Consumer complaint received 2026-05-14 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
b'I am a confirmed identity theft victim filing this complaint to document willful and escalating violations by Resurgent Capital Services L.P. and Resurgent Receivables LLC spanning XXXX months of documented obstruction. This complaint incorporates evidence from XXXX prior CFPB complaints and is supported entirely by Resurgents own submitted documentation.\nRESURGENTS OWN DOCUMENTS DESTROY THEIR POSITION: Resurgent submitted a XXXX XXXX billing statement as purported verification of debt. That statement is the single most devastating piece of evidence in this case and Resurgent produced it themselves. The statement is addressed to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a business name at the business address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, not the consumers home address at XXXX XXXX XXXX The statement explicitly states Your automatic payment will be deducted from your business bank account confirming the unauthorized third party enrolled Auto Pay using stolen business banking credentials documented in XXXX Police Report XXXX. The statement shows a payment from a card ending in XXXX belonging to the consumers wife XXXX XXXX made without her knowledge or consent. XXXX XXXX XXXX and supplies including a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and multiple purchases from XXXX XXXX XXXX appear throughout the account history. Every single transaction is local to XXXX XXXX XXXX where the consumers XXXX XXXX is located. Resurgent submitted this document to prove the debt is valid. It proves beyond any reasonable dispute that this account was opened and operated by an unauthorized third party with access to the consumers business premises, business email, business banking credentials, and personal financial accounts. No legitimate personal credit card is opened under a business name, at a business address, with Auto Pay enrolled from a business bank account, with payments made from a third partys card without consent, with purchases exclusively of XXXX XXXX XXXX from a XXXX XXXX location.\nRESURGENT CANNOT ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AND HAS REFUSED TO TRY: The consumer has submitted two formal written demands delivered XXXX XXXX XXXX signed by XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX signed by XXXX XXXX demanding specific written answers to specific documented questions. Resurgent has answered none of them. If this account was legitimately opened by the consumer, Resurgent must explain: Why was a business email address used instead of a personal email address? Why was a business address used instead of a home address? Why was Auto Pay enrolled from a business bank account? Who authorized payments from a card ending in XXXX belonging to the consumers wife? Why does professional XXXX XXXX appear on a supposed personal credit card? Why was the consumers legal middle name XXXX omitted from the application? There are no legitimate answers to any of these questions. Every fact is consistent with identity theft. None are consistent with legitimate account opening. Resurgents refusal to answer after two formal written demands is not a coincidence it is an admission that no legitimate answers exist.\nRESURGENTS OWN ACCOUNT SUMMARY REPORT CONFIRMS XXXX MONTHS OF FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY: Resurgents Account Summary Report dated XXXX XXXX XXXX shows the date of last payment as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX months after the fraudulent account was opened in XXXX XXXX. The unauthorized third party was actively managing this account, making payments, purchasing XXXX XXXX, and enrolling in Auto Pay from a business bank account for over a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Resurgent is attempting to collect a debt on an account that was exclusively operated by a thief for nearly XXXX years while the consumer had zero knowledge of its existence.\nILLEGAL THREAT TO RESUME ACTIVE COLLECTION ON DISPUTED ACCOUNT: Resurgents XXXX XXXX XXXX letter states we will be unable to address these concerns and may return this account to active collection. This statement constitutes a direct and willful violation of FDCPA Section 1692g(b), 15 U.S.C. 1692g(b), which mandates that upon receipt of a written dispute all collection activity must immediately and unconditionally cease until verification of the debt is provided to the consumer. This obligation is mandatory and non-discretionary. It is not subject to internal policy exceptions. It is not contingent on Resurgents satisfaction with the consumers documentation. The written dispute was received XXXX XXXX XXXX signed by XXXX XXXX. A second comprehensive legal demand was received XXXX XXXX XXXX signed by XXXX XXXX. The threat to resume active collection after receiving two formal written disputes is a textbook FDCPA violation.\nBOILERPLATE DENIAL PROVES ZERO GOOD FAITH INVESTIGATION: Resurgents XXXX XXXX XXXX denial letter contains a typographical error spelling their own department as Correspondencee Department. This is not a minor clerical error it is proof that this letter is an auto-generated boilerplate response that was never actually reviewed by a human being with knowledge of this account. The letter addresses zero specific facts from the consumers documented dispute. It does not mention the business email. It does not mention the business address. It does not mention the Auto Pay enrollment from a business bank account. It does not mention the third-party card payments. It does not mention the professional XXXX XXXX purchases. It does not mention the application name discrepancy. Under FCRA Section 623 and FDCPA Section 1692g, a debt collectors investigation must be a genuine inquiry not a rubber stamp denial generated by an automated system. Resurgents response is not an investigation. It is willful blindness dressed up as due diligence.