Consumer complaint received 2024-03-03 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Payday loan debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Sued you without properly notifying you of lawsuit
Company: Ratchford Law Group, P.C.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
I am writing to file a formal complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, VA XXXX, and Debt Collection law firm, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, PA XXXX, for actions that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). 

Specifically, my complaint centers on the filing of a debt collection lawsuit after the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS on the alleged debt had expired multiple times, even under several different potential start dates, without any communication at all- ever, without any acknowledgment of an alleged debt by me, and without any notice at all or any communications at post-merger and entity amendment between XXXX and XXXX & XXXX to form Truist on XX/XX/XXXX. This involves XXXX, which was a subsidiary of XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I was served with a debt collection lawsuit in XXXX XXXX, Pennsylvania. It was served on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint under Pa.R.C.P. XXXX against XXXX XXXX  On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX instead of responding, filed an amended complaint. On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed Preliminary Objections to the amended complaint under Pa.R.C.P. XXXX against XXXX XXXX. The statute of limitations bars XXXX XXXX XXXX claim. In Pennsylvania, per XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, actions upon a contract must be commenced within XXXX years. However, XXXX XXXX, in what's tantamount to legal bullying, filed a lawsuit anyhow in violation of the FDCPA. 

The last payment to XXXX, per XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX own XXXX XXXX, was on XX/XX/XXXX. No subsequent payments are recorded on XXXX 's XXXX ledger, and the account statement dated XX/XX/XXXX, demonstrates a delinquency of 73 days at that time. XXXXXXXX XXXX did not file its lawsuit until XX/XX/XXXX and it wasn't served until mid XX/XX/XXXX ; this timeline exceeds the four-year limitation period by a substantial margin. XXXX XXXX  alleged in their lawsuit that I entered a new agreement with Ratchford Law Group on XX/XX/XXXX, which required $ 300 monthly payments due by the XXXX of each month to be made out to Ratchford Law Group, and XXXX alleged to their complaint that I made payments until XX/XX/XXXX, which is NOT TRUE. By XX/XX/XXXX, the alleged debt was in breach for failure to make a payment by XX/XX/XXXX, and only XXXX {$300.00} payments were ever made to Ratchford Law Group or XXXX ; it was never clear or communicated to me who I allegedly owed or who allegedly owned the alleged debt or why I had to make anything to Ratchford, not XXXX because neither XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, or Ratchford ever communicated to me EVER. 

Other than a superseding new agreement in XX/XX/XXXX, I never received a writing from Ratchford Law Group. There was only ever one conversation with a collection representative from Ratchford Law Group in XXXX or early XX/XX/XXXX. Then, there was complete radio silence for the next, at least, XXXX days until the complaint was served. 

With no notice, with XXXX communication but XXXX conversation at least XXXX days ago, and then radio silence for XXXX days until a complaint is suddenly unfairly and surprisingly served, no reasonable person would think they still owe something, and no reasonable person would spontaneously think, " I wonder if a new financial behemoth has entered the market and acquired my alleged debt without any notice to me. '' Especially when the financial behemoth in question has yet to emerge from the shadows of a complex merger, it defies logic to expect an individual to navigate through the silence and corporate obfuscation, piecing together the existence of a debt obligation to an entity that has made no effort to introduce itself, let alone give notice of its claim. This isn't just a leap of faith ; it's expecting a blindfolded jump into a financial abyss. It's not only unreasonable but literally impossible for an individual to knowingly reaffirm, acknowledge, or pay a debt to a financial Goliath that has remained a ghost in the machinery of corporate restructuring. To allow otherwise would be to endorse a financial clairvoyance that no ordinary consumer could possibly possess. This absence of communication and notice fails the basic principles of fairness and due process that form the bedrock of our legal system, and it violates the FDCPA. 

After a deliberate silence of XXXX days, XXXX XXXX and its debt collection law firm Ratchford Law Group have chosen to proceed with legal action despite the clear expiration of the statute of limitations. This late maneuver raises significant concerns about the use of their extensive resources to compel a defendant into litigation ( and XXXX XXXX PA 's mandatory consumer debt court programs, which assume the worst for consumers and sidesteps the ability of a defendant to defend himself through compelled conciliatory conferences, forced certified credit counseling agency payment plans, and consent judgments for forced settlements ), not out of legal necessity but because their positions allow for it. 

My complaint underscores the necessity for the CFPB 's intervention to prevent the misuse of legal processes in violation of the FDCPA. By XXXX XXXX XXXX and Ratchford Law Group 's own sworn statements in the amended complaint, the merger that gave rise to XXXX XXXX was completed on XX/XX/XXXX, which started, at least the last of all dates, of the countdown of the statute of limitations, concluding on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX subsequent filing of the original complaint XXXX  days after this deadline and the amended complaint XXXX days later clearly oversteps the time-related bounds set by law for pursuing legal action. Below is a summary of all the ways, and under different start dates, the STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS expired. Still, XXXX and Ratchford Law Group, in violation of the FDPCA, filed a complaint on expired alleged debt anyhow.

1. Violation Based on Statute of Limitations ( " SOL '' ) After XX/XX/XXXX : The initial period of concern starts in XX/XX/XXXX, when I alleged ceased making payments to XXXX. According to the FDCPA, the lack of any payment or clear acknowledgment of debt afterward should have seen the SOL expire in XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX years from the last payment. Filing a lawsuit after this date without acknowledging the SOL constitutes a deceptive practice under the FDCPA.

2. Violation Based on SOL After XX/XX/XXXX : After entering a new superseding agreement with Ratchford Law Group to make monthly payments of {$300.00} before the XXXX of each month, which I allegedly breached by not paying by the XXXX nor the full amount ever, the SOL should have expired in XX/XX/XXXX. The filing of a lawsuit after this expiration date, again, violates the principles laid out in the FDCPA by attempting to collect a debt outside the SOL.

3. Violation Based on SOL XXXXter XX/XX/XXXX : The last {$300.00} payment was made in XX/XX/XXXX, even though the breach had already allegedly occurred, followed by irregular and smaller payments that were not made to acknowledge a debt or made even knowing to whom a debt was allegedly owed should not constitute an acknowledgment of the debt. Therefore, the SOL expired in XX/XX/XXXX. The attempt to collect a debt after this period, without clear acknowledgment from me, violates the FDCPA by misrepresenting the legal status of the debt. 
XXXX. Violation Based on SOL After XX/XX/XXXX : Post the merger of XXXX ( XXXX was a subsidiary ) and XXXX & XXXX into XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, I was not informed of XXXX 's existence or that my alleged debt was now purportedly owed to XXXX. I never heard from XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, or Ratchford Law Group from early XX/XX/XXXX ever until I received a lawsuit on XX/XX/XXXX. I never even knew XXXX existed. I never received a validation or notice or any communication ever. Alleged small and irregular payments made after this merger without my knowledge of XXXX 's claim to the alleged debt do not constitute acknowledgment of debt to XXXX. The lawsuit filed after the statute of limitations expired on XX/XX/XXXX, based on this date, is a clear violation of the FDCPA, as it involves suing to collect a debt the consumer is not aware of owing to a newly formed entity and after the SOL expired in violation of the FDCPA. 

The points mentioned above outline a pattern of behavior that directly contravenes the FDCPA 's prohibitions against deceptive and unfair practices in debt collection. The actions of XXXX XXXX and Ratchford Law Group in filing a lawsuit after the expiration of the statute of limitations, without adequate notice or acknowledgment from me, and the significant issue of total and complete lack of any communication at all other than XXXX conversation in early XX/XX/XXXX and never another peep from XXXX or Ratchford, then I receive a lawsuit on XX/XX/XXXX, and this without even knowing XXXX existed since XX/XX/XXXX, because no one ever told me or communicated anything to me, regarding the merger and the true owner of the alleged debt, is total disregard for the legal rights afforded to me under the FDCPA. 

I seek a thorough investigation into these practices and appropriate measures taken against XXXX XXXX and Ratchford Law Group for these violations.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation