Consumer complaint received 2019-12-10 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Hayt Hayt & Landau, P.L. (FL)
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I was recently sued for a debt by a law firm (Hayt, Hayt, & Landau) who represents my original creditor XXXX XXXX. On two separate occasions, I believe that representatives of this firm committed an FDCPA violation (False or Misleading Representations). The first occurrence happened on XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX. I did not get the name of the male that I spoke with that day. Prior to XX/XX/2019, I had spoke to a representative of this law firm regarding settling the debt, I was told that I could do sign a consent judgment. I was not fully aware of what a consent judgement was nor what all it entailed. However, I wanted to resolve this legal matter opposed to going through the court process. The consent judgement paper work finally arrived in the mail. I read over it and realized that I did not agree to the terms because I did not want a judgement on my credit. So on XX/XX/2019, I called the law firm to speak to someone about the consent judgement paperwork. I expressed to the representative that I was not in agreement with the terms and asked about settling the debt for less than the total balance. The representative stated that it didn't matter if I signed the consent judgement or not, I was still legally bound by it. The representative was abrasive and was not interested in trying to explain things to me. I didn't try going back and forth with him, I just ended the call. 
The second occurrence happened when my wife spoke to representative XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/2019at XXXX XXXX My wife expressed to him that she wanted to settle the account for $XXXX   payable XX/XX/2019. The representative stated that XXXX XXXX does not accept submitted settlement offers. He further stated that XXXX   XXXX was their one client who didn't accept settlement offers because they already have a set set percentage with the firm. XXXX stated the XXXX would be the amount that he could settle the account for. My wife expressed to him that the goal would be to do a lump sum payment to settle the account opposed to making monthly payments. However, in good faith, she made a XXXX down payment and agreed to $XXXX  a month payments until the remaining XXXX was paid off. This amount and arrangement was only agreed to because XXXX  stated to her that XXXX XXXX didn't accept submitted settlement offers.
On XXXX at XXXX XXXX, my wife called in to verify that the consent judgement that they were sending out would not by put on the credit report as a judgement. XXXX had told her on a previous call that it wouldn't be but she and I both wanted to be sure. In the midst of the call with the representative, they discussed the settlement offer. My wife asked again about possibly just paying another XXXX out of pocket as a lump sum to just settle the account in full. The representative informed her that because a settlement amount was agreed to, he couldn't submit another offer to the client for me. My wife told him about the conversation she had with XXXX and she told the representative that she was misled by XXXX. She stated if she would have been given correct information, she would have pursued having a settlement amount submitted directly to the client XXXX XXXX   opposed to taking the XXXX settlement that the representative XXXX  offered over the phone. The representative did nothing to try and rectify the situation. Instead, he kept telling her to be sure to have me sign the consent judgement when it comes. I'm sure that this firm works on commission therefore I am convinced that she was purposely misled in an effort to get a larger commission. I also do not understand how I am legally bound by any agreement without my signature. According to the representative, the documents hadn't been prepared yet but were being prepared. I don't understand why no one is willing to rectify the error made by a representative of this law firm. This firm is responsible for its' employees. The proof of these calls and the "material" of the calls should be available because the firm records all calls. Please review the recordings for violations.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation