Consumer complaint received 2024-11-06 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened to sue you for very old debt
Company: Velocity Portfolio Group
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Formal Complaint Against CKS Prime Investments , LLC and XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXs I am filing a formal complaint against CKS Prime Investments , LLC and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for improper debt collection practices, including violations of the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), Regulation Z, the Credit CARD Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). 

Context Background : On XX/XX/scrub>XXXX XXXX XXXX I received a letter from XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  notifying me that my account ( ending in XXXX ) with an outstanding balance of {$1000.00} had been charged off and sold to CKS Prime Investments , LLC. 
CKS is now attempting to collect this debt, including {$700.00} in overlimit charges. I did not receive prior notice of these charges from XXXX, and the account number referenced by CKS does not match the account number originally provided by XXXX. 
Overlimit Charges : I did not opt in to permit transactions exceeding my credit limit, nor was I adequately informed about such charges. The imposition of overlimit fees without explicit consent may violate the Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), 15 U.S.C. 1637 ( i ), and its implementing Regulation Z, 12 CFR Part 1026.56.

Statute of Limitations : The debt was charged off on XX/XX/year>, and the statute of limitations for collecting credit card debt in Texas is four years. Pursuing collection beyond this period may violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and its implementing Regulation F, 12 CFR Part 1006.26.

Unreasonable Billing Cycle : CKS applied a XXXX billing cycle during a XXXX month, which gave me insufficient time to review my statement and make payments. This action led to overlimit and potentially late fees, which I believe violate TILA, Regulation Z, and FDCPA Section 1692f. 
Improper Service of Process : The process server who delivered the lawsuit papers failed to validate my identity, age, or residency at the address where service was attempted. This interaction was recorded for evidence. The process server only identified themselves as a process server without disclosing their affiliation, raising concerns about the validity of the service. 

This letter pertains to the debt associated with the account ending in 1455, for which CKS claims a balance of {$1000.00} ( {$320.00} actual credit card balance, plus {$700.00} in overlimit fees ). The following points require clarification and documentation : 1. Overlimit Fees and Lack of Consent : I did not opt in to allow transactions exceeding my credit limit, nor was I properly notified about overlimit fees. These actions violate TILA, 15 U.S.C. 1637 ( i ), and Regulation Z, 12 CFR Part 1026.56.

2. Statute of Limitations : The debt was charged off on XX/XX/year>, and Texass statute of limitations for collecting credit card debt is four years. CKSs actions may violate Regulation F, 12 CFR Part 1006.26, which prohibits time-barred collections. 
3. Unreasonable Billing Cycle : CKS imposed a XXXX billing cycle during a XXXX month, which I believe to be an unfair and deceptive practice under FDCPA Section 1692f and a violation of Regulation Z under TILA. 
4. Lack of Debt Validation and Misleading Practices : Upon receiving collection notices from CKS, I requested validation of the debt as required by FDCPA Section 1692g. However, CKS failed to provide adequate documentation or clear itemization of the charges. This lack of validation and misleading communication may violate FDCPA Section 1692e, which prohibits false or misleading representations. 
5. Improper Service of Process : The process server failed to properly identify themselves or verify my identity during the service of legal documents, raising concerns about the validity of the legal proceedings initiated by CKS.

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