Consumer complaint received 2026-05-06 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Private student loan debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am disputing a {$30000.00} alleged debt being collected by a debt collector on behalf of a debt buyer. The original creditor is listed as a XXXX XXXX that operated under an XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " XXXX '' ) model and is now defunct. I enrolled and signed the XXXX with the bootcamp on XX/XX/XXXX, as a California resident. The XXXX listed a Plan Amount of {$23000.00} and Plan Charges of {$6700.00} for a Total Payment Amount of {$30000.00}, with payments contingent on monthly earned income exceeding {$3300.00}. The bootcamp is now defunct. Its website is no longer accessible XXXX resolution returns XXXX, indicating the domain has been deregistered. An independent third-party institutional listing ( XXXX XXXX XXXX confirms the school is closed. Critically, I searched the California XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX 's institutional database for the school under multiple name variants and its last known California address. The school does not appear in the XXXX database under any variant, indicating it operated as an unlicensed private postsecondary institution in California in violation of California XXXX XXXX XXXX. Operating without XXXX approval is a misdemeanor under XXXX. I have filed a complaint with XXXX. Multiple public consumer complaints including a XXXX r/codingbootcamp thread with XXXX comments explicitly calling the school a scam, and XXXX reviews on XXXX XXXX and XXXX titled " This is a SCAM! '' and " scam '' document a consistent pattern of misrepresentation : instructional content consisting of free XXXX videos and Codecademy material presented as proprietary curriculum, ineffective job placement support, outsourced unresponsive instructors, and aggressive collection on the XXXX after the school became unreachable. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent the collector a written dispute under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX and California XXXX Code XXXX, requesting full validation including : the signed XXXX ; documentation showing how and when repayment obligations were triggered ; a detailed accounting of the {$30000.00} balance ; the chain of assignment from the original creditor to the debt buyer ; proof the original creditor was authorized to operate in California ; and compliance with notice and cure requirements before acceleration. On XX/XX/XXXX, the collector responded with a single-paragraph " verification '' letter and a copy of the underlying XXXX. They did not provide the chain of title, charge-off documentation, an itemized accounting, proof of acceleration notice, XXXX licensing documentation, or any of the items required under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act ( XXXX. XXXX. Code XXXX and XXXX ). The " validation '' is facially deficient. On the same date, I sent a follow-up dispute via email and certified mail, formally noticing that I elect to void the underlying contract under California XXXX Code XXXX and California public XXXX disfavoring enforcement of contracts with unlicensed schools. I asserted all defenses available against any holder of the contract under the FTC Holder Rule, XXXX C.F.R. XXXX, including failure of consideration, fraud in the inducement, and violations of California 's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. This matter implicates the CFPB XXXX prior determination in In the Matter of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) that XXXX are extensions of credit and " private education loans '' subject to the Truth in Lending Act. The contract at issue lacks TILA-required disclosures, including a properly calculated APR, finance charge, and amount financed. The XXXX was originated by the now-defunct bootcamp and is serviced by a third-party servicer that has previously been named in consumer-advocate litigation related to bootcamp XXXX. I have not made any payments and have not acknowledged the debt as valid.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation