Consumer complaint received 2025-05-30 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was paid
Company: Gurstel Law Firm, P.C.
State: MN

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting a second complaint regarding Gurstel Law Firm, who is representing XXXX XXXX  XXXX and XXXX XXXX, XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I entered into a payment agreement with XXXX XXXX XXXX ( on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX ) to repay a {$10000.00} debt originally owed to XXXX XXXX XXXX. I have consistently made payments and remain up to date. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I was served with a summons by Gurstel Law Firm, claiming I owe {$16000.00} for a XXXX XXXX XXXX  account ending in XXXX. I contacted XXXX, who confirmed they own the XXXX XXXX XXXX  account ending in XXXX and that I am current. Despite this, Gurstel filed litigation without proper validation. 

I submitted written requests for debt validation on XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; XX/XX/XXXX ; and XX/XX/XXXX. I also made an in-person request at a court hearing on XX/XX/XXXX. Gurstel responded only with generic documentsnone of which included specific evidence that Velocity owns the account in question. A bill of sale without personal identifiers does not establish legal standing. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received another summons from Gurstel, this time for a {$3600.00} XXXX XXXX account ending in XXXX. Gurstel claims they mailed verification on XX/XX/XXXX, but the documents again failed to prove ownership or assignment. Only billing statements and a customer agreement were included. 

I filed a CFPB complaint on XX/XX/XXXX ( Case # XXXX ). Gurstel responded by asserting that the two debts ( XXXX and XXXX ) are unrelated to the XXXX debt ( XXXX ). However, their documents do not conclusively prove this. The proximity of the alleged debts, coupled with ongoing payments to XXXX for a similar account, raises serious concerns about possible duplication or misrepresentation.

I am not denying that I may owe a debtbut I dispute the plaintiffs legal right to collect, the ownership of the debt, and the amounts claimed. The documentation provided does not satisfy FDCPA requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( false/misleading representation ), 1692f ( unfair practices ), and 1692g ( failure to validate ). Gurstels aggressive legal actions, despite being placed on notice of disputes and active payments, appear to be an effort to intimidate or confuse a consumer who is actively resolving debt through another entity.

Furthermore, Gurstels assertion that I issued a cease and desist order is incorrect. I have explicitly informed their firm on multiple occasionsincluding on XX/XX/XXXX and as recently as XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX I am no longer represented by counsel and that no cease and desist should be in place. Their repeated reference to a non-existent cease and desist, even in their formal CFPB response, suggests a failure to update internal records and raises concerns about miscommunication and procedural oversight. 

I also find it implausible that two accounts from the same lender with the exact same balance of {$10000.00} exist in my name. Given the number of third-party debt handlers involved between XXXX and XXXX, it is more likely that this is a clerical error or misassignment rather than a legitimate second account. This further illustrates the need for a thorough investigation. 

I respectfully request that this be investigated and appropriate enforcement action be taken against Gurstel Law Firm and its clients for these potentially unlawful collection practices.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation