Consumer complaint received 2025-11-06 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: RAS LaVrar, LLC
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint about RAS LaVrar LLC, a law firm that is acting as XXXX XXXX counsel in an unconscionable consumer debt collection lawsuit against me. RAS LaVrar LLC is a debt collector under 15 U S C section 1692a 6 because it regularly collects consumer debts through litigation. The Supreme Court has held that attorneys who regularly engage in debt collection activity through lawsuits are covered debt collectors. See Heintz v Jenkins 514 U S 291 1995.

This alleged debt is the direct result of identity theft and is not my account. Before the hearing or trial date I sent a detailed written dispute and debt validation request to the plaintiff and to RAS LaVrar LLC. I clearly stated in writing that the account is the result of identity theft, that I did not open or authorize this account, and that any charges are not mine. I provided supporting documentation showing that my identification was compromised and that this account is fraudulent. 

I specifically asked them to treat the account as blocked for identity theft or, at a minimum, to validate the debt by providing documents that actually tie me personally to the account before continuing any collection activity or litigation. In other words, once they had my identity theft reports, the burden was on them to investigate and either prove it is my debt or stop collecting. 

Despite this, on XX/XX/XXXX the attorney from RAS LaVrar LLC appeared in court and openly admitted to the judge that they were not prepared. The attorney stated that they had not reviewed my identity theft materials and had not reviewed my written validation request. They did not have any documents with them to prove that I owed this debt. Instead of being ready to proceed or dismiss, they asked the court for a ninety day continuance so they could go back and review the file and my fraud materials.

This means RAS LaVrar LLC pushed an identity theft victim into a court proceeding without first reviewing the fraud reports that were already in their possession and without having any competent proof that I owed the debt. I had to prepare for court, take time to appear, and endure continuing stress and collection pressure while they freely admitted that they had not even looked at my identity theft evidence.

Their own court filings also carry the disclaimer in bold capital letters THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR. XXXX By placing this language on their pleadings, RAS LaVrar LLC is expressly acknowledging that its litigation activity is a communication in connection with the collection of a debt and that it is acting as a debt collector under the FDCPA. Yet at the same time, they ignored my identity theft dispute, failed to conduct a meaningful investigation, and advanced the lawsuit to a court date without the basic proof needed to show that I am the debtor.

In my view this conduct is abusive and deceptive under 15 U S C section 1692e and unfair under section 1692f. A law firm can not label its pleadings as a debt collection communication, admit in open court that it has not reviewed an identity theft victims documents or validation request, and still continue to use the lawsuit as a pressure tool against an ID Theft Victim.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation