Consumer complaint received 2026-04-22 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
DOCUMENT XXXX : CFPB COMPLAINT RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES/ LVNV FUNDING / RESURGENT RECEIVABLES SUBMIT AT : consumerfinance.gov/complaint Company Information : Resurgent Capital Services L.P. ( servicer ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Also involving : LVNV Funding LLC and Resurgent Receivables LLC ( debt owners ) Accounts at Issue ( XXXX total ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Resurgent Receivables LLC {$980.00} Charged off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Resurgent Receivables LLC {$210.00} Charged off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Resurgent Receivables LLC {$1300.00} Charged off XX/XX/XXXX Complaint Narrative : I am a resident of XXXX XXXX XXXX I sent a XXXX Notice of Unsatisfied Demand for Accounting and Proof of Claim to Resurgent Capital Services L.P. on XX/XX/XXXX via certified mail, covering all XXXX accounts listed above. This followed an original demand to which Resurgent 's responses were inadequate form letters. On XX/XX/XXXX, Resurgent sent multiple letters in response. Each account received XXXX letters on the same date : ( XXXX ) a letter stating they had 'initiated a review of the inquiry recently received, ' and ( XXXX ) a letter enclosing an 'Account Summary Report ' purporting to provide verification of the debt. The Account Summary Reports are timestamped as follows : Account ending XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ending XXXX generated XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX All XXXX 'verification ' reports were auto-generated within a XXXX, XXXX window the same window in which Resurgent simultaneously claims to have 'initiated a review. ' This is a sham dispute investigation. A reasonable investigation can not be initiated and completed simultaneously within minutes for XXXX separate accounts. This pattern demonstrates that Resurgent has a systematic practice of rubber-stamping disputes without conducting any actual review. Furthermore, Resurgent 's XX/XX/XXXX letters revealed for the first time that sub-servicers had been assigned to several accounts : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was identified as servicer for Account ending XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was identified as servicer for Accounts ending XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I was never sent any notice of these transfers. Under FDCPA 1692g, a new collector has XXXX days from first contact to provide a validation notice. No such notices were received from XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX XXXX. The Account Summary Reports provided by Resurgent do not constitute adequate validation. They failed to provide : chain of title / bill of sale ; original account agreements ; complete payment and charge histories ; proof of SC collection licensure for all entities ; verification debts are not time-barred ; acquisition price paid vs. face balance ; or confirmation of the true party in interest. Specific violations : FCRA 611 ( a ) Sham investigation : verification auto-generated simultaneously with 'initiated review ' letters FCRA 623 Furnisher duty to report accurately and investigate disputes FDCPA 1692g Failure to provide adequate validation ; new servicers failed to send validation notices FDCPA 1692e False and misleading representations in collection communications FDCPA 1692f Unfair collection practices

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief