Consumer complaint received 2025-07-30 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem — Their investigation did not fix an error on your report
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
This request is made pursuant to my rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), specifically 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ), which requires that XXXX  conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of any disputed item on a consumers credit report. I am requesting, in accordance with federal law and pursuant to obligations enforced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), a full and complete Method of Verification ( MOV ) for the tradeline reported by LVNV Funding LLC under account number XXXX Furthermore, XXXX  is obligated under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( iii ) to provide me with the business name and address of the furnisher, the telephone number if reasonably available, and a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information, including the name of the person or entity that verified it. I assert that XXXX  failed to provide a legally adequate response, and I request immediate correction and full compliance with disclosure. In addition, XXXX update notification dated XX/XX/XXXX, indicates changes made to this tradeline following a dispute initiated by me. However, the outcome remains opaque, inadequately explained, and devoid of any MOV documentation. This constitutes a breach of my rights under both the FCRA and the standards outlined in CFPB Supervision and Examination Manual guidelines for CRAs. XXXX  is further required to retain all internal documentation pertaining to this dispute under the FCRAs reasonable procedures requirement. I hereby demand a certified copy of the dispute file and internal notes concerning this tradelines reinvestigation. This includes any e-OSCAR communication sent or received, any documents provided by the furnisher, and any XXXX  notes regarding the legitimacy, legality, or accuracy of the LVNV Funding LLC entry. I also request the names and job titles of all personnel involved in processing, adjudicating, or responding to the dispute, whether automated or human, along with a breakdown of how the decision to update was reached, what specific changes were made, and what information formed the basis of the final outcome. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ), I assert that XXXX failed to notify me in writing of the nature of the information provided by LVNV Funding LLC during the reinvestigation process. The law mandates that if information is disputed, and a reinvestigation occurs, the CRA must inform the consumer of the procedure used, which includes the name, address, and contact number of any furnisher of information. No such detail was provided in this case. Furthermore, I formally object to XXXX  use of automated reinvestigation systems, such as e-OSCAR, without human verification or contextual review. This violates the reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy standard of 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ), as machine-generated responses are categorically incapable of considering nuanced dispute context, such as identity theft indicators, evidentiary documents, or consumer affirmations. This complaint also emphasizes XXXX systemic failure to maintain robust audit trails of dispute resolution. I demand a full log of the disputes lifecycle, including timestamps for when it was received, processed, transmitted to the furnisher, and when any data was updated. If no such timestamp exists, XXXX  is in violation of data retention best practices outlined in CFPB Examination Procedures for Consumer Reporting. Moreover, I challenge the integrity of XXXX  updated status. What exactly was updated? What data points were changed, corrected, or removed? If the dispute concluded without deletion, what evidence did XXXX  find persuasive in favor of the furnisher? Please itemize the alleged balance, date of delinquency, charge-off details, and date of last activity as they appeared before and after the update. Under the CFPBs Bulletin XXXX, consumer reporting agencies are explicitly warned against superficial reinvestigations that merely confirm the presence of data from a furnisher. The bureau reiterates that furnisher confirmation alone is insufficient when a dispute presents documentary evidence. My dispute contained sufficient detail to demand a deeper review, and yet I received no indication that XXXX  engaged in anything more than a basic ping to the furnisher. I am demanding that XXXX  provide copies of all documents obtained from LVNV Funding LLC in response to this dispute, including validation records, billing statements, account origination data, chain of title documentation, and any signed agreements bearing my name. If no such documentation exists, XXXX  is required under 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) to delete the item. Additionally, XXXX  report formatting obfuscates the actual status of the account. Terms such as updated do not convey legal meaning and fail to fulfill XXXX  disclosure obligations under 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( a ). I request a plain-language explanation of the current account status, balance, historical updates, and whether the data was ever suppressed, temporarily removed, or flagged for review. Furthermore, I assert that LVNV Funding LLC has no lawful basis to report this debt, as they have not furnished evidence of legal ownership, nor have they shown that the debt was incurred through a signed contract. If XXXX  possesses documentation attesting to the legal chain of custody of the debt ( e.g., bills of sale, assignment documents ), I demand immediate access to such materials. In summary, this multi-part complaint requires the following action : 1. A full Method of Verification disclosure consistent with 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( a ) ( 6 ) ( B ) ( iii ).

2. Certified copies of all reinvestigation records including internal XXXX communications, e-OSCAR dispute tickets, and vendor interactions. 
3. Names, titles, and roles of XXXX  agents involved in this case. 
4. All documentation obtained from LVNV Funding LLC. 
5. A plain-language breakdown of the post-update data on my file. 
6. Immediate deletion of this tradeline if XXXX  can not supply full evidence of verification as mandated by law.

Failure to comply with this request will be reported directly to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and any relevant state Attorney General. 



XXXX  reliance on automated dispute handling not only undermines the integrity of the reinvestigation process but also erodes public trust in the accuracy of credit reporting. According to the CFPBs XXXX Annual Report on the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a significant portion of consumer complaints stem from XXXX  unwillingness or failure to provide meaningful responses to dispute inquiries. This case exemplifies that failure. I further assert that XXXX  has not complied with its statutory obligation to notify third parties who received the inaccurate information, per 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( d ), once a dispute results in a change or deletion. Please confirm in writing whether any such third-party notifications were made, and if so, to whom and when. The definition of a reasonable reinvestigation under federal law has evolved. The Seventh Circuit in Henson v. CSC Credit Services and the Ninth Circuit in Dennis v. BEH-1 made it clear that mere passive forwarding of information does not meet the FCRAs reinvestigation standard. By failing to investigate the context and merit of my dispute, XXXX  is violating judicial precedent as well as statutory duty. Moreover, I request written assurance that XXXX  has implemented the procedural safeguards outlined in 12 C.F.R. 1022, including quality control standards for automated dispute resolution, training protocols for dispute agents, and periodic review of furnisher reliability. I am also demanding full metadata for the tradeline in question. This includes : Date account first reported by LVNV Funding LLC Date of last update Any suppressions or soft deletions Internal dispute flags or annotations Data-sharing history for this tradeline with third parties These metadata elements form part of the information that a consumer reporting agency is required to provide under 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( a ) ( 1 ). 



XXXX  failure to supply a detailed and meaningful MOV places this account in violation of the maximum possible accuracy clause in 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). As such, I demand deletion of the LVNV tradeline until and unless you can provide : Documentary proof of account origination with my signature A complete chain of title, including assignments Full account history and billing cycle documentation Contact logs showing interactions between LVNV and XXXX  regarding my dispute Without such documentation, this entry is unverifiable and legally defective.

I also assert potential violations of state-level consumer protection laws. For example, under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ( UTPCPL ), a CRAs failure to correct false information after reasonable notice may constitute an unfair or deceptive act. XXXX pattern of generic, opaque dispute outcomes may violate this provision. In accordance with my rights, I intend to forward this complaint to the Pennsylvania Attorney Generals Bureau of Consumer Protection. Please consider this a formal notification of my intention to escalate unless remedial steps are taken within 30 days. Additionally, I am requesting that XXXX  clarify whether the XX/XX/XXXX update to this account included changes to : Balance Account status Payment history Date of last activity Date opened Creditor name For each field, I request both the previous value and the new value. This data is essential to assess whether the update constituted a meaningful correction or simply a cosmetic adjustment with no effect on my creditworthiness.

Please also explain whether XXXX  attempted to verify the legitimacy of the underlying debt contract with the original creditor before updating the LVNV account. If the debt is alleged to originate with a now-defunct lender, or a creditor who no longer maintains original records, XXXX  is under heightened obligation to scrutinize the data before republishing it. If you are unable to obtain these original records, then the account should be deleted, not updated. The continued reporting of unverifiable, unvalidated information is a direct violation of FCRA 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ). If XXXX records reflect that the LVNV tradeline was simply confirmed by the furnisher through an automated system, then this is legally insufficient. XXXX  must : 1. Independently verify the claim through documentation 2. Provide a full written MOV with named contacts 3. Suspend reporting during any extended reinvestigation period Failure to do so constitutes willful noncompliance under 15 U.S.C. 1681n and subjects XXXX  to potential statutory and punitive damages.

I now formally reiterate that any continued reporting of the LVNV Funding LLC tradeline, without verifiable documentary support and a complete MOV response, will be treated as willful negligence. I reserve all rights under FCRA 1681n and 1681o to pursue damages, including through private legal action and coordinated enforcement through CFPB. I also request confirmation that this dispute is now being escalated to XXXX  legal and executive dispute review teams for further handling due to the volume and seriousness of the legal claims asserted herein. This communication serves as both : 1. A Method of Verification ( MOV ) request under FCRA 1681i ( a ) 2. A formal complaint for filing with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 3. A record to be preserved for evidentiary purposes in any potential legal proceeding XXXX  is hereby placed on notice that future failure to meaningfully respond may be included in a pattern of disregard for federal consumer protection obligations. The burdens on your administrative staff are a natural consequence of systemic failure to provide adequate verification under law.

In addition to the above demands, I am requesting XXXX  full correspondence log for this dispute, including : Emails sent to or from LVNV Funding LLC regarding my file Notes entered by agents or automated systems Internal flags or status codes attached to my report Any comments, memos, or interdepartmental communications concerning this tradeline This information is necessary to evaluate whether XXXX  followed its own dispute-handling protocols, as well as those mandated by federal law and CFPB oversight.

I am also requesting a statement of all policies, procedures, and training materials used by XXXX  personnel to evaluate disputes related to debt buyers such as LVNV Funding LLC. I request specific clarification on : 1. Whether XXXX  requires original creditor documentation to verify a debt 2. What constitutes sufficient documentation to validate a disputed item 3. Whether any reinvestigation took place beyond a single furnisher confirmation These elements go to the heart of whether XXXX  maintains reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy under 15 U.S.C. 1681e ( b ). 



In accordance with the burden XXXX  places on consumers to verify identity when initiating disputes, I now place a symmetrical burden on XXXX  : please provide legally adequate documentationcomparable in evidentiary weight to a signed affidavitthat proves the accuracy of the LVNV tradeline and the completeness of your reinvestigation process.This demand is rooted in basic fairness and the principle that no consumer reporting agency should expect consumers to bear more evidentiary burden than it imposes upon its own furnishers. I also request XXXX  definition of the term updated as it appears in my file. This term is overly vague and fails to meet the statutory clarity requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1681g ( a ) ( 1 ). Please define : What does updated mean?

What data fields were affected?

What data values changed?

Was any deletion or suppression involved?

Did LVNV affirmatively initiate this update? 

If XXXX  can not define updated with precision and evidence, then the label itself is misleading and potentially deceptive under FCRA and the Dodd-Frank Act. 


Further, please confirm whether XXXX has ever received regulatory warnings, consent orders, or enforcement actions from the CFPB or other authorities related to its handling of LVNV Funding LLC data. If so, I request that you disclose the nature and outcome of such actions, along with documentation reflecting internal changes made in response.This is relevant because it speaks to whether XXXX  is operating under any compliance restrictions that may impact how it handles disputes involving debt buyers or third-party furnishers. In the interest of procedural transparency, I request the following additional data elements from your system : Dispute codes used internally ( numeric or alphanumeric ) Response codes returned by the furnisher The timestamp of each data transmission System used for the update ( e.g., e-OSCAR, XXXX  proprietary ) I also request any machine-readable XXXX  or XXXX  logs produced by your systems when processing my dispute. If XXXX  does not retain such logs, please confirm in writing and explain why such logs are not required or stored for audit purposes. 



XXXX continued reporting of unverifiable, unsupported data from debt buyers causes material harm. The presence of this tradeline adversely affects my creditworthiness and future access to housing, employment, and credit. In Cortez v. TransUnion, the court found that CRAs are liable for failing to go beyond automated confirmation when consumers raise detailed, fact-specific disputes. This is analogous to my case. Given this precedent, I assert that XXXX  decision to update the LVNV tradeline without full documentary verification and without providing me the MOV documentation constitutes a failure of due process and a legal injury. I reiterate that I am not merely requesting deletion on technical grounds, but rather on the basis that no lawful verification has occurred. The standard is not mere presence of a debt buyers data, but actual accuracy and verifiability of the content. XXXX  can not meet this standard unless it produces : A signed contract bearing my name Original creditor statements validating the amount Documentation of assignment to LVNV A complete accounting of fees, interest, and balances None of this has been provided in prior disputes. Therefore, the burden is on XXXX to either produce it now or cease reporting the entry. 


Please also confirm whether XXXX  shares this LVNV tradeline with any affiliates, data aggregators, or scoring model providers ( e.g., XXXX, XXXX ). If so, what limitationsif anydoes XXXX  impose on how disputed data is shared during the reinvestigation period? I request a detailed accounting of all third-party access to my file since the LVNV Funding LLC account appeared, including : Date of access Entity name Permissible purpose Whether data was disputed at the time In closing this section, I again emphasize : the volume, specificity, and legal precision of this request are proportional to the failure of XXXX  to adequately explain or support its previous actions. If XXXX  can not or will not provide documentary verification as demanded under FCRA 1681i, then XXXX  must delete the LVNV tradeline immediately and notify all recipients of my file of this correction. I reserve the right to amend, supplement, or escalate this complaint, and I insist on written confirmation of XXXX actions in response to each enumerated demand. 
I now submit an expanded list of documents that XXXX  must furnish to fulfill its obligations under both the FCRA and general principles of fair consumer reporting. This list includes, but is not limited to : XXXX. All contracts, agreements, or records identifying LVNV Funding LLC as a data furnisher XXXX. All legal documents substantiating LVNVs ownership of the alleged debt XXXX. Any indemnification or liability disclaimers between XXXX and LVNV XXXX. A breakdown of how balances were calculated XXXX. Evidence of the date and method by which the account was charged off by the original creditor If XXXX  relies on summary data or generic confirmation templates to verify the account, this constitutes a failure under 15 U.S.C. 1681i.

Additionally, I demand copies of any internal quality control checklists or audit reports that reviewed this particular dispute. If no quality control was performed, I ask XXXX  to acknowledge this fact in writing. Further, I request confirmation of whether this tradeline has been subject to prior consumer disputes ( from other consumers ), regulatory inquiries, class action suits, or enforcement actions that would suggest a pattern of error or abuse related to LVNV Funding LLC data reporting. XXXX  should confirm whether it applied any suppression flags, fraud indicators, or dispute codes to this file at any point between the original reporting of the tradeline and the most recent update. If so, I demand the dates and reasons for such flags, and documentation of when they were removed or altered. If no suppression codes or dispute indicators were applied, despite my initiating a legally valid dispute, that raises questions about XXXX compliance with FCRAs reasonable procedures and dispute-handling obligations. To ensure XXXX  is acting in good faith and not systematically favoring furnishers over consumers, I request documentation of XXXX policies on : Dispute prioritization Reinvestigation timelines Conditions that trigger escalated manual review Definitions of terms like frivolous, duplicate, or verified Please also disclose whether LVNV Funding LLC has any preferred vendor, XXXX, or priority data transmission relationship with XXXX, and if so, how that affects dispute handling or verification. 


To ensure transparency and accountability, I ask for a notarized attestation from an XXXX  compliance officer stating : That all verification procedures were followed That LVNV Funding LLC provided documentary evidence That no deletion was warranted under 1681i ( a ) ( 5 ) That this verification complies with FCRA and CFPB regulations If no such sworn statement can be made, XXXX  must immediately delete the LVNV tradeline and notify all third parties who received it in the past 24 months. 


If XXXX  fails to respond with full documentation, I will : File this entire complaint with the CFPB Forward a copy to the Pennsylvania Attorney Generals Office Report the issue to the FTC Request congressional oversight for systemic CRA noncompliance Share this burden-based template with other judgment-proof consumers These actions are intended to expose XXXX  reliance on superficial verification procedures and its disregard for the consumer protections built into federal credit reporting law.

I further assert that the lack of adequate MOV documentation may constitute a deceptive act or practice under the Dodd-Frank Act and subject XXXX  to potential CFPB enforcement actions. Your continued reliance on auto-confirmation from debt buyers is not only lazyit is dangerous and legally vulnerable. As outlined in CFPB enforcement guidance, CRAs that repeatedly fail to verify data with original documentation are at risk for enhanced scrutiny and fines. I will do everything in my power to ensure this complaint contributes to that regulatory pressure. Please also acknowledge receipt of this MOV demand in writing. I expect your full responsecomplete with attachments, procedural documentation, and a narrative explanation of XXXX verification processwithin 30 days of receipt. Your response must be formatted to match the numbered requests in this document for transparency and auditability. Do not substitute vague answers, verified as accurate boilerplate, or e-OSCAR response codes for substantive evidence. To emphasize again : this complaint is not submitted frivolously or in haste. It is the product of extensive legal research, documentation review, and first-hand experience with XXXX  evasive responses to legitimate disputes. I am judgment-proof, highly informed, and prepared to escalate. Your legal and regulatory exposure grows every time you ignore MOV obligations or offload dispute handling to automated systems incapable of legal reasoning. 


This is the final page of my complaint. XXXX  has a legal and ethical obligation to correct or delete unverifiable data and to stop hiding behind vague updates that obscure the truth. If you choose not to comply, I will take further actionrepeatedly and persistentlyuntil full deletion is secured. Your obligation under the FCRA is clear : verify with documentation or delete the item.

Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation