If you filed a suit under the FDCPA against any of the PRA Group, Inc subsidiaries, and they bullied you into settlement, let the CFPB know about the debt buyer’s abusive practices.

For instance, it is extremely rare for the debt collector accused of violations of the FDCPA to be paid attorney fees, even if they win, but PRA threatened to ask for attorney fees from me if I did not settle for nothing.

Here is the complaint I sent. This is not legal advice. I am just letting you know you are not alone.

If you want confidentiality that the CFPB cannot give you, but you want to share your story so other FDCPA plaintiffs know what to expect, tell me about your experience at bohemian_books@yahoo.com and I will incorporate it into a blog post, removing identifying details. I am also glad to help edit complaints for spelling, punctuation and to make them easier to understand.

Here is mine:

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC violated most of the options listed on the complaint form at https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/ while trying to collect an alleged debt of $2,297.63 from 2010, but my main complaint is not one of the listed options. I know PRA has done similar things to many people, including Guadalupe Mejia, who was awarded $82 million in punitive damages by a jury in 2016. This issue should be addressed.

My main complaint is that after I filed a lawsuit under the FDCPA, invasion of privacy on seclusion and outrage, on March 10, 2021, PRA used litigation tactics that were unethical, illegal, deceitful and meant to inflict severe emotional distress.

PRA was represented by outside counsel, The Rose Law Firm in Arkansas and Troutman Pepper from Virginia (AKA Troutman Sanders).

On April 3, 2023, Troutman Pepper issued a blog post that said, in part: “According to the CFPB, entities cannot take unreasonable advantage of circumstances where people lack sufficient bargaining power to protect their interests.

“The policy statement describes such circumstances as when consumers do not elect to enter into a relationship with an entity,” and specifies debt collectors.

PRA used my lack of legal training, financial distress caused by the COVID related stock market crash, and my ill health, including diagnosed anxiety disorders and Hashimoto’s Disease, to bully me in court. PRA also capitalized on the opportunity of a judge who is notoriously anti-consumer and anti-CFPB, Judge Lee P. Rudofsky.

PRA threatened me with having to pay its “significant” attorney’s fees. A copy of the email is submitted. PRA filed a motion for the Clerk to tax $8,356.18 in costs to me. I am going to appeal the summary judgment, but thus far, PRA has ignored my request for them to stipulate to a stay of the cost motions until after the appeal.

PRA has never produced Old Account Level Documentation that shows what was purchased to incur the debt or the vendor who was paid by Capital One Bank. PRA has never produced a credit card agreement and specified it does not have the credit card agreement.

Before I filed suit, PRA sent its identity theft and fraud letter to me, with directions to answer the intrusive questions under penalty of perjury and notarized or witnessed. I refused because PRA did not tell me where the debt was incurred or what it was for. Even if I could deduce who committed the fraud, the statute of limitations to file criminal charges on the person had passed, and it would be extraordinarily difficult to collect evidence. The only purpose I saw in having me fill out the details, including my social security number, all previous addresses, and so on, was for PRA to use against me in trying to collect the debt. The letter was backdated.

After I filed suit, PRA sent three more backdated letters that said it “concluded its investigation” and closed my account and set the balance to zero. But the first letter informing me of this was addressed to “Laura Lyman” instead of “Laura Lynn” and had a different account number on it. I was fooled into thinking my account was closed. When I went to document the letter, I noticed the error. When I asked for a correction, PRA changed the wording. After my next request, they gave me another letter with the original wording and with my name and account number. Copies submitted.

Eight months after I filed suit, PRA produced a single account statement mailed to an address where I never received mail, that showed a balance of $1,916.05. They said Capital One gave it to them and got Capital One to submit an affidavit, but Capital One had told me many months earlier that it had no OALD at all. (Recorded)

PRA withheld and altered other documents. The company records filed under seal do not have each call made on PRA’s self-generated phone log documented on PRA’s notes. A representative told me the notes have an entry that I filed for bankruptcy, though I never filed for bankruptcy. That entry is not in the documents filed under seal.

PRA admits to calling a landline at my past residence in Arkansas hundreds of times. But, it claims it did not call my California cell phone for a seven year stretch with the first call they admit to being on November 18, 2020. I recorded that call, after setting up my computer. (There is a minute pause on PRA’s recording of the call.) The reason I spoke to PRA on a recorded line was because they had called me about a hundred times from August to November. About 85 of those calls I blocked and they went to voice mail.

PRA would not produce a third party record of its calls. I got my cell phone record and found fourteen calls that came from PRA, that don’t appear on PRA’s phone log, and each of the numbers those calls were placed from were disconnected. In fact, all the numbers PRA called me from were disconnected.

Judge Rudofsky, in his order granting summary judgment in PRA’s favor, truncated a sentence to distort my testimony, then PRA repeated the falsehood. Eventually the judge admitted the sentence was truncated, and then said the complete sentence had a different meaning than the meaning given by ChatGBT’s OpenAI and the opposite of what I meant.

PRA requested and Judge Rudofsky approved of making many of the business records under seal, against my heavy protest. It is difficult to write this complaint and complaints to other agencies with the confidentiality restrictions and the public cannot make an informed decision about who is telling the truth. That is why I am using the awkward way of saying what was not in the documents, instead of what was in the documents.

After I filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the single issue of misrepresentation of the amount of a debt, PRA lied, saying it “waived” my debt “in light of the litigation”, even though it did not issue a 1099-C to me in the two years since.

PRA hired an “expert witness” who is a hired gun. He made a diagnosis that contradicted the diagnosis of my medical providers. The Psychiatrist they hired was not licensed in Arkansas, and the Arkansas medical board told me (recorded) that out-of-state doctors can review records, but not diagnose. The report is filed under seal and I am only allowed to share it with law enforcement and the various medical boards and committees on professional conduct. But I am willing to share my version of what happened during the horrific Defense Medical Exam with the CFPB in confidentiality.

PRA posted my credit report, marked “CONFIDENTIAL”, and another document that had my full unredacted social security number and birthdate on PACER. When I complained, they said it was an accident.

There is so much detail that I will give the case number and my blog address, where I write about the case and other instances of corruption in courts. I will then make bullet points of specific misconduct on my request for a fair resolution.

Federal District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 4:21-cv-00189-LPR.

www.court-corruption.com

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC should file a notice in our case, explaining to the court each lie, deceptive statement and falsification of documentation they or their client made during the proceedings. This should include:

1. That letters to me were backdated, though there is deposition testimony from PRA in another case where they say their letters are dated on the day they are mailed.

2. All OALD. The number showing in hyperlinks on the records under seal is not zero or one.

3. PRA should admit that the number of calls logged on its self-generated phone log is not the same as the number of calls recorded in collection notes.

4. In particular, that a call I received on February 18, 2021 from PRA, which was recorded by PRA, does not show on either the phone log nor the collection notes. PRA hung up on me when I told them to hang-on for me to turn on my recorder, and I recorded the next call.

5. PRA should tell the court its policy about issuing 1099-Cs which is in policy manuals CFPB has obtained through its investigations of PRA that led to the 2015 consent agreement and 2023 consent order.

6. PRA should admit that I emailed them plentiful evidence that their lies about me having significant gambling losses from online, and therefore illegal poker playing, are false. They also submitted many of my blog posts as exhibits. They should submit the post that says I published my book subtitled “What it Takes to Play Poker Without Losing Your Assets.”

This is not an exhaustive list. PRA should stipulate to reversing the judgment and going to a jury trial. For any other impeachment evidence I produce, which the jury agrees proved a lie, PRA should agree to pay $100,000 per item above what the jury awards.

The wording of the closing letters taken with the extortionist settlement offer that allows PRA to pursue “future” debts gives me a reasonable inference that PRA plans to attempt to collect a further alleged debt. PRA should agree to a no contact order for the remainder of my life. My credit has no reportable derogatory comments. Any other alleged debt PRA claims is outside the statute of limitations for legal collection. I do not want to be forced to endure PRA’s abusive collection activity ever again. PRA should mark any further accounts that allegedly belong to me as “do not contact”.

Doc of the Day: Attachments