Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  02/18/2025

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I'm not liable for this debt with ******** best buy I do not have a contract with Blitt and Gaines, PC they did not provide me with original contract as I requested

  Business response

  03/04/2025

  Please see attached response.

• Initial Complaint

  02/17/2025

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I'm not liable for this debt with ******** I don't have a contract with the collection agency Cavalry ********* they did not provide me with original contract requested Cavalry in not a licensed collection in ********

  Business response

  02/28/2025

  Please see attached response.

• Initial Complaint

  02/03/2025

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I have made 3 payments on time on my payment plan. I fully intended to complete payment using said payment plan however, one one payment was returned for whatever reason, instead of trying again, they invalidated the whole payment plan, and failed to contact me about about. All payments were scheduled to be done by auto pay which is to allow peace of mind. Now after checking my statements I see that they haven't taken the payments for approximately 3 months and when I reached out to contact them instead of them contacting me, they wanted me to pay off 3 months of miss payments. I would like to continue my payment plan , had they tried again to withdraw it would have gone through!  

  Business response

  02/14/2025

  See attached.
  

  Customer response

  02/27/2025

   
  Complaint: 22892159
  
  I am rejecting this response because: I disagree with this response. 
  
  I received no correspondence for 3 months detailing that the payment was not received. Had I not called in, they would have let it go beyond default. Additionally, they required me to make a long sum back payment of $700. This situation would not have happened had they just tried the payment again
  

  
  

  Sincerely,
  
  ****** ********

  Business response

  02/27/2025

  See attached.
  

  Customer response

  03/04/2025

   
  Complaint: 22892159
  
  I am rejecting this response because: 

  I reject this response.

  
  

  A singular sent letter, with no proof of receipt cannot or should not be the basis, simply because for any number of reasons the intended recipient may never have received such a letter. 

  
  

  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** ********

  Business response

  03/04/2025

  The Consumer contacted the Firm on February 3, 2025. A new agreement was reached and on February 5, 2025, the Firm sent a letter to the Consumer detailing the arrangement. There do not appear to be any further issues on this account at this time. The letter is also attached to this response.
  

  Customer response

  03/05/2025

   
  Complaint: 22892159
  
  I am rejecting this response because: 
  

  I reject this response. 

  
  

  I'm not doubting that a letter was sent. I'm saying like many others before it might have been delivered to the wrong address or lost in the mail

   Your firm should have tried another point of contact and/or tried to withdraw again. 

  
  

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** ********

• Initial Complaint

  01/24/2025

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I called to set up a payment plan and spoke with a representative names *** and he took my bank information and set up a payment plan but never actually followed through and set it up now I'm being sued.

  Business response

  02/05/2025

  See attached.

• Initial Complaint

  01/20/2025

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  When I was living in *******, I got financed for a car through ********* at a car dealership in ***************. I moved back to ********, and I fell behind on my car payments. The car was repossessed and I set up payment arrangements with the financial company. I received a letter from the State Attorney informing me that my name was included in a lawsuit involving ********* Consumer regarding Sub Prime Lending.I followed all instructions and submitted my information and claim. Further notice came to me that the loan had been absolved.Years later I get a letter for Blitt and Gaines informing me that they bought my debt from a third party and that I now owe them. I explained the aforementioned outcome regarding The State Attorney Sub Prime Lending lawsuit and all communications stopped.on January 8, ************************************************************* for the same account that qualified for a deficiency balance waiver.

  Business response

  01/21/2025

  Please see attached response.

  Customer response

  01/21/2025

   
  Complaint: 22836656
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ********* ******

  Customer response

  01/25/2025

  I am rejecting this response because there was a deficiency waiver from ********* in 2019.  I have been working with ************************ since May of 2023. I have been making steady auto payments on the debts that I owe, without fail.

   Blitt and Gaines falsely claim that the debt is collectable, and I contend that it is not. What they are doing is predatory and this is a clear attempt to obtain a fraudulent judgement. 

  I am currently wailing on documents from Santander regarding my old account and I am gathering information from the State Attorney in both ******* and ******** regarding the Class Action Claim against Santander.

   

   

  Business response

  01/27/2025

  Please see attached response.

• Initial Complaint

  01/16/2025

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  Dear BBB Representative,I am writing to file a complaint against Theorem Grantor Trust 2022 3 and their legal representatives, Blitt & Gaines, P.C., due to unresolved concerns about their debt collection practices regarding Case Number ***********. Their actions have raised significant issues that I believe require intervention to protect my consumer rights.**Issues Presented:**1. **Incorrect Debt Calculation**:- The amount claimed is $14,069.27, which fails to accurately reflect the actual debt due. This includes apparent miscalculations and unauthorized charges not substantiated by provided documentation.2. **Lack of Contract**:- No signed contract exists that supports the extent of the legal claims. I have requested such documentation, but none has been furnished, putting into question the legitimacy of the debt.3. **Proper Service Failure**:- I have not been adequately served with full documents necessary to formally and fairly respond within court deadlines.4. **Failure to Address Requests**:- My numerous requests for clarification, documentation, and validation of claim legitimacy have remained unanswered or insufficiently addressed.

  Business response

  01/21/2025

  Please see attached response.

  Customer response

  01/24/2025

   
  Complaint: 22822740
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  To: Blitt & Gaines, P.C.
  ********************************************************
  
  **RE: Case Concerning **** ***** Response to January 21, 2025 Letter**
  
  Date: 01/24/2025
  
  
  Dear Mr. ********* and Blitt & Gaines, P.C.,
  
  This letter constitutes my formal response to your letter dated January 21, 2025, regarding the alleged debt owed to Theorem Grantor Trust 2022 3 and the subsequent lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of ***********, *********
  
  Your letter asserts that a demand letter was sent to my previous legal representation, ******************** ****, on or about January 24, 2024, and that no response was received. I ended my relationship with ******************** **** in December 2023. Therefore, any communication sent to them after that date would not have reached me, and any claim of non-response is invalid given that the proper channels of communication were not followed after my change of legal representation. Your firm had a duty to verify my current contact information prior to initiating any legal action. The failure to do so constitutes a procedural deficiency.  Furthermore, I request proof of mailing, such as a certified mail receipt with return signature confirmation, demonstrating the letter's delivery.  The absence of such proof further weakens your claim of proper notification.
  
  Furthermore, I categorically deny any knowledge of or contractual relationship with Theorem Grantor Trust 2022 3. I demand immediate and complete validation of this alleged debt, including a clear demonstration of the origin and amount, along with copies of any contracts, agreements, or other documentation that purportedly support your claim. This information must be provided in accordance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692g, which mandates that a debt collector provide validation of the debt within 30 days of a consumer's request. Your failure to provide this information within the statutory timeframe jeopardizes the validity of your claim.
  
  While I acknowledge that I was personally served with the lawsuit on October 30, 2024, and that I have responded to the summons, I reiterate my denial of the debt and demand the aforementioned validation. I have not yet filed a formal answer with the court pending receipt of the requested information. The court's failure to reflect my response does not negate my action.
  
  Your statement that you are dedicated to working diligently with consumers to promptly and amicably resolve their matters rings hollow given the apparent procedural irregularities and lack of proper notification in this case. Your failure to properly verify my current legal representation before proceeding with litigation, coupled with your failure to provide timely validation of the debt, raises serious concerns about the ethical and legal validity of your actions. Your claim of personal service doesn't negate the prior errors.
  
  I request that all future communications and documents regarding this matter be sent directly to me at the following address:
  
  **** *****
  ********************************************
  **********************
  
  Failure to provide the requested documentation, including proof of mailing of the January 24, 2024 demand letter, within seven (7) days of the date of this letter will result in further legal action, including but not limited to, a motion to dismiss the case and a complaint against Blitt & Gaines, P.C., for violations of the FDCPA.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  **** *****
  
  
  
  

  Business response

  01/31/2025

  Please see attached response.

  Customer response

  02/11/2025

   
  Complaint: 22822740
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  **** *****
  **************************************************
  **********************
  
  February 9, 2025
  
  RE: ID # ******** Complaint Against Blitt & Gaines, P.C.
  
  Dear BBB Representative,
  
  I am writing to formally respond to Blitt & Gaines latest response regarding my complaint. Their reply contains misrepresentations, contradictions, and missing key details regarding the alleged debt and lawsuit they filed against me.
  
