Consumer complaint received 2025-04-25 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: BANKERS HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
This communication is my fourth formal legal notice of the dispute regarding the alleged commercial debt connected to BHG Financial, for which XXXX continues to attempt collection. This response specifically addresses the correspondence received from XXXX XXXX via email on XX/XX/XXXX, at XXXXXXXX XXXX, which included the same incomplete and legally insufficient documentation previously provided by XXXX. Please be advised that your most recent correspondence, like the one before it, does not satisfy the requirements for proper debt validation. This is now your second instance of submitting the same incomplete documents in response to a lawful demand for verification. You are continuing to send the following : a promissory note with my electronic signature, a statement of intended loan purpose dated XX/XX/XXXX, and a generalized payment history ledger. Under federal and commercial law, these documents do not establish legal authority to collect, nor do they verify the debt as required under the law. 

As an individual and personal guarantor, I am entitled to a full and substantive validation of any debt you claim I owe. That includes : proof of your authority to collect in the state of Illinois, pursuant to the Illinois Collection Agency Act ( 225 ILCS 425 ), which you have failed to provide ; full and complete validation under principles derived from Spears v. Brennan, 745 N.E.2d 862 ( Ind. Ct. App. 2001 ), which held that merely providing a contract or account statement is insufficient without a full itemization and supporting evidence of the validity and calculation of the amount claimed ; chain of assignment or collection authorization from the original creditor, BHG Financial, that explicitly states that XXXX is authorized to collect, along with proof of contractual privity ; and evidence that the debt is enforceable under UCC Article 3 and 9 provisions, including whether the debt was securitized or sold, whether any rights of enforcement or collection were retained or assigned, and a complete audit trail of the transaction.

You continue to communicate exclusively through your company, XXXX, while simultaneously asserting that the account remains owned by BHG. However, your collection activity, communications, and request for payment made out to XXXX constitute direct collection activity under federal law. As such, you are acting as a debt collector and are required to comply with all relevant provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692, including 1692e and 1692g, the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2, and applicable commercial and contract law standards for fair dealing.

Your continued assertion that this is a 'commercial matter ' and therefore exempt from consumer protection laws is legally and factually flawed. While the underlying loan may have been issued for commercial purposes, I am being personally pursued as an individual guarantor. As such, I am the subject of debt collection communications and am at risk of having this alleged obligation reported on my personal credit profile. Under these conditions, both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) remain applicable. Federal courts have consistently held that when a natural person is personally pursued for a debt, regardless of the original business intent, the FDCPA may apply. For example, in Garcia v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 2009 WL 3079962 ( N.D. Ill. 2009 ), the court permitted a consumer to bring an FDCPA claim even though the underlying obligation was business-related, because the collection communication was directed at the individual. Furthermore, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) has affirmed its authority to investigate and enforce collection practices involving personal guarantors when the individuals consumer rights are implicated, especially where credit reporting, misleading representations, or harassment occur. Therefore, your claim that the CFPB has no jurisdiction or that consumer protection laws do not apply here is baseless, and I reserve the right to initiate a formal CFPB complaint as well as legal action to enforce my rights.

You have now twice sent the same documents despite my detailed and legally grounded objections. If you send these same documents a third time, I will treat such action as willful noncompliance and harassment, and I will refuse further correspondence, submit complaints to the CFPB, FTC, and Illinois Attorney General, and pursue civil damages for violation of the FDCPA and FCRA, including statutory, actual, and punitive damages under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and 1692k. Additionally, if this account is reported to any business or consumer credit reporting agency without full and proper validation, such reporting will constitute defamation, willful negligence, and injurious falsehood, and legal action will be initiated without further notice.

To be clear : I do not accept the documents you have provided as full validation of the alleged debt. You are hereby formally notified that the debt remains disputed and unvalidated. Continued collection activity without full verification will be treated as a willful and reckless disregard of my consumer and commercial rights.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation