Consumer complaint received 2023-04-06 00:00:00
Product: Student loan — Private student loan
Issue: Dealing with your lender or servicer — Received bad information about your loan
Company: Forster & Garbus LLP
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Dear CFPB : I am reaching out to you as a party who feels harassed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and their attorneys at Forster and Garbus. On XXXX and XXXX of XXXX, my mother and I were sued by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, who retained New York attorneys Forster and Garbus as counsel. They alleged that we owed them money. When pressed to provide documentation that these debts were, in fact, owed to them, they provided insufficient paperwork for the XXXX matter, and no paperwork whatsoever for the XXXX matter. Subsequent to the filing of both these matters, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX inexplicably dropped the matter. We received a stipulation discontinuing action requesting that the case be dismissed with prejudice. 

These actions have affected me deeply. I am a former debt collector employed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and I am well aware of the laws and compliance issues tied to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). I have felt harassed to such an extent XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for the extreme amounts of duress these matters have placed on me. As a result of these actions and the undue stress they have placed on me, I am also now on short-term XXXX leave. The compounded stress of a loss in wages and the psychological torment of having started on the wrong foot at what should have been my dream job as a XXXX  XXXX at XXXX have created a situation that has led me to reach out to you in order to continue the work that I understand the CFPB had already begun. 

Of note, I find it troubling and feel harassed that after a consent order entered into in XXXX of XXXX that, among other provisions, contained an injunction from filing further unsubstantiated lawsuits until completion of an audit XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Forster and Garbus still managed to file suit against my dear retired mother and I in XXXX and XXXX of XXXX. Was an audit into 800,000 student debts completed between XXXX of XXXX and XXXX of XXXX? How many people are in similar situations having been sued on debts with little to no documentation and this after an injunction? If evidence of chain of assignment can not be identified to its logical conclusion, but aimed at a target anyway, does that not encourage persecution of vulnerable communities? If evidence is not forthcoming when defendants are sued in these instances, what can we say about these officers of the court? 

As a former debt collector of an entity that buys third-party debt for pennies on the dollar and then collects on these debts, I find it deeply distressing for many reasons that settlements can be negotiated with unclear evidence of chain of assignment. I remember vividly hearing the distress in the voices of consumers who at one point maintained that they paid some other debt collector for a debt that XXXX XXXX had recently started to collect on. I remember escalating these cases and learning the lesson early on that debts should only be paid after charge-off once chain of assignment can be established. I remember how disconcerting it was to learn that you can make a good-faith payment to Party A, when in fact Party B is the true holder of the chain of assignment, and that that good-faith payment is no valid defense against the true owner of the debt. These actions against me and my retired mother have triggered bad memories of those days, and my powerlessness to do much to aid the consumer except to leave and resolve to educate as many people as I could in my direct sphere of influence. 

I also find certain items interesting ; for example, the XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX, which is supposed to be representing me, took USD {$2000.00} from me and promised a deposition which never materialized. The attorney assigned to my case is also by happenstance a former attorney for plaintiffs counsel. Are they intent on representing me? Or is there trepidation to involve XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in a flurry of depositions which would force the hand of evidence regarding a debt that XXXX XXXX supposedly hold? 

As a former debt collector and a current certified anti-money laundering specialist, I am concerned about practices that are unjustifiable where the evidence is not solidly forthcoming. This does not add up, and has greatly perturbed me during the genesis of my career and has instilled fear in my elderly mother for her retirement in what should be her twilight years. The financial hardships this has imposed on my family are myriad. As a condition of my employment, I need to relocate to Arizona. I have not been able to see this through due to the mental and emotional distress. I have had to go on short-term XXXX leave as a result of a medical diagnosis. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to calm symptoms that are a direct result of these actions. The years that I envisioned at XXXX are now under threat, and what should have been a 20-year career doing what I love to do are now off to the worst possible start. 

I humbly request that you investigate this behavior, and remain at your disposition to discuss this and any other matters arising from an investigation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation