Consumer complaint received 2026-07-01 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Payday loan debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: CreditNinja Lending, LLC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
b'I am filing this complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding their continued attempt to collect a debt that is void and unenforceable under California law, and their repeated failure to provide adequate debt validation as required under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692g.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nIn approximately XXXX XXXX XXXX began reporting a collection account (Account No. XXXX, original account No. XXXX) to my credit reports, claiming a balance of $XXXX XXXX placed repeated telephone calls to me beginning before I was aware of their identity. I did not recognize these calls and did not answer them.\n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, I filed a dispute with XXXX regarding this account. On XXXX XXXX XXXX, TransUnion returned the account as "VERIFIED AS ACCURATE" with no substantive explanation of how this verification was conducted. During this dispute period, XXXX continued placing telephone calls to me, including documented calls on XXXX XXXX XXXX (from XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX (from XXXX XXXX XXXX) two different phone numbers, both identified by caller ID as XXXX. At that time, I had not yet sent XXXX a direct written dispute, so I do not allege this calling activity alone violated 15 U.S.C. 1692g(b). However, this pattern of continued contact from multiple numbers during a period in which the underlying account was actively disputed with a credit bureau is relevant context for evaluating XXXX\'s overall conduct and is documented in my records.\n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX mailed me a letter (received XXXX XXXX XXXX, a ten-day delay for presorted first-class mail addressed to an outdated address) enclosing only the original Installment Loan Agreement, which revealed that the underlying obligation was issued by XXXX XXXX XXXX c/o CreditNinja on XXXX XXXX XXXX, with a stated principal of $XXXX and an Annual Percentage Rate of 179.00% generating a finance charge of $XXXX.\n\nTHE UNDERLYING DEBT IS VOID UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW\n\nCalifornia Financial Code 22303 caps interest rates on consumer installment loans under $XXXX at 36% APR. The 179.00% APR reflected in the alleged loan agreement is nearly five times this statutory cap. California Financial Code 22651 renders loans made in violation of this cap void meaning no person has the right to collect principal, charges, or recompense on the loan.\n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX one week after the alleged loan was purportedly originated the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) entered a Settlement Agreement against CreditNinja Lending, LLC (California Finance Lender License No. XXXX), citing violations of California Financial Code Sections 22303, 22304, 22304.5, 22305, and 22320.5 the exact provisions governing the rate cap applicable to this alleged obligation. This is a matter of public record, documented in XXXX\'s official XXXX XXXX Summary of Enforcement Actions.\n\nNCA\'S VALIDATION RESPONSE WAS INADEQUATE TWICE\n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, I sent XXXX a formal written validation demand via certified mail (delivered and signed for XXXX XXXX XXXX, tracking number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX), disputing the validity of this alleged debt in its entirety and citing the FDCPA, the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the void nature of the underlying obligation under California law. I specifically demanded: (1) proof of chain of title from XXXX XXXX Bank/CreditNinja to XXXX; (2) an itemized account history explaining how the claimed balance grew from a stated principal of $XXXX to $XXXX; (3) the purchase price XXXX paid for this alleged debt; (4) proof of XXXX\'s California debt collection license; and (5) the legal basis for any added interest or fees.\n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, I received a second letter from XXXX. This letter contained the identical documents previously sent the same cover letter format and the same Installment Loan Agreement with none of my specific demands addressed. XXXX did not provide chain of title documentation, did not explain the balance discrepancy, did not provide licensing information, and did not respond in any way to the void loan argument or the XXXX enforcement action I cited and enclosed as documentation. Receipt of these documents does not constitute, and should not be construed as, an admission that this alleged debt is valid, owed, or enforceable.\n\nThis pattern of sending an identical, non-responsive packet a second time after receiving a detailed written dispute is relevant to the statutory damages factors under 15 U.S.C. 1692k(b), which directs courts to consider "the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector" and "the extent to which such noncompliance was intentional." XXXX\'s repetition of the same inadequate response, without engaging any of the specific legal and factual issues I raised, reflects persistent noncompliance rather than an isolated oversight.'

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