Consumer complaint received 2026-04-01 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: NV

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against LVNV Funding LLC and its servicer, Resurgent Capital Services, for repeated reporting and collection of alleged debts that remain unverified despite multiple disputes and formal requests for validation. The accounts at issue are : Account ending XXXX ( Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Account ending XXXX ( Original Creditor : XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ) 1. Failure to Provide Proper Debt Validation ( FDCPA Violations ) I submitted a timely debt validation request pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) disputing these alleged debts, requesting : The original signed contract or account agreement Proof of legal ownership and chain of assignment Complete documentation of any purchase/forward flow agreements A detailed accounting of the alleged balance LVNV/Resurgent failed to provide any competent evidence of ownership or validity. Instead, their responses consisted of generic account statements or recycled copies of documentation from prior disputes, which do not constitute proper validation under federal law. Additionally, in prior CFPB correspondence, Resurgent explicitly stated they were not obligated to provide purchase and sale agreements. While proprietary agreements may have limited confidentiality protection, they can not claim ownership of a debt while refusing to provide any evidence of ownership or legal right to collect. 2. Recycled Responses/ First Complaint Excuse While the CFPB marked my second complaint as a duplicate, LVNV Funding LLC and Resurgent Capital Services responded using the same documents and letter from my first complaint, providing no new validation or evidence. Despite acknowledging a dispute, they continue to report the accounts as verified to the credit bureaus, which : Misrepresents the accuracy and status of the debt Demonstrates a pattern of non-compliance Fails to satisfy the obligation to conduct a reasonable investigation under the FCRA This contradicts their statements through CFPB and violates consumer protection law. 3. Failure to Conduct Reasonable Investigation ( FCRA Violations ) Under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ), a furnisher must : Conduct a reasonable investigation once notified of a dispute Review all relevant information Report only information that can be verified as accurate and complete By recycling old documentation and verifying the accounts to credit bureaus without providing evidence of ownership or accuracy, LVNV/Resurgent have failed this obligation. Verification based solely on internal records or prior creditor statements does not satisfy federal requirements. 4. Misrepresentation of Legal Status ( FDCPA Violations ) Continuing to collect and report debts while unable or unwilling to prove ownership or balance constitutes misrepresentation under 15 U.S.C. 1692e, including : Misrepresentation of the character or legal status of the debt Misrepresentation of the furnishers authority to collect or report 5. Continued Reporting of Unverified Information Despite repeated disputes and CFPB notices, LVNV/Resurgent continue reporting these accounts as verified to the consumer reporting agencies. This violates : 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ) Failure to ensure maximum possible accuracy 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) Failure to conduct reasonable investigation Any information that can not be competently verified must not be reported. Although my initial dispute was submitted through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, LVNV Funding LLC and Resurgent Capital Services were clearly placed on notice of the disputed nature of these accounts. I subsequently submitted an additional dispute with expanded detail. Despite this, their response contained the same documentation and language as their prior response, providing no new or additional validation. Their continued characterization of this matter as a first complaint does not change the fact that they have been notified of the dispute multiple times and have failed to provide competent evidence of ownership or accuracy while continuing to verify the accounts to consumer reporting agencies.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation