David B. Schumacher PC Reviews (4)
Oct 22, 2019
I am an attorney representing [redacted] in this matter I have reviewed this matter and believe that the communications and notifications were appropriately taken by my officeThe complainant is not the primary account holder, but my office was given permission to speak with her about this matter by the primary account holder On October 24, 2017, the complainant spoke with three different representatives in my office, all of which attempted to respond to her inquires It was ultimately determined that the best course of action would be to have all future communication done in writing The complainant requested documentation to verify and support the actions taken by my office in the underlying court case The requested documentation was mailed to the primary account holder at the current address provided by complainant on that same day We requested that complainant provide any pertinent information to my office in writing, so that we could review it with my client My office has attempted to resolve this matter within the parameters outlined by my client I am a debt collector for [redacted] *** This communication is an attempt to collect a debt and any information that you provide will be used to collect the debt
I am an attorney representing [redacted] in this matter. I have reviewed this matter and believe that the communications and notifications were appropriately taken by my office. The complainant is not the primary account holder, but my office was given permission to speak...
Review: I HAVE TWO ACCOUNTS WITH [redacted] THERE OUTSIDE STATUE LIMITATION SHOULD BE CLOSED ACCOUNTS. HOW EVER [redacted] HAS INVESTIGATED THE ACCOUNTS AS BEING CHARGED OFF. [redacted] NO LONGER OWNS THE ACCOUNTS SO [redacted] WILL HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO CLOSE THE ACCOUNTS. [redacted] WILL NOT EXCEPT THE LETTER FROM [redacted] THAT STATES ACCOUNTS ARE RESOLVED UNLESS LETTER STATES CLOSED AND HAS BEEN RESOLVED. [redacted] REFUSES TO CLOSE THE ACCOUNTS OR SETTLE ON THE OFFER OF 11,344 THAT WAS OFFERED FROM [redacted] THE PRINCIPAL ON THE ACCOUNTS ARE 3,854.08 AND 4,076.26 EQUALS TO 7,930.34 [redacted] WANTS TO COLLECT 24,080.30 ALMOST TRIPLE THE PRINCIPAL. I SPOKE TO [redacted] ORIGINALLY WHO ACCIDENTLY OFFERED BOTH ACCOUNTS @ 11,344 WHEN I CALLED TO AGRRE ON THE OFFER THEY SAID WAS A MISTAKE ON [redacted] BEHALF TOOK OFFER OFF THE TABLE SAYING I QUOTE "CLIENT KNOWS WHAT KIND OF CAR YOU DRIVE WE WILL NEVER SETTLED FOR LOWER THEN 11,344" AFTER FUTHER INVESTIGATION I LEARNED BOTTOM LINE THE ACCOUNTS ARE OUTSIDE STATUE LIMITATION THERE'S ONLY ONE JUDGEMENT NOT TWO,THE COLLECTION AGENCY IF WILLING CAN CLOSE THE ACCOUNTS,CHARGE HALF OF THE PRINCIPLE,LIFT THE JUDGEMNET OR ONLY COLLECT THE PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE THE FDCPA FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT WHICH THEY ARE NOT. I'VE BEEN YELLED AT LIED TO FROM [redacted] HUNG THE PHONE UP ON ME AND [redacted] ANSWERED THE PHONE AGGRESIVE TONE "WHO'S THIS GIRL THAT'S UPSETTING MY EMPLOYEES" THEY KEEP RUNNING AROUND THE BUSH BECUASE I'VE DONE MY HOMEWORK. RIGHT IS RIGHT FAIR IS FAIR LAW IS THE LAW THATS WHY I NEED YOUR HELP Revdex.com. THANKSDesired Settlement: CLOSED ACCOUNTS! CLEARED OFF MY CREDIT REPORTS AND THE [redacted] DISTRICT COURT.