Consumer complaint received 2026-04-24 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: Lloyd & McDaniel, PLC
State: WV

Complaint narrative:
My name is XXXX XXXX XXXX. I was served with a XXXX XXXX, WV XXXX XXXX Summons on or about XX/XX/XXXX to answer a debt collection. Here is a summary of why I am filing a complaint. I received only a XXXX page card on XX/XX/XXXX about this issue. I called several times, emailed, and returned the XXXX page letter marked that I needed more information such as a Dunning Letter, ( other ) withinXX/XX/XXXXdays of the receiving the debt letter from Lloyd & McDaniel , PLC. I'm also served by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX based upon being in a debt management program ( prior to the debt letter ). The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX also communicated that they had issues reaching Lloyd & McDaniel. Here are some other defenses that I want to bring up where Lloyd & McDaniel and XXXX did not provide in notification or requested documents. XXXX Plaintiff has not provided documents showing a contract between Defendant and XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO XX/XX/XXXX BANK with Defendants Wet Signature. XXXX Plaintiff has not provided any document authorizing the handling of Defendants personal data. XXXX Plaintiff has not provided a complete account number for Defendant to review for the alleged debt. XXXX Plaintiff has not provided a full accounting of alleged debt for the amount of {$9100.00}, account number unknown. Defendant requests to review all original creditors ( payments, credits, interest rates, disputes ) including a signature or digital pin code approving alleged charges claimed. XXXX Plaintiff has not provided any documentation showing the debt is 100 % accurate with no errors or omissions. XXXX Plaintiff has not provided communications between the Plaintiff and Defendant. XXXX The original creditor has possibly filed a XXXX XXXX Cancellation of Debt with the IRS ; this would void any ability to collect on any alleged debt. Defendant requests proof XX/XX/XXXXXXXX, XXXX, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO XX/XX/XXXXBANK have not filed a XX/XX/1099 Cancellation of Debt write-off to the IRS. XXXX Plaintiff did not provide a Dunning Letter giving Defendant the opportunity to dispute alleged debt. XXXX Plaintiff has excessively delayed in bringing this lawsuit to my disadvantage due to non-availability of communication and document requests being cut off with the original creditor to establish concrete proof of the claimed amount by Plaintiff. XXXX Plaintiff Attorney XXXX XXXX of Lloyd & McDaniel , PLC is a debt collector has a requirement according to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to notify Defendant by mail with a Dunning Letter giving the Defendant the opportunity to dispute alleged debt. XXXX Plaintiff Attorney XXXX XXXX of Lloyd & McDaniel , PLC is a debt collector has a requirement according to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( 15 U.S.C. XXXXg ) to review and provide documentation to show proof of allege debt and how Plaintiff provided proof of how the alleged debt was accumulated with true accounting records and statements. XXXX Plaintiff Attorney XXXX XXXX of Lloyd & McDaniel , PLC is a debt collector has a requirement according to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( 15 U.S.C. XXXXg ) to provide a proper validation of debt with in XXXX days of initial contact. Because Plaintiff Attorney never provided a Dunning Letter to the Defendant, Plaintiff Attorney did not comply with FDCPA Requirements ( 15 U.S.C. XXXXg ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation