Consumer complaint received 2026-01-18 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: False statements or representation — Indicated you were committing crime by not paying debt
Company: BDF Partners, PC
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns a series of debt collection communications issued by Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel , LLP ( XXXX ) that contain material inconsistencies, misleading statements of consumer rights, defective legal language, and internal contradictions, while the underlying debt is actively disputed, subject to regulatory investigation, and reported inconsistently across consumer reporting agencies. 
The law firms own documents demonstrate : Overshadowing of statutory dispute rights Misrepresentation of legal obligations upon dispute Defective and incomplete legal assertions Internally contradictory statements regarding collection activity Reliance on inaccurate or unreconciled account data Threats of acceleration and litigation during an active dispute window These defects are not speculative they are evident on the face of the documents provided. 
Factual Background ( Documented ) On XX/XX/year>, XXXX sent multiple debt collection letters, including : A Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate A Debt Validation / Dispute Notice An Itemization of the Debt At the time these letters were issued : The debt was actively disputed Credit reporting for the account contained blank XXXX XXXX fields and unreconciled data A XXXX  investigation regarding XXXX  XXXX  was already opened and pending Multiple CFPB complaints regarding related reporting and collection conduct were active Documented Defects and Violations ( Based on Their Own Papers ) XXXX. Overshadowing and Misrepresentation of Dispute Rights XXXX  dispute notice states : If you write to us by XX/XX/year>, we must stop collection on any amount you dispute until we send you information that shows you owe the debt. 
Immediately followed by : The law does not require that we wait until the end of the XXXX-day period before taking action to collect the XXXX. 
This juxtaposition misrepresents the law by failing to clarify that once a dispute is made, all collection activity must cease until validation is provided. 
This contradiction : Confuses the least sophisticated consumer Chills the exercise of statutory dispute rights Constitutes overshadowing under the FDCPA and California XXXX XXXX  The statement is materially misleading because it is only true if no dispute is made, which is not the case here. 
XXXX. Contradictory Assertions Regarding Collection Activity Within the same correspondence, XXXX simultaneously asserts : That collection must stop upon dispute That they may continue collection before the XXXX period expires Both statements can not be true simultaneously without clarification. No clarification is provided. 
As a law firm, XXXX is held to a heightened standard of accuracy. Presenting contradictory legal rights in a single notice constitutes misleading legal communication. 
XXXX. Threat of Acceleration and Litigation During Active Dispute The Notice of Default and Intent to Accelerate states that : The debt is accelerated Litigation may proceed within XXXX  days This threat is issued without acknowledgment of the active dispute and while validation rights remain open. 
Threatening acceleration and litigation while simultaneously offering dispute rights without clearly suspending enforcement upon dispute further overshadows consumer protections and misstates the XXXX lawful authority. 
XXXX. Defective Legal Language and Placeholder Errors The Notice of Default includes the following clause : All amounts authorized under the Declaration and the CALIFORNIA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX,????????, including interest at the rate of percent ( % ) per annum This clause contains : Literal placeholder question marks No statute citation No interest rate No contractual reference This is not a harmless typographical error. It is a material legal defect in a document threatening enforcement and litigation. A law firm issuing a notice with unresolved placeholders undermines the credibility and validity of the demand. 
XXXX. Unreconciled and Unsupported Debt Itemization The Itemization of Debt shows : Interest added without explanation No payments credited No reconciliation with credit reporting data A balance inconsistent with disputed and unreconciled XXXX XXXX reporting The amount demanded relies on unverified figures while the debt is actively disputed and under regulatory review. 
XXXX. Collection Activity During Regulatory Oversight At the time of issuance : A XXXX  investigation into XXXX  XXXX  was already pending The firm proceeded with acceleration threats regardless No acknowledgment of regulatory oversight appears in the correspondence This conduct appears designed to pressure payment while disputes and investigations remain unresolved. 
Harm and Risk Created XXXX communications : Confuse and mislead consumers regarding their rights Pressure payment during protected dispute periods Threaten legal action using defective and incomplete legal documents Rely on unreconciled and disputed account data Undermine confidence in the accuracy and lawfulness of debt collection practices.

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