\nXXXX MONTHS OF DOCUMENTED OBSTRUCTION BY RESURGENT AND THEIR SERVICER: On XXXX XXXX XXXX, Resurgents appointed servicer XXXX XXXX XXXX responded to CFPB complaint XXXX acknowledging the consumers identity theft allegation stating explicitly This complaint is our first communication from XXXX XXXX alleging Identity Theft and promised to begin a formal fraud investigation. That promise was made XXXX months ago. The investigation was never completed. Instead XXXX XXXX continued furnishing this fraudulent account to XXXX XXXX XXXX for XXXX consecutive months. On XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX issued written confirmation that the consumers FCRA Section 605B identity theft block had been applied. Within hours XXXX XXXX submitted what XXXX own representative in XXXX XXXX described as a likely generic verification to reverse that confirmed block a reversal that does not meet the legal standard under FCRA Section 605B(c) which requires specific and credible evidence that the consumer personally and knowingly obtained goods or services. XXXX XXXX had no legal basis to reverse a confirmed federal identity theft block. Resurgent as the account owner and XXXX XXXX principal cannot disclaim responsibility for XXXX months of their servicers willful noncompliance.\nPATTERN OF DISCOURAGING LEGAL REMEDIES DOCUMENTED ACROSS MULTIPLE COMPANIES: In CFPB complaint XXXX a Resurgent representative discouraged the consumer from filing a police report, stating they would handle the matter themselves. In CFPB complaint XXXX filed XXXX XXXX XXXX, a XXXX representative told the consumer he did not need to file a police report. Two separate companies associated with this fraudulent account independently discouraged the consumer from pursuing the precise legal documentation that federal law entitles him to pursue. This is not coincidence. This is a documented pattern of false and misleading representations designed to obstruct the consumers statutory rights in violation of FDCPA Section 1692e.\nRESURGENT MADE A MATERIALLY FALSE STATEMENT TO THE CFPB: In their XXXX XXXX XXXX CFPB response to complaint XXXX, Resurgent stated the Current Owner is not reporting this Account to the credit bureaus. This statement was false when made. Resurgents own servicer XXXX XXXX was actively furnishing this fraudulent account to XXXX XXXX XXXX at the time Resurgent made this statement. Resurgent cannot disclaim reporting responsibility by pointing to their servicer they appointed that servicer, they direct that servicer, and they are legally responsible for that servicers conduct. Making a materially false statement to a federal regulatory agency in response to a consumer complaint is not a clerical error. It is a serious misrepresentation that the CFPB should investigate independently.\nNUCLEAR DEMAND LETTER RECEIVED AND IGNORED: On XXXX XXXX XXXX, Resurgent received via Priority Mail XXXX a comprehensive legal demand letter invoking FDCPA 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act, XXXX Finance Code Chapter 392, and the XXXX Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The letter was signed for by XXXX XXXX at XXXX. That letter demanded specific written answers to every question raised above and required a response within XXXX days. Resurgents XXXX XXXX boilerplate denial was already in the mail before the nuclear letter was even received meaning Resurgent has not responded to those demands at all. Their mandatory response deadline is XXXX XXXX XXXX.\nSECOND COMPREHENSIVE DEMAND PACKAGE MAILED XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the consumer mailed an additional Priority Mail XXXX package to Resurgent containing a notarized fraud statement, FTC Identity Theft Report, and police report. Tracking number XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX confirms scheduled delivery XXXX XXXX XXXX. Resurgent will have received complete documentation from XXXX separate mailings. Their continued refusal to close this account as fraudulent after receiving all of this documentation constitutes willful noncompliance under FCRA Section 616 exposing them to statutory damages of XXXX XXXX XXXX per violation plus actual damages and attorney fees.\nSTATUTORY VIOLATIONS:\n\t\tFDCPA Section 1692g(b) threatening active collection on formally disputed debt\n\t\tFDCPA Section 1692e false representations including discouraging police report and materially false CFPB statement\n\t\tFDCPA Section 1692f unfair and unconscionable collection practices\n\t\tFCRA Section 605B failure to honor identity theft block through servicer\n\t\tFCRA Section 623 furnishing inaccurate information through servicer Servicing Solutions\n\t\tFCRA Section 616 willful noncompliance\n\t\tFCRA Section 617 negligent noncomplianceXXXXXXXX Finance Code Chapter 392 XXXX Debt Collection ActXXXXXXXX Deceptive Trade Practices Act Tex. Bus. and Com. Code Section 17.41 et seq.\nRELATED ACTIVE CFPB COMPLAINTS:\n\t\tResurgent Capital Services: XXXX closed, feedback submittedXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX closed, feedback submittedXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX open, awaiting response\XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX open, awaiting response\XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief