Consumer complaint received 2025-10-28 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: First Credit Services Inc.
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
I received a collection notice from First Credit Services , Inc. regarding an alleged installment or payday loan originally issued by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a tribally affiliated lender. I disputed the debt in writing and requested full validation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) 809 ( b ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ) and Washingtons Collection Agency Act ( RCW 19.16.250 ( 8 ) and ( 21 ) ).

The collector responded but provided only a generic XXXX agreement and a loan summary without any signed contract, funding proof, or chain-of-assignment documentation showing that the debt was lawfully incurred or that First Credit Services has authority to collect it. This does not meet the FDCPAs validation requirement because it fails to prove the existence, ownership, or enforceability of the alleged obligation ( Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 ( 4th Cir. 1999 ) ; Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., 460 F.3d 1162 ( 9th Cir. 2006 ) ). 

The underlying loan materials also indicate an annual percentage rate of approximately 460 % and claim to be governed solely by tribal law and the Federal Arbitration Act. Washington law strictly prohibits unlicensed, high-interest lending to residents and caps consumer-loan interest under RCW 19.52 and RCW 31.04. Loans made in violation of these laws are void and unenforceable in Washington courts. Federal and state authorities have repeatedly confirmed that tribal-law clauses can not be used to evade state consumer protections : CFPB v. CashCall Inc. , 2016 WL 4820635 ( C.D. Cal. ) held that tribal-law lending structures used to avoid state usury and licensing requirements were a sham and unenforceable.

CFPB v. Golden Valley Lending Inc., 2018 WL 4955239 ( N.D. Ill. ) reaffirmed that tribal affiliation does not immunize lenders from federal and state law.

State of Washington v. Lemach Corp., No. 16-2-01511-2 ( Wash. Super. Ct. 2016 ) Washington Attorney General held similar tribal-affiliated payday loans void for violating state rate and licensing laws. 

Because the alleged loan is governed by a tribal law contract, any effort to collect it from a Washington resident may involve attempting to collect a debt that is legally void. Under FDCPA 807 ( 2 ) ( A ), a collector may not falsely represent the character, amount, or legal status of any debt. Likewise, RCW 19.16.250 ( 21 ) makes it unlawful for a Washington-licensed collection agency to attempt to collect any debt known to be invalid or unenforceable under law.

As a licensed collection agency in Washington, First Credit Services has an independent statutory duty to ensure that every account it pursues is lawful, enforceable, and not the product of an illegal contract. This duty can not be waived by reliance on a lenders claim of tribal authority. Collecting or reporting a void loan violates both federal and state law, as well as RCW 19.16.250 ( 8 ), which prohibits misrepresenting the legal rights of either the consumer or the creditor. 

Furthermore, the arbitration and governing-law provisions deprive Washington consumers of their rights to state-law protections and public injunctive relief, a practice federal courts have deemed unconscionable and contrary to public policy ( Haynes v. Kuder, 591 A.2d 1286 ( D.C. 1991 ) ; CashCall, supra * ) . The collectors use of those documents as proof of obligation therefore can not meet the FDCPAs good-faith verification standard. 

In summary, the collector failed to provide lawful validation, relied on a contract likely void under Washingtons lending and licensing laws, and attempted to collect a debt that may not legally exist. I request that the CFPB investigate whether First Credit Services violated FDCPA 807 and 809, RCW 19.16.250, and applicable usury and licensing statutes, and that all collection and reporting activities be suspended until valid, lawful proof of debt ownership and enforceability is provided.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation