CFPB Complaint

Rubin Lublin, LLC – CFPB Complaint ID 2501453

Consumer Complaint Submission

Date Received: 2017-06-05T00:00:00

Product: Mortgage debt

Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed

Consumer Consent Provided to Share Complaint: Consent provided

Consumer Complaint: Borrower filed Bankruptcy Chapter XXXX on or about XX/XX/XXXX . Borrower ‘s first post- petition payment was due on XX/XX/XXXX . The servicer of the loan, XXXX XXXX XXXX , posted that first post petition payment to a pre-petition payment due date of XX/XX/XXXX . The servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX misapplied more than six ty ( 60 ) tim ely payments as past due. The borrower has not received any billing statements or any other statements or notices from the servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX because XXXX is currently sending all statements and notices to an address that is NOT the borrower ‘s address of record.

The Borrower sent a RESPA QWR to XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX , requesting specific certain information. XXXX used a form letter to respond to the borrower ‘s concerns that her payments were being misapplied and to imply that the servicer had not reasonably investigated her error claim. XXXX further did not respond completely until more than one-hundred seventeen ( 117 ) d ays after their confirmed receipt of this borrower ‘s QWR, that specifically requested the payoff balance of the loan. XXXX has failed to provide an accurate payoff of the loan within the time allowed by FDCPA. XXXX has further provided more than XXXX different alleged default amounts. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX alleged the balance due was {$3900.00} which is ; different from the {$2300.00} as in the Notice of Default Letter an d both of those balances are different from the Billing statement of XX/XX/XXXX that shows a balance of {$4800.00}.

Aside from XXXX never sending to the borrower nor her attorney the Debt Validation Letter, t he letter in itself is violates 15 U.S.C. 1692e because it misstates the law, omits a material term required by 1692g ( a ), and misrepresents consumer rights under the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. 1692g.

The communication alleged in this case omitted a material term required by 1692g ( a ). Specifically, the letter did not inform the borrower that she must dispute her debt in writing to trigger her verification rights under 1692g ( b ). By omitting this requirement, the Collectors instructed the borrower that she could invoke 1692g ( b ) by disputing her debt by callinga misstatement of the law surrounding debt-verification requests. This misrepresentation was not apparent on the face of the letter ; it would thus state a claim even in jurisdictions that apply the competent lawyer standard The FDCPA exists to protect consumers against debt collection abuses. 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( e ). Consumer-protection laws are not made for the protection of experts, but for the public.

See also  Mid-Michigan Collection Bureau - CFPB Complaint

Fr om XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX , the b orrower has never received any billing statements, Notice of Default Letters, Debt Validation letter or any other information regarding the mortgage account from the servicer, XXXX XXXX XXXX , because XXXX has sent all billing statements and notices to an address, that has NOT been the borrowers address since XX/XX/XXXX . Attached see the proof obtained by borrower RESPA QWR that the most recent billing statement was NOT sent to the same address that XXXX XXXX XXXX and Rubin Lublin , LLC has as the address of record for the borrower. This in itself violate FDCPA. Also, XXXX XXXX XXXX sent this Debt Validation letter to that said address which was not the borrower ‘s address, during the time when the Borrower was actively under Chapter XXXX Bankruptcy and while the borrower was represented by an Attorney. XXXX at no time sent thi s Debt Validation Letter to t he borrower ‘s Bankruptcy Attorney. Thereby leaving the borrower and her attorney unaware of any default and thereby XXXX has denied the borrower her rights under FDCPA. The borrower NEVER received any statements or the Debt Validation Letter until on or about XX/XX/XXXX when XXXX responded to borrower ‘s RESPA request from XX/XX/XXXX .

Because XXXX did not provided to the borrower the payment transaction history from XX/XX/XXXX – XX/XX/XXXX for more than 117 days past her date of requesting in her XX/XX/XXXX QWR, those actions were intentional and contributes to the timeliness of the borrower ‘s discovery of more than 60 misapplied payments by XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX . In XXXX ‘s letter dated XX/XX/XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX admitted to have discovered at least 1 mi sapplied payment as proof provided by the borrower. Between the time frame of XX/XX/XXXX throught XX/XX/XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX has misapplied and reapplied more than seventy-five ( 75 ) payments. Most of which were during an active Chapter XXXX Bankruptcy protection post-petition phase. On XX/XX/XXXX the borrower sent to XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Attorney Rubin Lublin , LLC XXXX and all other parties ( TBD ) involved has committed more than 5 RESPA violations which is a pattern or practice of non-compliance with the servicing requirements of RESPA. XXXX XXXX XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX and Rubin Lublin , LLC has committed the following acts that violate TILA and more to be determined later : 1 ) Fail ed to proved accurate payoff in 7 days because of misapplied payments. 2 ) failed to promptly credit payments 3 ) Pyramiding late fees and other misc. fees 4 ) fa iled to send monthly statements and default notices due to being sent to an address that is different from the address XXXX and Rubin Lublin , LLC used to respond to QWR responses. XXXX was aware of address changed in XX/XX/XXXX . 5 ) XXXX sen t Debt Validation Letter dir ectly to the borrower BUT to an address previously used by the borrower BUT never sent the letter to the attorney representing the borrower in an active Chapter XXXX case.

See also  AES/PHEAA - CFPB Complaint ID 3049282

Company: Rubin Lublin, LLC

State/Zip: GA 315XX

Company Response to Complaint: Closed with explanation

Was Company Response Timely: Yes

Did Consumer Dispute Company Response: N/A

Complaint ID: 2501453

The above data is from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Keep in mind that every company will get a complaint from time-to-time, even the great ones. But there are a few key data points that will give you an idea about how well the company values their customers and handles consumer issues.

Look at the item Company Response to Complaint: and Did Consumer Dispute Company Response: to get a better idea of how this was resolved. And the field Consumer Complaint: can give you some context of the issue.

In particular what you are looking for was that the company response was timely and that the consumer did not dispute it. The posting of complaints has proven to be a valuable resource for both companies and consumers.

About the author

Research Department

Here is where you will find important stories located from around the web which can impact you and your financial life.

Scroll to Top