  Key Issues with Blitt & Gaines Response:
  
  1. Failure to Provide Proper Debt Validation Before Filing a Lawsuit
  Blitt & Gaines never sent me a legally required debt validation letter before filing a lawsuit against me, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
  On February 3, 2025, I contacted ******************** to verify whether they received any demand letter from Blitt & Gaines.
  Five Lakes confirmed they only received a notice on April 1, 2024, but it was not a debt validation letterjust a standard collection notice.
  Blitt & Gaines had no legal basis to initiate a lawsuit against me without first providing proper validation upon request.
  
  2. Inconsistent and Unreliable Debt Amounts
  
  Blitt & Gaines has presented multiple conflicting balances for this alleged debt:
  The lawsuit filed against me claims I owe $14,069.27.
  The April 1, 2024 letter from Blitt & Gaines states a balance of $6,737.04.
  The December 26, 2023 letter from ******************** states a balance of $5,448.89.
  The inconsistent figures raise serious concerns about the accuracy and legitimacy of this claim.
  
  3. Ownership of the Alleged Debt is Unclear Debt Has Been Sold Multiple Times
  The alleged debt has been passed through multiple entities, creating doubt about who actually owns it and has legal standing to collect it.
  According to the documents I received:
  The original creditor is *****************
  The debt was then assigned to ********************.
  Theorem Grantor Trust 2022 3 is now claiming to be the owner through Blitt & Gaines, yet no valid proof of assignment has been provided.
  Given these multiple transfers, I do not trust the legitimacy of this debt, nor do I recognize any contractual obligation to Theorem Grantor Trust 2022 3.
  
  4. No Proof of a Contract or Legal Standing to Sue
  I have never signed a contract with Theorem Grantor Trust 2022 3.
  Blitt & Gaines has not provided documentation proving they have the legal right to collect this debt.
  Their response falsely claimed I have not responded to their lawsuit, yet I filed my court response on January 17, 2025which they would know if they properly checked court records.
  
  My Request:
  
  Given these major issues, I am reaffirming my request that Blitt & Gaines:
  1. Provide full debt validation, including:
  A signed agreement proving I owe this alleged debt.
  A complete transaction history and breakdown of charges.
  Proof of legal ownership/assignment from **************** to Theorem Grantor Trust 2022 3.
  2. Explain why they are pursuing a lawsuit based on inconsistent and unreliable debt amounts.
  3. ******* why they initiated a lawsuit without providing proper validation and made misleading statements in their BBB response.
  
  I request that BBB keep this complaint open until Blitt & Gaines provides valid documentation proving their claim is legitimate. If they cannot, they should withdraw their case against me.
  
  I appreciate BBBs assistance in ensuring fair and transparent debt collection practices.
  
  Sincerely,
  **** *****

  Business response

  02/12/2025

  Please see attached response.

• Initial Complaint

  01/06/2025

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I recently became aware through online court records that a lawsuit has been filed against me by your firm. I have not been formally served with any documents or received any written communication regarding this matter. As such, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), I am formally requesting validation of the alleged debt. **Details of Alleged Debt**: - **Account Number**: [Unknown] - **Amount Claimed**: $3,838.54 **Court Case Information**: - **Case Number**: *********** - **Calendar/Division**: CVCR50205 - **Date Filed**: 07/12/2024 - **Court District**: District 5 To ensure my rights are protected and to clarify my financial obligations, I request that your office provide: 1. Validation or documentation proving that this debt is mine. 2. Detailed amounts claimed, including any fees or interest. 3. Documentation confirming your authorization to collect this debt. 4. The original purchase agreement or contract related to this account.

  Business response

  01/20/2025

  Please see attached response.

• Initial Complaint

  12/31/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Blitt and Gaines are charging me an extra payment a month of $122.14 instead of the agreed upon amount of $170 in the 15th. They have lied multiple times about the payment plan options I had available to me. They are double dipping into my account and I did not agree to two payments a month.

  Business response

  01/09/2025

  See attached.

  Customer response

  01/10/2025

   
  Complaint: 22750570
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  

  When calling and speaking to a representative, they could not find the agreement terms for the $170 charged. That alone is irresponsible. By charging me twice on one check you have broken our terms of agreement. You also withdrew my account. You state in your response that the representative said I can go to court. You should listen to the phone conversation that was recorded because I asked several times if I should and she said "It is not criminal court. They will see you are in a payment arrangement with us and most likely dismiss the case." She did not advise me to go to court. She did not tell me if I did not go to court, I would get a default judgement. She said is wasn't criminal court and the judge would see I am making payments and rule from that. 
  Your representative that I spoke to recently, ********, has made me aware of a huge accessibility issue and honestly vague practice your website allows. ******** admitted over the phone that your website system automatically generates payment plans that are not compliant or at least are "not allowed" by the company collecting payments. An example he gave me was specifically that payment plans that extend 60 payments in 24 months are not allowed but the system will generate and allow users to sign up for such a plan. This is an accessibility issue for consumers, not only like me, but for someone less tech savvy. Rather than acknowledging and correcting this public website issue for payments, their representative dismissed this as a system flaw. 
  You breached our terms of agreement by charging me twice. You are being vague in your online practices to rely on users to make mistakes. I want my account charged off since you can't seem to give me accurate information or at least always vague information.
  
  I will see you in court with all my documentation on 1/23.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** *****

  Business response

  01/14/2025

  See attached.

  Customer response

  01/14/2025

   
  Complaint: 22750570
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  Youre not addressing your faulty computer system issue. You are allowing your representatives to give vague and misleading information. I believe a reason individuals are not showing up to court and getting default judgements is because the way your business is practicing. You allow users to agree on terms that are not valid through your public website. You have representatives giving false and misleading information to your consumers which puts them in bad standing with the court. Refunding me after you already broke our terms of agreement isnt addressing the issue this company has created with their vague and misleading company practices. Fix your website. Tell me how you plan to make sure your representatives wont be telling individuals they dont need to go to court if they are in payment plans. Youre not taking accountability on how your vague practices put the consumer at risk for more legal challenges because your representatives and computer software are vague and misleading. How do you plan to fix your computer system issue? How do you plan to make sure your representatives are not telling consumers they do not need to appear in court if they are in payment plans? Another thing. ******** said they could not be sure I would not be charged on the 17th. I also received a letter in the mail stating I would be charged on the 17th. It seems your lying in your responses on whether I will be charged in the upcoming months.  

  Sincerely,
  
  ***** *****

  Business response

  01/15/2025

  See attached.

  Customer response

  01/15/2025

   
  Complaint: 22750570
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  You're repeating your response. That's not addressing my problems with your business.
  I am formally rejecting your response and demanding that the alleged debt be fully dismissed due to your firms mismanagement and breach of our payment agreement.

  1. Breach of Agreement and Unauthorized Charges: Your firm withdrew multiple payments without proper authorization, violating the terms we agreed upon. The $170 charge was unexplained by your representative, showing clear negligence in managing my account.
  2. Misleading Communication: Your representative misinformed me about the need to appear in court. Despite being told it was unnecessary, I chose to attend, preventing a default judgment. This misrepresentation could have caused serious legal and more financial issues for me.
  3. Non-Compliant Website Practices: Your representative admitted that your online system generates non-compliant payment plans, which is a serious accessibility and consumer protection concern.

  Due to these violations, and since you keep saying you are open to negotiation, I am requesting:

  1. Immediate dismissal of this debt.
  2. Removal of any negative reporting related to this account.
  3. Written confirmation of the debts dismissal.

  
  Sincerely,
  ***** *****

• Initial Complaint

  12/05/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  Blitt and Gaines PC started garnishing my wages on an account balance of $2,800. I have now paid over $3,500 and on Monday of this week informed me that yes my balance has been paid in full with a $248 overage. They dragged their feet in filing the paperwork to stop the garnishment even though I have called in at least twice weekly for the past month and a half. I was garnished another $234 today and now the company is trying to say they never received an overpayment on my account even though one of their advisors had already told me there was an overpayment on a recorded line. After arguing with advisors for days, I was finally able to speak with a manager who then confirmed there is in fact an overpayment on my account but still could not give me time frame as to when my reimbursement would be sent to me. Throughout the course of my garnishment I kept a running balance and would periodically check with them as to what they had as my balance which has been significantly different every time. According to my records they in fact *** me over $700 total. But, they are only admitting to the $242. They have refused to let me speak with a manager multiple times as well as withheld information from me. I asked if I could come to their office and get my reimbursement check and was first told yes then within minutes they changed the location of the office where I would need to go (an extra 3 hours away) as well as telling me they could then guarantee my reimbursement in 30 days. When I pressed even further I was then told they would attempt to have it sent out in a week and they asked if my employer could then call them to end the garnishment. This company is negligent, rude, and a scam!

  Business response

  12/18/2024

  Please see attached response.

  Customer response

  12/19/2024

   
  Complaint: 22646340
  
  I am rejecting this response because: I called the office of Blitt & Gaines on December 17th and was informed that they still had not sent out my refund and they were still unable to tell me when it would be sent or even a general time frame. Blitt &Gaines has also failed to report the current balance to the courts in all of my time dealing with them. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** ******

  Business response

  12/23/2024

  Please see attached response.

  Customer response

  12/23/2024

   
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** ******

• Initial Complaint

  10/25/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I am not liable for a debt with **************************. I did not make a contract with Blitt and Gaines, P.C. Who are trying to collect on such debt. Under the **** I request a debt validation along with a cease and desist letter for the original contract with the collection company they didnt not respond. 

  Business response

  10/28/2024

  Please see attached response.

  Customer response

  10/28/2024

   
  Complaint: 22476047
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  To Whom It May Concern,
  
  
  In response to Blitt & Gaines, P.C.s statement, I would like to clarify several points. I do not acknowledge any liability for this debt with ***************************, and believe it was erroneously sold or assigned to ********************** without proper validation of my responsibility. The initial creditor, **** CANADA 2021 TRUST, allegedly charged off this account, and it is likely that the original debt was accounted for and possibly written off, particularly since I have filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which should discharge this obligation.
  
  
  Blitt & Gaines response implies they will respect the cease and desist request and proceed with debt validation, which is appreciated. However, I reiterate that any communication beyond debt validation, and steps necessary to ensure this account is marked as disputed, should cease entirely in alignment with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). This includes any potential reporting of this disputed account to credit bureaus without the validated debt or the original creditors involvement. The original creditor has likely received payment or insurance coverage after the charge-off, thereby potentially nullifying my alleged responsibility.
  
  
  Furthermore, I am requesting that this account not be reported as a valid, collectible debt on my credit report unless a legally binding and validated contract showing my obligation to pay ***************************, is presented. I also expect all legal documentation to reflect the original creditors discharge or settlement of the debt within my Chapter 7 proceedings.
  
  
  Thank you for your assistance in ensuring these matters are handled accurately and lawfully.

  
  Sincerely,

  **** ***** III

  
  

  Business response

  10/28/2024

  Please see attached follow up response.

  Customer response

  10/28/2024

   
  Complaint: 22476047
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  **** *****
  Blitt and Gaines, P.C.
  ***********************************************************************************************************
  
  
  Subject: Response to Debt Validation *************************************************** you for your recent correspondence regarding my dispute with *************************** (Crown) and the obligations surrounding the Fair Credit Reporting Act (****) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
  
  
  In reviewing your response, I would like to clarify the following points:
  
  
  1.Validation and VerificationRequirement:

  Despite your statement that Blitt & Gaines is not a data furnisher, your firm is listed as the reporting contact on my credit report in connection with this debt. As such, you are effectively acting as an agent for *************************** and, under the ****, are required to verify and validate the debt in response to my dispute.

  
  2.Proof of Legal Assignment or Ownership:

  I am formally requesting that Blitt & Gaines provide documentation establishing that ***************************, or your firm, has the legal right to collect this debt. This should include proof of assignment or ownership and any supporting documentation showing that this account was not previously settled or included in prior bankruptcy discharges.

  
  3.Compliance with **** and FDCPA:

  As I have not yet received sufficient evidence validating this debt, I expect Blitt & Gaines to fulfill its legal obligations under both the **** and FDCPA by providing complete and accurate documentation. If this validation cannot be provided, I respectfully request that this account be removed from my credit report, as inaccurate reporting can be detrimental to my financial standing.
  
  
  Please provide this information within the timeframe established by the ****. Failure to comply may result in further action, including a complaint with the ************************************ (****) and additional escalation, as necessary.
  
  
  Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your timely response.
  
  
  Sincerely,

  **** ***** III

  
  

  Business response

  10/29/2024

  Please see attached.

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