Consumer complaint received 2016-08-31
Product: Debt collection — Credit card
Issue: Disclosure verification of debt — Not given enough info to verify debt
Company: Law Office of Michael J. Scott, PC (VA)

On XXXX/XXXX/2016, I received a letter dated XXXX/XXXX/2016 from Scott & Associates, P.C. identifying themselves as a debt collector seeking to collect the above referenced amount from the original creditor identified as XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. I responded to this letter with correspondence dated XXXX/XXXX/2016 that specifically requested the following ; Proof of licensure to collect in my state Proof of license numbers and XXXX XXXX The original creditor 's contract with signatures or a certified copy of the original contract ( certified by the original creditor 's custodian of records ) ; and A letter of assignment ( evidence of ownership of the debt ). 
I received correspondence from Scott & Associates, P.C. dated XXXX/XXXX/2016 that included several printouts of credit card statements, but none of what I requested in my correspondence dated XXXX/XXXX/2016. I responded with correspondence dated XXXX/XXXX/2016 requesting that their office confirm they are legally entitled to collect the debt they are seeking by sending the items requested in my correspondence dated XXXX/XXXX/2016. 

After sending my correspondence dated XXXX/XXXX/2016, I received XXXX different letters from Scott & Associates, P.C. all dated XXXX/XXXX/2016. One letter states the following ; " Our office received notification of a dispute regarding the above mentioned account. For us to properly address your concern, we will need more information in writing about the nature of your dispute. '' I am unsure as to this request, because my correspondence dated XXXX/XXXX/2016 and XXXX/XXXX/2016 clearly state my needs. The second and third letters are identical and both state the following ; " Previously we verified the above referenced debt with copies of related documents ; a measure that is above and beyond what is required. '' The difference between the second and third letters is that only one included enclosures. These enclosures were a copy of a credit card statement and XXXX pages of an Account Summary Report. In regards to the statement that Scott & Associates, P.C. " verified '' the referenced debt, the credit card statement enclosures do not suffice as proof that their office is able to legally collect the debt. 

On XXXX/XXXX/2016, I received a letter dated XXXX/XXXX/2016 from XXXX XXXX XXXX identifying themselves as a debt collector seeking to collect {$650.00}. As stated earlier, I had already received correspondence from Scott & Associates, P.C. identifying themselves as a debt collector and demanding payment. I also stated that one of the three letters from their office included a XXXX page Account Summary Report. This report notes, " This account summary has been prepared by XXXX XXXX XXXX on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX. It is not a credit card or other account statement from the original creditor. '' This statement seems to suggest that both companies are aware of each other and related/working together, however, given the fact that XXXX XXXX XXXX ' correspondence dated XXXX/XXXX/2016 includes the debt validation notice printed at the bottom suggests that they are in fact a company separate from Scott & Associates, P.C. that is also demanding payment for the alleged {$650.00} debt.