Consumer complaint received 2025-05-31 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES
State: AL

Complaint narrative:
# Response to Zwicker & Associates XX/XX/XXXX Letter ( CFPB Complaint No. XXXX ) Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Consumer Response Information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington , DC XXXX Re : XXXX XXXX XXXX / Complaint No. XXXX Dear Consumer Response Team : * * Debt Verification Timeliness of Request. * * XXXX claim that XXXX XXXX failed to request verification under the FDCPA timely is legally and factually incorrect. Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) ( b ), XXXX XXXX had thirty days * after receiving * XXXX initial debt notice to notify XXXX in writing that he disputed the debt or to request verification. Crucially, that 30-day period only begins upon * actual * ( or assumed ) receipt of the notice. XXXX XXXX has stated he never received a valid FDCPA notice from XXXX ( see infra ), so the statutory clock never fairly started to run. In any event, once any written dispute or verification request was put on XXXX desk, XXXX was required to cease collection of the debt until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt. XXXX insistence on a rigid 30-day cutoff ignores the possibility that its own mailing was defective or delayed. In equity, XXXX XXXX should not be penalized for a late dispute if he had no notice of the debt. Courts recognize that the FDCPAs dispute period may be tolled when the initial notice is ineffective. For example, CFPB Regulation F provides that a consumer is * assumed * to receive a written notice five days after mailing, and that if the first notice is returned undeliverable, the collector must resend it before the period begins. Here, without proof of any valid delivery, XXXX can not fault XXXX XXXX for failing to mail a written dispute within some meaningless numerical deadline. In short, XXXX can not have it both ways it sent ( or claims to have sent ) a notice that never reached him, and then blames him for not disputing in time. By statute, once XXXX XXXX did notify XXXX of his dispute ( either within or beyond 30 days ), XXXX was obligated to halt collection until verification was provided. 

* * Validation Notice Delivery and Sufficiency. * * XXXX assertion that it properly delivered the FDCPA validation notice ignores the strict requirements of 1692g ( a ). The law demands that a debt collector send the required disclosures * to the consumer *. While federal courts apply a common-law mailbox rule presuming receipt if a notice is properly mailed to the consumers last known address, that presumption is rebuttable by clear evidence that the mailing did not reach the consumer. Here, XXXX XXXX has never received mail at the address XXXX used. As one court explained, a 1692g notice sent to an address where the consumer did not ever live is not an effective communication to the consumer at all. XXXX has not shown any returned mail or any attempt to verify the address. The CFPBs own rules explicitly contemplate that if a validation notice is returned undelivered, the collector must obtain updated location information and send the notice again. XXXX has neither claimed nor proved that it did so. Absent an affidavit or certified-mail receipt verifying XXXX XXXX address , the bare assertion of mailing is insufficient. In these circumstances, XXXX XXXX did not receive the statutorily required notice and thus could not have waived his rights. XXXX reliance on Mahon v. Credit Bureau, 171 F.3d 1197 ( 9th Cir. 1999 ) that sending notice to the last known address suffices is misplaced because XXXX XXXX was not residing at that address. In sum, XXXX has failed to meet 1692g ( a ) s standard of notice delivery.

* * Lawsuit Timing Cease Collection Requirement. * * Even if one credits XXXX claim that XXXX XXXX debt was disputed, XXXX choice to file suit during the pendency of verification contravenes the FDCPAs protection. Under 1692g ( b ) ( and CFPB Reg F 1006.34 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( i ) ), once a consumer disputes a debt in writing within the validation period, the collector must cease collection of the debt until verification or a judgment is mailed. Litigation to collect a disputed debt is the very essence of collection activity. Courts have held that after a timely dispute, a debt collector must halt any collection process it has set in motion. For example, in * Scott v. Trott Law , P.C . *, the Sixth Circuit held that the debt collector can not allow the essential statutory elements of \ [ a foreclosure to proceed after receiving a timely Dispute Letter until it obtains sufficient verification of the debt. By extension, XXXX should have suspended any lawsuit. Filing suit under these circumstances is at best premature and at worst a deceptive practice in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e it falsely implies the debt is undisputed and enforceable. The CFPB emphasizes that collection efforts * must * pause when a dispute is asserted. XXXX disregard of this mandate has prejudiced XXXX XXXX and vitiated the very dispute protections the FDCPA guarantees. 

* * Demand for Dismissal or Stay. * * In light of the above violations, we hereby demand that Zwicker & Associates dismiss its debt collection lawsuit against XXXX XXXX or, at a minimum, obtain a formal stay pending proper validation. Continuing the case now would reward XXXX procedural missteps and further harm XXXX XXXX. The FDCPA provides that a collector who fails to comply is liable for damages, and a lawsuit filed in breach of 1692g undermines the statutes remedial purpose. The Court of Appeals has recognized that a consumer may sue to enforce these provisions ; similarly, it is inequitable for a collector to seek a judgment by violating them. To effectuate the FDCPA and protect consumers, XXXX claims should be dismissed or held in abeyance until it fulfills its statutory duties. We ask the CFPB to enforce this outcome : if XXXX insists on pursuing collection, it must first provide the verified proof of debt and correct notice required by law. XXXX XXXX reserves all rights under 15 U.S.C. 1692k, including statutory damages, attorneys fees, and the remedy of dismissal should this lawsuit continue in contravention of the FDCPA. 

Thank you for your attention to these issues. Please get in touch with me if you require any further information. 

Respectfully submitted, XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation