Consumer complaint received 07/26/2016 about Debt collection (Non-federal student loan) with Javitch, Block & Rathbone LLC (KY).
Issue: Cont'd attempts collect debt not owed
Sub-issue: Debt was paid

Complaint: I received a debt collection notice in the mail from XXXX about a non-federal student loan debt. I requested proof of the debt, but the representative kept asking if I knew I owed the debt. I explained that I had several loans from different degrees, but nothing was showing under their name on my credit report and unless I received proof, I would n't know what she was talking about. I finally received a notice from them after about a month stating that the client did not provide the information needed and that collection would be stopped and any negative information would be corrected. I called the office to acquire the name of the agency that was collecting the so-called debt, it was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I spoke with a representative that answered and when I acquired about any debts, she informed me that they were n't the Collection department, but the business office that worked with XXXX XXXX XXXX. I asked for contact information for XXXX and she stated that it was a Trust, not a person that I could contact. She explained that I had to contact XXXX, debt collector/attorney, for loans being serviced through them and the loan with XXXX, ( she did not state that it was even with a collection agency ) had been paid in full as of XXXX XXXX. I immediately called XXXX back and asked why I was in collection if the client they served had my account as paid in full almost a year ago. They could n't provide any information, but stated they would forward to their supervisor for further investigation. I have n't heard anything back from XXXX, but XXXX sent me a paid in full letter on the account dated for XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 
I have been dealing with XXXX since XXXX XXXX when I received a collection notice about non-federal student loan debts. They stated that they were acting as a collection agency on behalf of XXXX even though they were attorneys as well. I asked for proof of the debts and received letters with XXXX as owner and the amounts owed. XXXX was not listed as any entity, but had reported on my credit report as of XXXX XXXX after XXXX was removed in XXXX XXXX. The paperwork had XXXX as the Plaintiff, but the address was XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MD, which XXXX XXXX XXXX confirmed as XXXX XXXX, not XXXX. I received a Summons XXXX from Javitch. XXXX had submitted an Affidavit that stated they were the custodian of records and could verify that all information in the lawsuit papers were correct from XXXX until present XXXX had a verification letter from XXXX that they were able to provide Affidavits on XXXX accounts, but in checking the phone number for verification, was XXXX in the XXXX and the gentleman had no idea of what I was talking about and offered different number to contact about my account. I could n't afford a lawyer, but tried to defend the lawsuit. In XXXX XXXX, a summary judgment was entered in their favor and I was required to pay this debt, although I had argued about not owing the debt and they were not legally able to collect on a debt they did not own. When, researching the loans, I found that they were Serviced through XXXX until they defaulted in XXXX and claim paid in XXXX. I contacted them for proof of the debts and where they stand. After several months and a call to their Consumer Advocacy Dept, I received the Account Summary and final letter that all the non-federal loans serviced for XXXX ( including XXXX XXXX ) had been paid in full through the Guarantor Default Claim program with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX and XXXX of XXXX. XXXX did not own the loans, nor should they be able to collect on them. I do n't understand how XXXX is in the middle of the debt collection as a debt collector and servicer who has hired other debt collectors to collect on loans that had been paid since XXXX

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation