Consumer complaint received 2024-03-03
Product: Debt collection — Payday loan debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: Ratchford Law Group, P.C. (PA)

FDCPA Violation Regarding Ratchford Law Group 's Ledger Discrepancy and Mismanagement of Debt Records by XXXX XXXX and Ratchford Law Group I am filing a complaint against XXXX XXXX and Ratchford Law Group due to significant discrepancies and mismanagement of debt records, specifically concerning the ledger prepared by Ratchford Law Group for an amended complaint on XX/XX/XXXX after already filing a lawsuit on expired alleged debt. On XX/XX/XXXX, while they were creating a document to submit for litigation in an amended complaint, this ledger listed XXXX ( a company that no longer exists ) instead of Truist ( who emerged into the financial market on XX/XX/XXXX ), demonstrating a serious lapse in record-keeping and transparency, which violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and reaffirms the fact that I never received any notice or communications at all from XXXX or Ratchford Law Group . 

Neither XXXX nor Ratchfor Law Group ever communicated with me or ever gave any notice at all or any communications at post-merger and entity amendment between XXXX and XXXX & XXXX to form Truist on XX/XX/XXXX. This involves XXXX, which was a subsidiary of XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I was served with a debt collection lawsuit in XXXX XXXX, Pennsylvania. It was served on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint under Pa.R.C.P. XXXX against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXstead of responding, filed an amended complaint. On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed Preliminary Objections to the amended complaint under Pa.R.C.P. XXXX against XXXX XXXX. The statute of limitations bars XXXX XXXX XXXX  claim. In Pennsylvania, per XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, actions upon a contract must be commenced within XXXX years. However, XXXX XXXX in what's tantamount to legal bullying, filed a lawsuit anyhow in violation of the FDCPA. 

The last payment to XXXX, per XXXX XXXX XXXX  own XXXX XXXX, was on XX/XX/XXXX. No subsequent payments are recorded on XXXX 's XXXX ledger, and the account statement dated XX/XX/XXXX, demonstrates a delinquency of 73 days at that time. XXXXXXXX XXXX  did not file its lawsuit until XX/XX/XXXX and it wasn't served until mid XX/XX/XXXX ; this timeline exceeds the four-year limitation period by a substantial margin. XXXX XXXX XXXXlleged in their lawsuit that I entered a new agreement with Ratchford Law Group on XX/XX/XXXX, which required $ 300 monthly payments due by the XXXX of each month to be made out to Ratchford Law Group, and XXXX alleged to their complaint that I made payments until XX/XX/XXXX, which is NOT TRUE. By XX/XX/XXXX, the alleged debt was in breach for failure to make a payment by XX/XX/XXXX, and only XXXX {$300.00} payments were ever made to Ratchford Law Group or XXXX ; it was never clear or communicated to me who I allegedly owed or who allegedly owned the alleged debt or why I had to make anything to Ratchford, not XXXX because neither XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, or Ratchford ever communicated to me EVER. 

Other than a superseding new agreement in XX/XX/XXXX, I never received a writing from Ratchford Law Group. There was only ever XXXX conversation with a collection representative from Ratchford Law Group in SXXXX or early XX/XX/XXXX. Then, there was complete radio silence for the next, at least, XXXX days until the complaint was served. 

With no notice, with XXXX communication but XXXX conversation at least XXXX days ago, and then radio silence for XXXX days until a complaint is suddenly unfairly and surprisingly served, no reasonable person would think they still owe something, and no reasonable person would spontaneously think, " I wonder if a new financial behemoth has entered the market and acquired my alleged debt without any notice to me. '' Especially when the financial behemoth in question has yet to emerge from the shadows of a complex merger, it defies logic to expect an individual to navigate through the silence and corporate obfuscation, piecing together the existence of a debt obligation to an entity that has made no effort to introduce itself, let alone give notice of its claim. This isn't just a leap of faith ; it's expecting a blindfolded jump into a financial abyss. It's not only unreasonable but literally impossible for an individual to knowingly reaffirm, acknowledge, or pay a debt to a financial Goliath that has remained a ghost in the machinery of corporate restructuring. To allow otherwise would be to endorse a financial clairvoyance that no ordinary consumer could possibly possess. This absence of communication and notice fails the basic principles of fairness and due process that form the bedrock of our legal system, and it violates the FDCPA. 

After a deliberate silence of XXXX days, XXXXXXXX XXXX and its debt collection law firm Ratchford Law Group have chosen to proceed with legal action despite the clear expiration of the statute of limitations. This late maneuver raises significant concerns about the use of their extensive resources to compel a defendant into litigation ( and XXXX XXXX PA 's mandatory consumer debt court programs, which assume the worst for consumers and sidesteps the ability of a defendant to defend himself through compelled conciliatory conferences, forced certified credit counseling agency payment plans, and consent judgments for forced settlements ), not out of legal necessity but because their positions allow for it. 

Ratchford Law Group 's Ledger Discrepancy : Violation of FDCPA : The presentation of a ledger by Ratchford Law Group in court in a XX/XX/XXXX amended complaint that incorrectly names XXXX as the alleged creditor, rather than XXXX XXXX ( the entity that emerged from the merger and the supposed current holder of the debt ), constitutes a misleading action towards the debtor. This act violates the FDCPAs prohibition against the use of any false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of any debt. 
The ledger discrepancy refutes the validity and accurate management of the alleged debt. Accurate and transparent record-keeping is a fundamental aspect of fair debt collection practices. The failure to maintain and present accurate records directly undermines the integrity of the debt collection process and the debtors ability to trust the information presented by the collector. 
This record-keeping discrepancy significantly impacts consumer trust and violates the debtors rights to accurate information about their debt. The FDCPA mandates that debt collectors maintain and provide clear and accurate information about the debtors account. The ledgers failure to reflect the current creditors correct identity falls short of these legal obligations, potentially leading to confusion and misinformed decisions by the debtor. 
Given these concerns, I request an immediate investigation into the practices of XXXXXXXX XXXX and Ratchford Law Group, specifically regarding their record-keeping and communication of creditor information and deceptive communication pratices with allleged debtors. This investigation should aim to exposde the FDCPA with misleading information provided and ensure compliance with the FDCPAs standards for accuracy and transparency in debt collection. 

In light of the above, the discrepancy in Ratchford Law Groups ledger not only represents a clear violation of the FDCPAs requirements for accurate and transparent debt collection practices but also significantly affects my ability to engage with and respond to the alleged debt. I seek a resolution that acknowledges these violations and rectifies the inaccuracies and misrepresentations made in the course of collecting this debt. 

My complaint underscores the necessity for the CFPB 's intervention to prevent the misuse of legal processes in violation of the FDCPA.