Consumer complaint received 2025-07-25 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
CFPB Complaint Submission Complainant : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX Company Complained About : Weltman , Weinberg & Reis Co. , L.P.A . 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Attorney ( s ) : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( # XXXX ) XXXX XXXX ( # XXXX ) Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Email : XXXX Subject of Complaint : Failure to Validate Disputed Debt, Lack of Attorney Review, Failure to Respond to Data Security Compliance Request, and Knowingly Filing Suit in an Improper Venue Violations of Federal and State Law : Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), including : - 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) Failure to validate disputed debt - 15 U.S.C. 1692d Harassment or abuse - 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 3 ) False or misleading representation by an attorney - 15 U.S.C. 1692f Unfair or unconscionable means - 15 U.S.C. 1692i ( a ) ( 2 ) Improper venue selection Violations of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( 15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq. ) Failure to protect consumer financial information Violations of related state consumer protection and civil procedure laws Incident Dates ( Approximate ) : On or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX Weltman Submitted lawsuit in XXXX XXXX XXXX On or about XX/XX/XXXX Formal demand for secure document compliance sent to XXXX XXXX On or about XX/XX/XXXX Motion to Dismiss filed disputing the debt under 15 U.S.C . 1692g On or about XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Plantiffs Brief in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss. 
On or about XX/XX/XXXX Formal debt validation letter sent to XXXX XXXX and signed for by Weltman Description of Complaint : I am submitting this complaint against Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., including attorneys XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, for failure to comply with federal debt collection and consumer data protection laws. 
In XXXX, XXXX XXXX, through its legal counsel Weltman , Weinberg & Reis Co. , L.P.A . ( Weltman ), filed a debt collection lawsuit against XXXX XXXX in a Pennsylvania court. That matter was voluntarily dismissed on XX/XX/XXXX. No judgment was entered, and no documentation was ever provided to validate the alleged debt. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, without notice, Weltman refiled the identical debt claim in XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, despite Plaintiff residing exclusively in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and never signing alleged contract in Ohio. This violates 15 U.S.C. 1692i ( a ) ( 2 ), which mandates that a debt collector must bring legal action only where the consumer resides or where the contract was signed. 
XXXX. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the XXXX XXXX ruled that filing in an improper venueeven if technically authorized under state lawstill violates 1692i. 
XXXX. In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the court denied Weltman 's motion for summary judgment under 1692e when the plaintiff alleged false or misleading representations, including improper forum. 



On or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX sent a formal Demand for Secure Document Compliance and Certification to XXXX XXXX, requesting encryption protocols, data breach disclosures, and audit records pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and applicable state privacy statutes. No response was ever received. 

On or about XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX filed a Motion to Dismiss in the XXXX XXXX Court of Common Pleas ( Case No. XXXX ), which served as a timely debt dispute under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). The motion disputed the existence of a valid credit agreement, denied the enforceability of the alleged debt, and challenged the standing of the Plaintiff and evidentiary defects. Proper debt validation documentation was never produced by Weltman. 

On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I mailed a separate, formal debt validation letter directly to XXXX XXXX XXXX at Weltman 's XXXXXXXX XXXX office. This letter was sent after Weltman improperly attempted to substitute XXXX XXXX, XXXX. as the new plaintiff without filing a proper motion or providing any notice to me, the Defendant, in clear violation of procedural rules. The letter was signed for and received, yet no validation or response has been provided to date. 
Despite these disputes and statutory obligations, Weltman has : Continued to litigate the matter without validating the debt ; Failed to provide a signed agreement, assignment documentation, or proof of creditor authority ; Refused to acknowledge or respond to privacy compliance inquiries ; Filed pleadings under a substituted plaintiff without court approval or defendant notification. 



Attorney Involvement Concerns : The actions of attorneys XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX raise serious concerns about the lack of meaningful attorney review or compliance with legal procedure : After voluntarily dismissing the lawsuit in XXXX, Weltman improperly re-filed the same debt claim in XXXX XXXX, XXXX, a venue where I do not reside and did not enter into any agreementa direct violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692i ( venue provision ). 
They then filed a Motion to XXXX XXXX Perfected that included a substituted plaintiff ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. ), without filing a motion to substitute or giving proper notice to me. 
In that same motion, Weltman acknowledged that the recipient signature on the certified mail return receipt was illegible, yet used it to support a claim of perfected service. Defendant asserts he was not personally served and did not sign for the mailing. 
Most critically, the Motion to XXXX XXXX Perfected failed to include a sworn affidavit or verification under penalty of perjury, as required by Ohio Civil Rule XXXX ( B ). The motion also lacked a returned envelope marked unclaimed or refused, and did not contain the required documentation demonstrating diligent efforts to serve. 
These procedural violations undermine the legitimacy of their filings and suggest that attorneys are either not reviewing documents or are misusing the court system without meeting minimum due process standards. 
This conduct violates the FDCPA provision at 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 3 ), which prohibits false representations or implications that communications come from an attorney when no meaningful review has occurred. It also implicates the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding diligence, candor, and fairness.

Harms and Consumer Impact : I have been forced to defend a lawsuit involving a disputed and unvalidated debt in an improper venue ; I have experienced emotional distress, legal costs, and damage to my credit and financial standing ; My ability to obtain business financing has been negatively impacted ; Weltmans failure to validate and failure to respond to privacy concerns raises the risk of improper data handling or breach. 

Resolution Requested : Full investigation into Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX for violations of the FDCPA, venue abuse, and data protection statutes ; Immediate cessation of all collection activity and court proceedings until proper validation is provided ; Formal referral for attorney discipline due to procedural misconduct and lack of meaningful legal oversight ; Written confirmation that the debt is withdrawn and corrected with all credit bureaus ; Civil penalties or any other relief the Bureau deems appropriate. 

Attachments : Exhibit A : XX/XX/XXXX Motion to Dismiss ( Debt Dispute under FDCPA ) Exhibit B : XXXX response to XXXX XXXX XXXX to dismiss Exhibit C : XX/XX/XXXX Debt Validation Letter ( with USPS delivery confirmation ) Exhibit XXXX : Motion to Deem Service Perfected Exhibit F : Dismissed Pennsylvania Lawsuit Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation