Consumer complaint received 2024-06-28
Product: Debt collection — Telecommunications debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: MRS BPO, LLC (OH)

On XX/XX/XXXX I reviewed my credit report with XXXX. I had noticed a collection item was placed on there for XXXX in the amount of {$2400.00}. Account number displayed was XXXX. I called the collections agency which was named MRSBPO with a phone number XXXX advised the rep who answered there are multiple violations regarding the FCRA. Section 609 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) & Section 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ). Furthermore you XXXX has failed to provide the method of verification as required under Section 611 ( a ) ( 7 ). Please be advised that under Section 611 ( 5 ) ( A ) of the FCRA you are required to promptly DELETE all information which can not be verified. Also MRSBPO did not send me a letter in writing to give me any notice of such debt. They are legally to send me a letter in writing allowing me 30 days to dispute the validity of a debt in which they did not. They put it on my credit report with no notice. I requested proof bearing any documents with my signature on it with MRSBPO company documents or any letterhead. They have been unable to provide proof of my signature on any of thier company documents. 

PLEASE FURTHER DISCLOSURE Under federal regulations this does not qualify as a " valid verification of debt ". I have previously sent you a request to validate my debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and all I received was an itemized list of the alleged charges you claim I owe you. This does not meet the Federal Trade Commissions guidelines of what constitutes proper debt validation. In addition, in the case of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), the court ruled that : 15 U.S.C . 1692g ( b ) ( emphasis added ). On XX/XX/XXXX, nineteen days after the date of XXXX debt collection letter, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  sent XXXX a letter declaring that XXXX disputes your debt collection-related allegations, denies the same, and demands strict proof and verification thereof. Record at 21. As such, XXXX should have ceased his debt collection efforts immediately upon receiving that letter. Instead, XXXX proceeded to obtain a default judgment against XXXX on the debt collection claim before he had mailed XXXX the necessary verification and, thus, violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). XXXX maintains, however, that there was no violation of the FDCPA because he sent adequate verification of the debt [ to XXXX ] in the XX/XX/XXXX notice of claim. Brief of Appellee at 13. Specifically, XXXX claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between XXXX and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). We can not agree. The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of XXXX loan, including a 17.99 % annual interest rate and the original loan amount of {$2500.00}. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by XXXX, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once XXXX stopped making the required payments. Indeed, the existing unpaid contract balance at the time XXXX sent the debt collection notice was at least {$350.00} more than the original loan amount.