Consumer complaint received 2022-10-12 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: Gurstel Law Firm, P.C.
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
In response to CFPB complaint # XXXX, My name is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a federally protected consumer, and after receiving the documentation requested from law firm/debt collector Gurstel Law Firm , P.C . pertaining to an alleged debt, supposedly owed to XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX. The facts are as stated ; Gurstel Law Firm , P.C . has failed to provide competent evidence that I have any legal obligation to pay the alleged debt. 

In the letter ( see Exhibit A ) from Gurstel Law Firm , P.C . dated XX/XX/XXXX, Gurstel Law Firm , P.C . by XXXX XXXX ( # XXXX ) stated, Enclosed please find verification of the above-reference file. 

In the Debt Validation Letter sent to Gurstel Law Firm, P.C., I expressed that is NOT a request for verification or proof of my mailing address, but a request for VALIDATION made pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692g. 

Gurstel Law Firm , P.C . provided a pile of statements and a standardized customer agreement as proof of verification. 

As per the judgment in Pacific Concrete Federal C.U. v. Kauanoe, statements as well as the consumer agreement are not sufficient evidence of a debt. Furthermore, the creditor ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) reported it as a Charge Off which means that the creditor will no longer attempt to collect the alleged debt owed by them. 

In the original CFPB complaint # XXXX ( see Exhibit B ), under Companys Response, Gurstel Law Firm , P.C . stated, 1. The Firm represents Plaintiff XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ), XXXX. ( XXXX ), in the collection of the credit card account ending in last four digits XXXX ( Account ). The Account was opened with the Bank on XX/XX/XXXX and was charged-off for non-payment on or about XX/XX/XXXX, with a balance owing of {$5800.00} The Bank is the original creditor, and continues to own the Account. The Firms file number for the Account is XXXX. 

Gurstel Law Firm , P.C . didnt provide any competent evidence that the creditor continues to own the Account, nor that Gurstel Law Firm , P.C . has the authority to collect the alleged debt. I am aware that all charge-offs are sold to a securitized trust ( FAS 140 ) and what remains on the transaction is an empty Account. For a creditor to have any legal standing they must repurchase the debt. They can not collect what they do not own and still proceed to collect on it, let alone illegally place an Account with a third party to attempt to collect. This is misleading and deceptive which violates Federal and State Laws. 

Lastly, once the alleged loan goes into default and is assigned to a debt collector, the effective law changes. The FDCPA is now the law under which action is governed. Once under the conditions of the FDCPA, debt collectors have no legal right to ply the legal remedies owed only to creditors who make loans, including notices of default, assignments to servicers, substitutions of trustees, etc. 

I hereby demand for Gurstel Law Firm , P.C . discharge the matter accordingly. If Gurstel Law Firm , P.C . continues its collection efforts, I will file for litigation for actual damages caused and will be held criminally liable for Aggravated Identity Theft pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1028A, extortion, theft by deception, securities fraud, and mail fraud. 

You are hereby notified upon the receipt of this notice. 

Sincerely, XXXX : XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation