Consumer complaint received 2025-07-28 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Payday loan debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: LUKE, JOHNSON & LEWIS LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
There are multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Texas Debt Collection Act ( TDCA ) that have occurred in connection with this account and the associated collection efforts. There was no category for wrong creditor, so I provided wrong amount, which is also another issue with this account. 
The website listed on the collection letter, www.lukejohnsonlewis.com, claims the agency is FDCPA-compliant and licensed in Texas. This is a false and misleading statement. Texas does not license debt collectorsit only requires a surety bond to be filed with the Secretary of State. Furthermore, this firm is not licensed as a XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) with the Texas XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ), so no license exists. This misrepresentation violates both the FDCPA and TDCA.

There have already been two failed collection attempts regarding this account. The first attempt was made by the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ) itself and included multiple deficiencies : It listed the incorrect creditor, naming XXXX XXXX instead of the actual creditor, XXXX. 


It was issued by XXXX XXXX XXXX, a XXXX  which, by definition under Texas law, can not be the owner of the debt since XXXX  do not extend credit. 


The XXXX  did not have a debt collection surety bond, which is required when a XXXX  collects on an account after default. 


The second attempt was handled by XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and was rejected the same day due to the misrepresentation of the creditor and the first failed collection attempt being illegal. 
Additionally, the contract includes a statement under section 1758.13 which reads : {$1700.00} is the highest amount that might be due from you if you default in making payments and your transaction is accelerated. 
This statement is not qualified by any conditional language or contextual limitations and represents an incorrect amount. This constitutes yet another violation under both the FDCPA and TDCA. 
This account has already been disputed as a sham contract. The company has refused to provide any evidence that the person who signed the agreement as Authorized Representative is legally authorized to bind the contract : This person does not appear in any public records for XXXX XXXX XXXX. 


They are not a General Partner, not listed as an Authorized Signer ( the General Counsel is ), and not listed in XXXX records with the Secretary of State ( where the XXXX  is listed ). 


The signature includes no printed name or title, and multiple inquiries about the identity and authority of this person have been ignored. When emailed directly, the individual also refused to respond. 


Moreover, the surety trustee listed in the contract has not worked at the designated surety bank since 2020. This is a material misrepresentation, and the company has refused to update or correct the information. As a result, it is currently impossible to contact the surety account trustee, further invalidating the contracts enforceability.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation