Consumer complaint received 2018-01-07 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Auto debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive notice of right to dispute
Company: Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SVS XXXX .... The basis for my dispute was required to notify me prior to XXXX, or no later than 30 days after CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SVSfailed to notify me about reporting derogatory info. to XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX In section 603 ( p ) 15 U.S.C. ss 168s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( A ) ( I ) ; The notice required under subparagraph ( A ) shall be provided to the customer prior to, or no later than 30 days after XXXX, furnishing the negative derogatory 30, 60,90information to a consumer reporting agency described in section 603 ( p ), 15 U.S.C. ss 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( B ) ( I ). Plus broke commercial law under UCC? 9.501 that all notices were timely and properly given by dated certified mail receipt. They were not met. I asked for documentation & received no response. 
Also, CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SVS '' failed to give me my " Mini-Miranda '' five days prior to placing this derogatory item on all of my credit reports, per Section 807 ( 11 ) & FDCPA? 809, which is {$1000.00} per violation and the state of TX allows treble damages. 
Under? 809. Validations of date and Mini-Mirandi under Section 807 ( 1 ) CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SVS failed to send me my initial communication before placing this alleged derogatory 30, 60,90status on my credit reports further violating the FCRA, I understand that according to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, failing to provide this notice can result in a penalty up to {$2500.00} and can be enforced by the FTC , and that my state attorney general can also enforce this with a {$1000.00} penalty as well. 
I attached a copy of the law and the actual document from the federal reserve CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SVS is held liable as well for defamation and in the state of TX a creditor is who collects their on debt is considered a debt collector under FDCPA. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Tex.App-XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) citing XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Tex.App-XXXX XXXX writ dism 'd w.o.j. ) Asthe court noted in XXXX v XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX JMR/FLN, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), [ t ] he majority of courts considering the questionhave drawn upon defamations traditional multiplepublications rule. Underthis rule, each publication of the same falsehood by the same defamer is aseparate cause of action, thus starting the limitations clock anew. ( citingRestatement ( Second ) of Torts? 577A ( 1 ). 
In the FCRA context, this means eachtransmission of an erroneous credit information is a separate FCRA violation. (, after failing to perform a reasonable investigation andsubsequently re-certifying false information to the CRAs each monththereafter. This would negate the possibility of any time barred allegationsconnected to their actions by the Plaintiff when the violations were on goingat the time the complaint was filed. ) In the state of Texas a creditor actually fall under the TDCPA, contrary to the FDCPA, a creditor who collects its own debts is a debt collector under the TDCPA. XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX reh.den. ) XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Tex.App-Dallas XXXX writ dism 'd w.o.j. )

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation