Consumer complaint received 2016-09-08
Product: Debt collection — Credit card
Issue: False statements or representation — Indicated shouldn't respond to lawsuit
Company: PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES INC (TX)

I am a consumer as defined by the FDCPA who is filing his complaint against a third party debt collector doing business as Portfolio Recovery Associates , LLC. ( Respondent ) headquartered in XXXX, XXXX. This complaint is regarding Respondent 's claim of their alleged previous purchase of a charged off consumer debt from the original creditor " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' and their collection efforts including excepting payments from me then filing a lawsuit against me for non-payment of the debt. Once Respondent filed suit, they failed to prove they owned the debt at trial. 
The Respondent knowingly and intentionally bypassed XXXX Justice Court Section 8 Rule 577 parts ( 3 ) ( 5 ) ( 6 ) ( 7 ) ( 9b1 ) and recently filed CFPB Consumer Finance Protection Bureau Consent Order paragraphs XXXX and XXXX so as to proceed through the State Court judicial system to trial with a malicious, fraudulent, false and misleading original petition that did not have the required evidence showing rightful ownership of the debt sought. 
See letter of documented payments as Exhibit A See Respondents Original Petition as Exhibit B See Justice Court Section 8 Rule 577 with parts ( 3 ) ( 5 ) ( 6 ) ( 7 ) ( 9b1 ) as Exhibit C The CFPB filed a Consent Order on XXXX XXXX, XXXX against Respondent for filing deceptive lawsuits against consumers. The Respondent knowingly ignored and violated the Consent Order by proceeding four months later to trial without providing me with documentation proving debt ownership before any legal action was to be taken as mandated in paragraphs XXXX and XXXX of the XXXX XXXX. See CFPB Consent Order Paragraphs 119 and 120 ( e ) -4 pages as Exhibit D XXXX to XXXX The Respondent 's Original Petition also contained a plea for monetary relief of {$100000.00} on a defaulted debt of {$4800.00} they allegedly purchased for pennies on the dollar. The {$100000.00} dollar demand grossly exceeded the jurisdictional limits of the Justice Court ceiling of {$10000.00} dollars and was a gross malicious attack against me. See Exhibit B under B. Jurisdiction The Respondent did not sue on my credit card account as they never mentioned my actual account number of which I made my payments to them in their Original Petition. 
See Exhibit B of D. Facts At trial, I made my opening statement with objections claiming the Respondent 's Original Petition lacked standing and raised XXXX points that supported my objections ; 1. I do not recognize the account number in the petition. 2. Respondent failed to comply with Section 8 Rule 577 of Justice Court Rules 3. Respondent failed to comply with CFPB Consent Order paragraphs XXXX and XXXX and 4. Relief of {$100000.00} sought in Respondent 's Original Petition exceeded the jurisdictional limits of the Court. 
The Judge hearing the case ruled in my favor by sustaining my objections. 
The Respondent 's attorney afterward spoke with the Judge and motioned to dismiss the complaint for non-suit and refiling and the Judge sustained the Respondents motion as well. 
See Order Granting Notice of Non-Suit dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX as Exhibit E. 
After the trial, Respondent never sent the required documentation proving they owned the debt and failed to comply with CFPB paragraphs XXXX and XXXX and never refiled their lawsuit after being contested by me at trial. They obviously never intended to prove their claim of ownership against me if contested. As a result, the Respondent knowingly violated CFPB Consent order paragraphs XXXX and XXXX and committed deceptive acts that were false and misleading by not following up with re-filing their complaint after being contested by me. See CFPB paragraphs XXXX,XXXX,XXXX,XXXX as Exhibits F & F2 The time limits for full compliance of paragraphs XXXX and XXXX as required by CFPB paragraph XXXX have expired and the Respondent never complied with XXXX and XXXX. The Respondent 's claim against me was never proven to be valid and remains unresolved.