Consumer complaint received 2025-05-26 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: AL

Complaint narrative:
No Signed Contract or Agreement with Your Signature They did not provide a copy of your original signed contract or credit card agreement showing : That you agreed XXXX  the terms, That you opened the account, Or how the interest, fees, XXXX  penalties were XXXX  be applied. 
This is key for XXXX validation and courts have ruled that a generic summary is insufficient XXXX  validate debt under XXXX XXXX ( b ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( b ) ].

XXXX. The Resurgent Validation Document Admits It Is NOT from the Original Creditor It is not a credit card or other account statement from the original creditor. 
This undermines its credibility as " validation. '' It's just a recreated summary, not official billing records. Under the law, you are entitled to documentation directly from the original creditor, not XXXX that has been repackaged by a third-party debt buyer. 

XXXX. Missing Chain of Title While the summary says : Original Creditor : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX sold XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Serviced by : Resurgent Capital Services They provide no bill of sale or assignment agreement proving XXXXXXXX XXXX legally sold your specific account XXXX XXXX. 

A proper bill of sale must link your account with identifiers ( name, last 4 of SSN, account number, etc. ). 
Without this, there's no proof they own the debt or have legal authority XXXX  collect or report it. 
4.  No Itemized Charges or Full Account History The Surge statement shows : Only XXXX statement period ending XX/XX/XXXX. 
A total balance of {$1900.00} It does not show monthly activity over time, any breakdown of charges XXXX  payments beyond XXXX, or explain how the amount was calculated from origination. 
This fails XXXX  meet the FCRAs accuracy standards XXXX  prevents meaningful review of whether : Fees were properly applied Interest rates were legal Payments were correctly credited XXXX. The Account Was Charged Off XX/XX/XXXX But Last Payment Shows as XX/XX/XXXX This XXXX month gap raises XXXX red flags : Why wasnt it charged off sooner? 
Is the " last payment '' date accurate or being misrepresented? 
Any inaccuracy in last payment date affects the statute of limitations XXXX  can violate XXXX XXXX ( a ) XXXX XXXX XXXX ( A ), which prohibits reporting inaccurate information. 

6. Conflicting Dates XXXX  Duplicate Reporting Risk Origination : XX/XX/XXXX Charge-off : XX/XX/XXXX Acquired by XXXX : XX/XX/XXXX This implies the debt was sold immediately after charge-off. If the original creditor XXXX  XXXX are both reporting, you could argue duplicative XXXX  misleading reporting, especially if : The original creditor still reports a balance ( which they shouldnt after a sale ). 
They both report it as open or charged-off. 
XXXX. XXXX XXXX  Still Applies If You Had No Access XXXX  Billing If you were never given proper billing disclosures or online access to your account, you can still argue that : You were unable XXXX  make payments knowingly, And XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX by failing XXXX  provide periodic statements or proper access.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation