Consumer complaint received 2025-04-17 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: IL

Complaint narrative:
Formal Rebuttal and Demand for Proper Validation CFPB Complaint No. XXXX Dear XXXX, I am writing in direct response to Zwicker & Associates, P.C.s reply dated XX/XX/XXXX, concerning the above-referenced CFPB complaint. I would like to clarify and reiterate that my original inquiry and complaint were based upon the lack of adequate and lawful validation of alleged debts pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and where applicable, relevant state and federal laws concerning debt communication and consumer protection. Zwicker & Associates contends that two of the referenced accounts fall outside the scope of the CFPB due to their alleged business nature, I must respectfully and firmly dispute this claim. I was required to serve as a personal guarantor on these accounts, and they are currently reporting directly to my personal consumer credit report, not to a commercial credit file. Moreover, all written correspondence, including that from Zwicker, was addressed solely to my legal name and my personal residential address, not to my business entity or its place of business. At no point was the business treated as the primary obligor in the debt collection communications. As such, these accounts are clearly co-mingled with my consumer credit profile and therefore fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the CFPB and the protections of both the FDCPA and FCRA. An account can not be deemed exclusively commercial in nature simply because it originated under a business label, especially when the collection and credit reporting practices unmistakably target the consumer directly. The onus remains on the collector to clearly and unequivocally establish that the accounts fall outside the scope of consumer credit law. No such definitive evidence was included in their response. While Zwicker & Associates states that they mailed " validation notices '' dated XX/XX/XXXX, and allege they responded to my disputes, the content of their responses fails to meet the legal threshold for proper debt validation under the FDCPA. Here is a timeline of the relevant communications : On XX/XX/XXXX, Zwicker & Associates issued a notice identifying themselves as debt collectors attempting to collect an alleged debt owed to XXXX XXXX. This notice stated that, per the FDCPA, if I submitted a written dispute by XX/XX/XXXX, they would cease collection efforts until verification of the debt was provided. On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted my first formal request for debt validation. XXXX records confirm it was delivered on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX responded with a packet that included account statements and the cardmember agreement. While they claim this exceeds federal requirements, the materials provided do not constitute legal debt validation, as they do not include any documentation verifying the origin, legitimacy, or accuracy of the alleged amount owed, nor do they contain any evidence of the collectors authority. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a second validation request, which was received on XX/XX/XXXX. Zwicker failed to respond to this notice. I sent a third demand for validation on XX/XX/XXXX, which was received on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, Zwicker issued a second response, again providing only the same account statements and the cardmember agreement and still failing to include any proof of authorization or the legally required breakdown of the debt. Under Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 ( 4th Cir. 1999 ), proper validation must include more than mere billing records. It must contain meaningful evidence of the debts validity : ( 1 ) a detailed breakdown of how the amount was calculated, ( 2 ) proof that the alleged creditor owns or controls the debt, and ( 3 ) documentation establishing the authority of the collecting party. None of these requirements have been met. Additionally, I explicitly requested documentation verifying that Zwicker & Associates was authorized by XXXX XXXX to collect on their behalf. At no time have I received any formal notice from XXXX XXXX confirming Zwickers legal authority to collect, nor any evidence of assignment or agency. A letter from Zwicker claiming representation is not, in itself, sufficient proof. Furthermore, I referenced case law including Spears v. Brennan to support my dispute, yet Zwickers response continues to ignore the applicable legal standards. In short, repeating the same generic documentation while ignoring the core elements of a validation request, namely, the collectors authority and the debts origin, is not validation. As a law firm, Zwicker & Associates should be held to the highest standard of compliance. Their actions to date do not meet that standard and reinforce my position that this debt remains legally unverified. Additionally, Zwicker & Associates contends that as a law firm, they are not required to be licensed as a debt collector in my state of residence. I respectfully contest that position. Pursuant to both the FDCPA and state-level consumer protection laws, any entity that regularly engages in the collection of debts owed to another party is deemed a debt collector and may be subject to state licensure requirements, regardless of whether the entity is a law firm. In Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 ( 1995 ), the Supreme Court held that attorneys who regularly engage in debt collection activity fall under the FDCPA 's definition of a debt collector. Therefore, Zwicker & Associates status as a law firm does not inherently exempt them from Illinois licensure or compliance with other applicable state regulations governing debt collection. As such, I request that Zwicker & Associates produce clear evidence that they are either ( a ) licensed as a collection agency in the state of Illinois or ( b ) affirmatively exempted under Illinois law.

Zwickers response fails to address several material points in my original notice, including but not limited to : ( 1 ), A breakdown of how the alleged amount owed was calculated, ( 2 ) Identification of the original creditor ( beyond naming XXXX ), including any assignment details or account-level documentation ; ( 3 ) Clear disclosure regarding whether any interest, late fees, or penalties were applied beyond the principal balance and under what authority. While the firm claims that XXXX  of the accounts have now been recalled by XXXX XXXX, they have not provided written closure confirmation or a formal withdrawal of collection efforts, nor have they confirmed in writing that they have ceased all communication and reporting efforts concerning those accounts. I must emphasize that this firms continued assertion that their actions exceeded federal requirements is not substantiated by the documents actually sent to me. Sending recycled form documents or partial billing statements does not constitute legal validation under the FDCPA or under generally accepted standards for substantiating debt. I respectfully request the following from the CFPB : 1. That Zwicker & Associates be compelled to produce full and proper validation as required under the FDCPA, including a sworn statement from the creditor and all supporting documentation.

2. That they confirm in writing that collection efforts on the recalled accounts have ceased and that my personal information has not and will not be reported to any consumer reporting agency by their office.

3. That the CFPB assess whether Zwicker & Associates actions, including their communication methods, legal standing, and alleged validations, comply with both federal and state consumer protection laws, including licensing requirements under Illinois law. 

I reserve all rights, including the right to pursue additional remedies under federal and state law. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation