Consumer complaint received 2025-06-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
CFPB Case # XXXX LVNV Funding LLC / Resurgent Capital Services To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to formally rebut the response provided by LVNV Funding LLC and Resurgent Capital Services L.P. XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ) to my Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX CFPB ) complaint. The companys response is wholly inadequate and fails to meet its obligations under federal law. I hereby reiterate and reinforce my demands for relief, citing the relevant laws and facts : Background and Failure to Validate the Debt No Acknowledgment or Payment : I have never made a payment on, nor acknowledged, the alleged debt in question. The companys own records confirm that no payments have ever been received from me on this account. This undermines any claim that I affirmed the debt in any way. 
Repeated Validation Requests Ignored : Since XX/XX/XXXX, I have repeatedly ( monthly ) requested proper validation of this debt. Rather than providing the required documentation, the company ignored or failed to adequately respond to each validation request. In fact, instead of validating, the company engaged multiple third-party entities to pursue collection ( including a collection agency with Law in its name, clearly used as a scare tactic ). This tactic is concerning and misleading. If the debt were truly valid, the company should have been able to verify it back in XX/XX/XXXX upon my first request, rather than resorting to serial handoffs to different collectors.

Incomplete and Insufficient Response : The response I finally received through the CFPB complaint included only a basic billing statement or account summary. The company failed to provide the core documents I explicitly requested for a full validation, such as : Original Contract e.g. a copy of the original loan or credit agreement bearing my signature, which is necessary to establish any legal obligation to pay.

Account Itemization a complete breakdown of the amount alleged, including principal, interest, fees, and all charges ( only a charged-off balance was stated, with no itemization ).

Chain of Title / Ownership proof of ownership of the debt and all assignment documentation showing the chain of title from the original creditor to the current owner. I requested copies of all bills of sale or assignment contracts, including dates of each transfer and the parties involved. None of this was provided.

Original Creditor Records such as account history and payment records from the original creditor. Aside from billing statements, no full account history was given. 
In summary, the company did not deliver the legally required validation. A billing statement is not sufficient ; it does not prove that I am legally responsible for the debt, nor that the current owner has the right to collect it. Key documents ( contract, proof of assignment, etc. ) are missing, making the debt unverifiable as it stands. 
Third-Party Collection Attempts Prior to Validation : Despite my pending validation requests, the account was passed to third-party collectors ( including one implying a law firm ) without ever validating the debt first. Transferring or assigning a disputed debt to another agency without first validating it is a direct violation of my rights and an evasion of the debt collectors duty to verify. It appears designed to pressure or intimidate me instead of addressing my legitimate validation demands.

Communication Preferences Disregarded : I clearly instructed the company that all future communication must be in writing via mail, and that I do not consent to phone calls, emails, or other forms of contact. This instruction was provided to protect my rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) regarding communications. However, the company failed to respect this. I continued to receive contacts through means other than mail, which I had explicitly forbidden. This disregard of my communication preference is unacceptable and constitutes a violation of FDCPA 805 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692c ), which prohibits debt collectors from contacting consumers via channels that are known to be inconvenient or against the consumers instructions.

Violations of Federal Law The companys actions ( and inaction ) violate multiple provisions of federal law meant to protect consumers : FDCPA Failure to Cease Collection and Verify : Under FDCPA 809 ( b ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ), once a consumer disputes a debt in writing or requests validation, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt until proper verification of the debt is mailed to the consumer. This cease-collection requirement is not optional. It covers all collection activities, which courts have held includes reporting the debt to credit bureaus. In other words, continuing to report a disputed, unvalidated debt to the credit reporting agencies is considered a collection activity and is unlawful without validation. In my case, the company was notified of my dispute and validation demand as early as XX/XX/XXXX, yet it persisted in collection activities : assigning the debt for collection, reporting it on my credit reports, and failing to remove it. By doing so without ever providing proper verification, the company is in clear violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ). Each instance of continued collection activity ( e.g. each month of credit reporting or each collection attempt by a third party ) after my dispute constitutes a separate FDCPA violation.

FDCPA Unfair/Deceptive Practices : The use of a collection agency with Law in its name to contact me, especially in the context of ignoring validation, is a deceptive practice. It falsely implies an elevated legal status or threat. This likely violates FDCPA provisions against using false or misleading representations in connection with debt collection ( 15 U.S.C. 1692e ), as well as 1692d which forbids harassing or abusive tactics. It is clear evidence the company attempted to intimidate me instead of simply validating the debt.

