Consumer complaint received 2026-04-16 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Other debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: VELO LAW OFFICE
State: IN

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint to dispute the validity, ownership, and amount of a debt that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is attempting to collect from me. I believe this company is misrepresenting the nature of the account, relying on insufficient documentation, and attempting to enforce a disputed obligation without providing proper validation. The underlying account arose from an XXXX furniture agreement that was structured as a lease and included return-related provisions. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is attempting to collect this account as though it were a straightforward fixed debt, without adequately accounting for the lease nature of the agreement or the contractual issues surrounding return and recovery of the property. The leased property was not properly retrieved, yet the collector has pursued the full alleged balance as though no further performance or mitigation was required. I dispute that characterization and I dispute that the balance being claimed is valid. I also dispute whether XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has provided competent proof that it lawfully owns this specific account and has the legal right to collect it. The documentation used appears to rely primarily on affidavits and a copy of the original agreement, rather than sufficient evidence showing an actual purchase, assignment, chain of title, full account history, and a reliable explanation of how the amount claimed was calculated. In my view, conclusory affidavit statements are being used in place of proper debt validation. In addition, the amount being claimed is inaccurate and disputed because it appears to ignore material facts related to the lease structure, the return provisions, the failure to recover the leased property, and the handling of the account in connection with a non-party. These issues directly affect whether any balance is owed at all, and if so, the amount that could legally be claimed. This matter has also been accompanied by repeated service and address problems in related court proceedings, including the use of incorrect addresses. While this complaint is focused on the debt collection conduct itself, those circumstances further reflect an attempt to pursue enforcement without first establishing a properly validated and enforceable debt. I request that the CFPB require XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to cease misrepresenting this account as a valid fixed debt unless and until it can provide competent documentary proof of : ( XXXX ) its lawful ownership of the specific account, ( XXXX ) the complete chain of assignment, ( XXXX ) the full account history, ( XXXX ) the legal basis for the amount claimed, and ( XXXX ) how that amount remains collectible despite the lease nature of the agreement and the unresolved issues concerning the leased property. I also request that this company be required to investigate and correct any inaccurate credit reporting or collection representations related to this disputed account. It appears that Velo Law Office, through XXXX XXXX XXXX, may be the entity actually carrying out the debt collection activity behind XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and I request that the CFPB investigate whether Velo Law Office is using XXXX XXXX, XXXX as the named collector or plaintiff while Velo Law Office functions as the true debt collection operation. It appears that the alleged debt has not been properly validated, has not been properly substantiated, and may be invalid as represented. I request immediate review of Velo Law Offices and XXXX XXXX XXXX role in the collection of this account, their relationship to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, the documentation used to support this alleged debt, and the representations made concerning it, and I ask that competent evidence be required rather than affidavit-based conclusions.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation