wrong. The paperwork had to be back in 10-14 days. The time passed due to the time that the proposal took to be mailed to me. So that passed due to fact I had a car accident. This customer service representative told me " to shred and or tear up any lawsuit notification service papers that I might receive. '' This constitutes advice by Scott & Associates such that they told me not to respond to a lawsuit they filed against me which would mean losing the lawsuit by default. Furthermore, because the first call ( point F above ) purported a default judgement against me, I was NOT able to seek advice of an attorney, thereby once again losing not only my consumer rights but my constitutional rights as an American citizen. H. Many faxes sent to Scott Collection attorney : ( 1 ) general dispute, ( 2 ) dispute of balance on " agreed judgement '' as well as deceptive timelines for due dates given by Call # 2 & paperwork, ( 3 ) dispute # 3 asking for information regarding all credit cards ' lines which were consolidated into the present & original origination details including state of origination and copy of original application, ( 4 ) simple letter asking for a new agreed judgement with correct balance to review for consideration. No disputes were responded or handled correctly. I received one call from XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX in North Carolina. It was not clear what his phone call was about. I have disputed both the original debt accuracy via fax directly to XXXX XXXX XXXX and Scott & Associates. They did not respond. I disputed the accuracy of both their original stated balance due as well as the balance listed on the agreed judgement papers since I have had made several payments since XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX. I. Improper ( potentially illegal ) servicing techniques and Talking to a 3rd party about my debt : Visit # 1 -  XXXX dropped off a person to my wife 's brother in law. They told him they had papers from Bank. Brother-in-law asked to see them. Courier showed them to him the paperwork showing XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX vs MY NAME Visit # 2 - lady drove to my parents house. Video exists of visitor showing paperwork to my mother who can confirm that the Bank 's name and my name were on the papers such that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX vs. MY NAME. These visits to 3rd parties were made to look like they were trying to find me, but they were really pressuring and embarrassing me in order to retrieve signature to the agreed judgement as described above G. Please note : My mother had night terrors for 3 days after this visit. She is XXXX years old. J. No agreed judgement was signed nor agreed to because the balance was incorrect. Also, the first Scott & Associates employee who called me, XXXX XXXX, was documented on phone as saying there was a default judgement which would not be removed unless I paid in one payment, two payment or a four payment arrangement. This turned out to be false. The balance was never verified or corrected and I find this to be completely deceptive to me the consumer. K. Other Violations of Texas debt collection practices : 1. Texas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act part 392.202 violations occurred include parts ( A ) & ( B ) upon points 1, 2 & 3. 2. Requirement to provide address to send payment during phone calls attempting to collect on a debt in Texas : On no phone call by Scott & Associates or phones calls going back to XXXX with XXXX XXXX XXXX and or XXXX XXXX was an address provided for sending payment. This presented a highly ambiguous, deceptive, and confusing path of becoming compliant especially before and right after the charge-off period. L. Suit by Scott & Associates did not provide any customary 2 week notice and was done without properly notifying me.