FDCPA Ignoring Communication Request : As noted, failing to honor my mail-only contact requirement violates 15 U.S.C. 1692c. I revoked consent for calls and electronic communications, so any continued calls or non-mail contacts were unlawful. This behavior shows a disregard for consumer communication rights and privacy. 
FCRA Reporting Unverifiable Information : The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) imposes duties on companies that furnish information to credit bureaus. Information reported must be accurate and verifiable. If an item is disputed and the furnisher can not verify its accuracy, it must be removed from the credit report. Specifically, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) and related regulations require that when a consumer disputes an account ( especially via a credit bureau or official complaint ), the furnisher must conduct an investigation. If the result is that the information * * can not be verified, the furnisher must inform the credit bureaus that the information is unverifiable so it can be deleted. The CFPB and FTC have recently reinforced that companies can not continue reporting information that they can not verify as accurate. In this case, the documentation I requested was aimed at verifying the debt. The companys inability or refusal to provide such documentation is an admission that it can not verify the debts legitimacy to the standard required. Therefore, continuing to report this account violates the FCRAs mandate to remove unverified information. The account should have been removed from all credit reports when the company found itself unable to substantiate the debt. 
Continued Reporting as Disputed is Not Enough : I acknowledge that the companys response letter indicates it has marked the account as disputed on my credit reports. Simply marking the debt as disputed, however, does not correct the problem. The correct action under FCRA is to delete information that can not be verified, not merely flag it indefinitely as disputed. Keeping an unverifiable, inaccurate account on my reports ( even with a dispute notation ) still harms me and fails to meet legal requirements. The dispute notation does not shield the company from liability ; if anything, it is an ongoing acknowledgement that the debt remains unvalidated.

Liability for FDCPA Violations : I remind the company that under the FDCPA, consumers can recover damages for violations. Each willful failure to comply with the FDCPA ( e.g. continuing collection or reporting without validation ) can result in statutory damages up to {$1000.00} per violation, plus any actual damages and attorneys fees ( 15 U.S.C. 1692k ). I have already put the company on notice in my earlier communications that incomplete or inadequate responses would be viewed as willful non-compliance and pursued accordingly. The companys conduct to date exposes it to potential legal liability, which I earnestly hope it will avoid by promptly remedying this situation now. 

Demands for Resolution In light of the above, I am making the following demands, effective immediately : Immediate Deletion of Trade Line : Remove this account from all credit reporting agencies. This means deleting the LVNV Funding/Resurgent tradeline associated with the alleged debt from my credit reports with Equifax, Experian, TransUnion, and any other consumer reporting company to which you have reported it. The account is not validated and thus must be removed in compliance with the FCRA and FDCPA. I expect written confirmation that the deletion has been completed. 
Cease All Further Contact : Stop all collection communications to me immediately. As required by the FDCPA and my prior request, you must cease any and all further contact about this debt. Do not call me, do not email me, and do not involve any new third parties. The only permissible communication at this point is a single written notice confirming that you have complied with this demand ( for example, a letter confirming the accounts deletion ). Any other contact or attempt to collect will be documented as additional violations. 
30-Day Compliance Deadline : Fully comply with these demands within 30 days of receipt of this rebuttal. This timeline is more than sufficient since the core action required deleting a credit report entry is straightforward. If, by the end of 30 days, the account still remains on any credit report or I receive any communications about this debt that are not a compliance confirmation, I will have no choice but to escalate this matter. Such escalation may include filing a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, my state Attorney Generals office, and/or pursuing legal action in court for violations of the FDCPA and FCRA. I sincerely hope that will not be necessary, and that the company will simply do the right thing by following the law now. 

The company had ample opportunity ( over a year and multiple requests ) to properly validate this debt. It failed to do so, and instead engaged in tactics that violated my rights. I have acted in good faith as a consumer by seeking verification and by filing a CFPB complaint when my direct requests were ignored. Now, I expect full relief as outlined above. Until such relief is provided, this debt remains unsubstantiated and must not be collected or reported. I trust that the CFPB will ensure the companys compliance with these obligations. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief