Consumer complaint received 2026-05-15 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Nelson and Kennard, LLP
State: CO

Complaint narrative:
The following complaint concerns the debt collection and litigation practices of XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and their collection counsel in connection with an alleged XXXX XXXX XXXX account. This complaint does not seek to relitigate the existence of the alleged debt or the later judgment. Rather, it concerns whether the collector and its agents complied with their obligations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. XXXX, as well as applicable XXXX law, after receiving a timely written dispute and request for validation. It also concerns whether they proceeded with collection and litigation without first providing meaningful, account-specific verification as contemplated by XXXX C.F.R. XXXX and XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX. Summary of conduct -I timely disputed the debt in writing and requested validation on XX/XX/XXXX. -The collector and its counsel did not provide meaningful account-specific validation before filing suit on XX/XX/XXXX. -The complaint referenced exhibits that were not fully furnished to me in a way that allowed meaningful review and response. -The documents later relied upon were generic, redacted, or incomplete and did not clearly establish ownership of my specific account. -The collector proceeded with litigation before proving the amount claimed and its authority to collect. -The later CFPB XXXX relied on a XX/XX/XXXX, default judgment rather than addressing the validation issue. -The response also refused to provide a purchase and sale agreement, even though the dispute concerns whether the collector had sufficient proof of ownership and standing. -This conduct implicates XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX because a timely dispute triggers the duty to provide verification. -It also implicates XXXX XXXX. XXXX because the debt was presented as properly supported when the documentation was incomplete or untimely. -It also implicates XXXX XXXX. XXXX because filing and pursuing litigation without meaningful validation is unfair and coercive. On XX/XX/XXXX, a written dispute and debt validation request was sent to the XXXX counsel, Nelson & Kennard, concerning the alleged account ending in XXXX. That request expressly disputed the debt and demanded, among other things, a complete itemization of the amount claimed, the original contract or agreement, documentation establishing a lawful chain of assignment from XXXX XXXX Bank to XXXX XXXX XXXX, and proof that the collector was authorized to collect in XXXX. The request further demanded that collection activity cease unless and until proper validation was provided, consistent with the dispute and validation framework established by XXXX XXXX. XXXX and related regulations. Notwithstanding that timely dispute, suit was filed on XX/XX/XXXX. The filing of suit occurred before meaningful account-specific validation was provided. In the court filing itself, the plaintiff represented that XXXX exhibits supported its claim, including a charge-off statement, a statement showing the last payment or transaction, and a bill of sale evidencing ownership. However, the record available to the consumer did not contain complete, timely, account-level documentation sufficient to verify the debt, confirm the amount claimed, or establish an unbroken chain of ownership before litigation proceeded. The answer filed in XXXX XXXX court case reflected that the plaintiff had initially provided only limited and insufficient documentation, that a formal validation request had been submitted on XX/XX/XXXX, and that full and proper validation had not been provided before the lawsuit was initiated. The answer further stated that the complaint referenced exhibits that were either not fully furnished or not furnished in a manner that allowed meaningful review and response. Those facts remain central to this complaint. The XXXX later CFPB response did not address that issue. Instead, the company stated that XXXX XXXX XXXX acquired the account on XX/XX/XXXX ; that a default judgment was entered on XX/XX/XXXX ; and that, because of that judgment, it considered the matter resolved. The response also asserted that it had already satisfied its validation obligation and that it was not obligated to provide a purchase and sale agreement. That response fails to address whether meaningful validation was timely provided before litigation was commenced and before the consumer was required to defend against the claim. A later judgment does not cure earlier deficiencies in debt collection conduct. The issue presented here is whether the collector proceeded with collection and litigation after receiving a timely written dispute, without first providing sufficiently detailed, account-level documentation establishing the amount claimed and XXXX XXXX XXXX authority to collect. XXXX on generic bills of sale, redacted transfer materials, or post hoc explanations does not answer that question and XXXX constitute a misleading representation under XXXX XXXX. XXXX or an unfair practice under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. This matter caused substantial burden and prejudice. The consumer was required to respond to and defend a court action while still lacking timely, complete documentation establishing the XXXX standing and the precise basis for the amount claimed. The companys CFPB response does not dispute the chronology of the XX/XX/XXXX validation request and the XX/XX/XXXX lawsuit ; instead, it attempts to end the inquiry by pointing to a later judgment. Accordingly, the CFPB is respectfully requested to review : -Whether the collector and its agents failed to provide timely and meaningful validation after receipt of the written dispute dated XX/XX/XXXX, in violation of XXXX XXXX. XXXX and XXXX C.F.R. XXXX. -Whether the documentation relied upon was sufficient to establish account-level ownership and legal authority to collect on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX -Whether filing and pursuing litigation before providing such validation was consistent with the FDCPA, including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, and applicable XXXX consumer protection law, including XXXX XXXX. XXXX. XXXX. -Whether the companys CFPB XXXX was materially nonresponsive because it relied on a later judgment rather than addressing the complained-of collection conduct. For these reasons, the prior response should not be treated as a complete resolution of the issues raised.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation