Consumer complaint received 2025-07-10 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Rebuttal to CFPB Case # XXXX Demand for Permanent Deletion Due to Violations of FDCPA and FCRA To Whom It May Concern, This letter serves as a formal rebuttal to the response submitted by Resurgent Capital Services dated XX/XX/XXXX, regarding the account being reported by LVNV Funding LLC : Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

Current Owner : LVNV Funding LLC Servicer : Resurgent Capital Services Account Number ( Last XXXX ) : XXXX CFPB Case Number : XXXX FDCPA 809 ( b ) Violation Failure to Validate Debt Under 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), when a consumer requests debt validation, all collection activity including credit reporting must stop until proper validation is provided. Resurgent failed to comply.

What they provided : Credit card billing statements A standard cardholder agreement What they did not provide : A signed agreement or application A full accounting of the debt from inception Evidence of legal assignment or ownership This fails the standard set forth in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), where the court found that a debt collector must provide more than generic statements they must prove they have the legal right to collect. 

Continued reporting to credit bureaus without full validation is continued collection activity, and violates XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX ). 
FCRA 1681e ( b ) & Metro 2 Violation Inaccurate and Misleading Reporting LVNV is reporting : Date of First Delinquency : XX/XX/XXXX Open Date : XX/XX/XXXX Resurgent claims this is proper because the credit bureaus use the Date of First Delinquency ( DOFD ) to determine the 7-year reporting period. While that is partially true, their explanation is misleading and incomplete.

Heres the legal breakdown : FCRA 1681e ( b ) requires credit reporting to be " as accurate as possible ''. Reporting an Open Date that suggests the debt is new when in reality it stems from a delinquency year prior is misleading. This skew scoring models and impacts a consumers perceived creditworthiness. 

Metro 2 Format Standards require chronological consistency between the DOFD and Open Date. A tradeline showing an Open Date after the DOFD creates a false timeline that can mislead lenders and violate accuracy standards. 

Courts have ruled this kind of reporting deceptive. In XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ), the court found that tradelines reflecting a newer Open Date on stale debt gave a false impression of recent delinquency enough to support a claim under FCRA 1681e ( b ).

So, while the DOFD technically governs the 7-year drop-off, the Open Date still impacts how the debt is interpreted by creditors, insurers, and scoring algorithms. The way this account is currently reported makes it appear new, active, and delinquent, when its actually stale, charged-off debt. 

FCRA 1681i ( a ) Violation Failure to Reinvestigate I previously disputed this account with TransUnion and Equifax. Resurgents response providing only recycled data and statements does not qualify as a reinvestigation under 1681i. 

The FCRA mandates a reasonable reinvestigation, not rubber-stamping the furnishers existing data. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) : a dispute requires actual investigation, not blind reliance.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation