Consumer complaint received 2018-04-14
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: BQ & Associates, P.C., L.L.O. (MO)

Dear Brumbaugh & Quandahl Thank you for your response. There are 6 intentional point Brumbaugh & Quandahl has not responded to which I am clearly bringing to light. After reviewing their letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. Here are the areas they have failed to respond. 
1. No letter was presented dated XX/XX/XXXX as alleged by them on their XX/XX/XXXX letter. ( Letter in which they alleged XX/XX/XXXX is attached ). Instead of them to apologize and admit error they have instead become silent on it, but presented another implicatory letter they received on a date they claimed XXXX XXXX called to make payment arrangement but payment arrangement was not made, yet after that letter requesting for validation they kept pursuing the alleged debt as evidence from the dated letter. 

2. Brumbaugh & Quandahl creates debt as evidence from the proof they have sent about the alleged {$12000.00}, none of the letter or evidence shows how they arrived at that amount. In their failure they have presented a non existing default judgement which they have sent twice, that does not speak to the current amount or mentioned XXXX XXXX name in which they were demanding. 

3. In Brumbaugh & Quandahl desperation they have presented as Exhibit 2, what can not be currently verified by the Court clerk. But instead a dated information not relevant to the case of how they created the debts. 

4. Brumbaugh & Quandahl demands {$12.00}, XXXX for an alleged debt for which no proof of said debt, nor proof of ownership of said debt, has been verified and exhibited. 

5. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Actstates that the debt collector can not collect any amount of money that is not authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. Because there is no agreement between the Brumbaugh & Quandahl and the alleged debtor, no collection can be sustained. 


6. XXXX XXXX is without knowledge as to the accuracy of any company named XXXX XXXX XXXX which Brumbaugh & Quandahl mentioned and as such denies the allegation that Brumbaugh & Quandahl claimed that XXXX XXXX XXXX awarded a judgement to XXXX XXXX. Please provide such company and evidence that I have ever had anything to do with XXXX XXXX XXXX as you alleged ( Letter of the named company you mentioned is attached ). 



The evidence you provided shows how you have violated Section 809. Validation of debts, read below : If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection ( a ) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. 

In your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, to the CFPB, you claimed XXXX XXXX sent you a letter onXX/XX/XXXX, to which XXXX XXXX, in part, alleged identity fraud. XXXX clearly denies such letter dated XX/XX/XXXX and requested for evidence since it is claimed all the mail sent to you is certified. In your response you became silent to the dispute and never mentioned what you alleged. Instead you presented Exhibit 1 as evidence to that letter and it was not dated XX/XX/XXXX which you claimed. The letter on further review never claimed in part, that XXXX XXXX was alleging being a victim of identity fraud, it was a validation letter requesting for proof of the alleged debt as required by Federal law. Please refer to the letter and read it carefully to understand the content. 

Without dismissing the registration request which Brumbaugh & Quandahl has provided about their ability to operate business in Missouri. Although Brumbaugh & Quandahl have previously violated Missouri Tax laws in violation of Section 3251.481, however, they are currently in good standing, but the unanswered question is whether they are licensed to operate in the capacity in which they are operating as a debt-collector agent by consistently violating federal laws which I have consistently pointed out in my complaint. 


Again, the letter ( Exhibit1 ) Brumbaugh & Quandahl presented destroyed their claim in their letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, in which they state that XXXX XXXX called XX/XX/XXXX to make a payment arrangement, you never responded to it either because evidence was requested from you which you have failed to provide. 

Based on the evidence Brumbaugh & Quandahl have provided, it is apparent they are in clear violation of Section 809, because when a debt is disputed and validation requested, all collections cease, but they received a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX which they have provided and never validated the debt, but instead went about collection activities. Trying to effect a collection on a disputed debt is a clear violation of Federal Law. 

Again, XXXX XXXX have questioned your attention to details and your lack of trustworthiness in being able to identify the original creditor. Your letters identified two original creditors as evidence from your letters in which none have XXXX XXXX name on either, or both of them. 

Furthermore, you presented Exhibit 2. The affidavit does not provide the foundation to testify that this file was accurate, or complete, or reliable for later use by Brumbaugh & Quandahl The reorganization of the ordinary data into a culled data file to be transferred to another file created non-ordinary business data that falls outside of the rules of I.R.E 902 ( 11 ) and I.R.E. 803 ( 6 ), making Brumbaugh & Quandahl Affidavit inadmissible.It is clear on the website that This information is provided as service and is not considered an official court record. 


Brumbaugh & Quandahl fails to note it is not an official court record but informational, and as such can not be used as evidence. Until you present a valid signed copy from the court clerk before such admittance will be valid. As at the time you sent the letter to XXXX XXXX, he was not representing XXXX XXXX same with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was not being represented by you. Presenting outdated information irrelevant to the case is almost like presenting how Brumbaugh & Quandahl failed to filed taxes in in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX as they were prerestated after being in violation of Missouri State laws for failure to file taxes ( Evidence attached from State Website ( XXXX ). 

The FDCPA is a strict liability statute intended to be liberally construed to protect consumers ( XXXX v. XXXX. XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir XXXX ). Scienter is not an element of proving an FDCPA violation. Misleading or deceptive representations made as a result of carelessness or negligence are actionable under the FDCPA. All a court needs to find for an FDCPA violation is that the communications from the debt buyer to the consumer would have been misleading to the least sophisticated consumer ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ). 

In summary, Exhibit 1, Never showed XXXX XXXX alleged fraud and it was not written or sent XX/XX/XXXX which you alleged. 
Exhibit 2, is not admissible because it can not be validated by the clerk and Brumbaugh & Quandahl was not named in it, it is irrelevant to the case and your company policy is not binding on XXXX XXXX because you are not related by any contract, neither is XXXX XXXX obligated to abide by your unilateral usage of some self-serving terms. 

Exhibit 3 never showed a default judgement by a company named XXXX XXXX XXXX which you alleged obtain a default judgement of {$12000.00} in violation of federal laws which you are trying to claim. 
In Brumbaugh & Quandahl submitted documents and brief there are two contradictory Balances which Brumbaugh & Quandahl claims XXXX XXXX owes, in Exhibit 1 for {$7400.00} and in Exhibit 2 for {$12.00}, XXXX, demonstrating thereby a lack of sufficient indicia of trustworthiness for accounting in this instance to be considered reliable ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ).