Consumer complaint received 2024-11-12 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX knowingly accessed my credit without authorization, conducted negative reporting and illegally validated disputes with the credit bureau, then sold a flagged fraudulent account linked to my identity to their subsidiary. They ignored clear evidence of fraud, failed to protect my rights, refused to provide debt validation documentation, and have not disassociated me from the known fraudulent account. 

I am a documented victim of identity theft. In XXXX, XXXX flagged an account as fraudulent and closed it within the first month of its opening. Despite being legally barred from selling a known fraudulent account, XXXX proceeded to sell it to XXXX, a subsidiary within their shared parent company, XXXX XXXX. I became aware that this fraudulent account was opened in my name on XX/XX/XXXX and immediately reached out to Resurgent, who promised an identity theft kit but instead, on XX/XX/XXXX I was sued by XXXX and I have been fighting to free myself from this account since then. 

From day XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX and XXXX had my legitimate identifying information and was fully aware that the account was not mine. I also communicated this directly and through formal documents such as statements, affidavits, and debt validation requests. XXXX XXXX has always recognized the account 's fraudulent nature, yet they chose to sell the debt to XXXX, neglecting their legal obligation to investigate the fraud. This decision not only violated consumer rights but also perpetuated the identity theft, preventing my ability to respond in real-time. 

XXXX XXXX accessed my credit report without proper authorization on XX/XX/XXXX, and failed to verify conflicting identification details before opening a fraudulent account. Recognizing the fraudulent activity, they closed the account within the first month but neglected to investigate further, close it as fraud, or alert me to the misuse of my information. In a move driven by greed, they allowed the account to accrue late charges, maximizing the potential collection amount. They obscured the account 's origin with a shortened number and falsely validated it through credit bureaus, damaging my credit and subjecting me to aggressive collection tactics by selling it to their in-house collection arm, XXXX, thereby absolving themselves of responsibility. This neglect to acknowledge the accounts flagged status and their decision to sell it severely delayed my awareness of the fraud and hindered my ability to implement real-time protective measures for my identity. 

XXXX, in coordination with XXXX XXXX, concealed the fraudulent origin of the account and then reported and falsely validated it to credit bureaus despite my numerous disputes, resulting in significant damage to my credit. They engaged in aggressive and unlawful collection tactics by disregarding the account 's fraudulent status and refusing to investigate my claims. This neglect to acknowledge the accounts flagged condition and their decision to sell it substantially delayed my awareness of the fraud and impeded my ability to implement protective measures for my identity in real time. 

XXXX and XXXX chose not investigate the fraud but instead opting to exploit the judicial system in hopes of obtaining a default judgment against me for a fraudulent account. They have consistently refused to investigate the identity theft and have failed to validate the debt as required by law. Furthermore, they have never provided the full, unredacted account number. 

The only documents I received were redacted transaction statements and batch documents that came from copies I requested from the court, which they never served directly. 

On XXXX website, the account is grayed out preventing me access to the documentation. 

XXXX has exhibited behavior that goes beyond aggressive collection practices by pursuing a default judgment on an account they knew to be fraudulent. Despite being informed by XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX that I had declared the account not mine, XXXX proceeded to file a lawsuit on XX/XX/XXXX. In court, they attributed their actions to a procedural disconnect inherent in their business model of buying and selling debt. However, this does not absolve them of their responsibility to investigate fraud. They pursued a default judgment XXXX month before the statute of limitations was set to expire, indicating a potential systematic approach to dismissing fraud claims or a strategic attempt to secure the judgment before time barred it, all while fully aware that the debt was not mine. 

XXXX XXXX uses the status of the account as sold to deny my lawful requests for information, claiming they no longer possess records of the account. This is factually inaccurate. 

In XXXX, when I opened a new account with XXXX XXXX to probe their identification process, every adjustment I made in my account settings triggered notifications linked to all associated accounts. Despite only having visibility and access to the new account, when I opted for paperless services, I received XXXX consecutive emails, each displaying the last XXXX digits of different account numbers : my legitimate and closed account, my new account, and the fraudulent account ending in XXXX. This not only confirms that the fraudulent account remains linked to my profile but also shows that data and records for this account are still accessible. Additionally, when accessing the banking area under account settings, the fraudsters XXXX bank account details are visible. XXXX XXXX has consistently failed to disassociate me from this fraudulent account and has repeatedly refused to provide any documentation, erroneously asserting that such documents no longer exist post-sale of the account. 

The operations among XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX a systematic abuse of process. These subsidiaries operate in a manner that seems designed to obfuscate and complicate resolution for victims of identity theft. They play a game of XXXX XXXX with a known fraudulent account, tossing it from XXXX to the other to distance themselves from regulatory requirements and culpability as soon as they are pressured to follow rules, guidelines, and laws. 

XXXX XXXX identifies the account as fraudulent and quickly closes it, only to sell it off, absolving itself from further responsibility. Resurgent acts as the face of the collections, initially promising resolution through an identity theft kit, then ceasing communication once fraud is declared, refusing to engage further. XXXX, informed by XXXX of the fraud claim, opts not to investigate but instead initiates legal action, leveraging their status as a law firm to weaponize the judicial system to press for judgment rather than truth. 

The pattern of passing responsibility without proper diligence continues to perpetrate the initial fraud, extending the harm done to me, the identity theft victim. Each entity, while claiming to act independently, follows a playbook that benefits XXXX financials bottom line at the expense of consumer rights. They disregard my rights as a consumer and implicate themselves in continuing the harm initiated by the original identity theft. They are as guilty as the fraudsters, if not more, and must be held accountable for their systematic abuse of process. 

As a result of XXXX, Resurgent, Credit XXXX, and XXXX Financials actions, I lost the opportunity to pursue the fraudsters, protect my identity in real time, and have endured negative credit reporting, aggressive and inappropriate collection actions from XXXX, and substantial difficulties in rectifying my financial records. 

XXXX and XXXX blatantly ignored obvious fraud, aggressively pursued debt collection on a known fraudulent account, illegally validated it, and hindered my efforts to protect my identity, causing and continuing to cause significant harm to me. As a direct consequence, I was denied a Parent PLUS Loan for my daughter 's college education in XX/XX/XXXX, despite prior approval. This denial resulted from XXXX 's practice of reporting the fraudulent account as " new '' to credit bureaus in XX/XX/XXXX during dispute responses, which adversely affected my credit standing. 

There should be an investigation to address the systematic abuse of process by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation