Consumer complaint received 2026-05-15 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive notice of right to dispute
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
I previously filed a CFPB complaint against LVNV Funding LLC / Resurgent Capital Services concerning two separate accounts ( Resurgent Account ID XXXX, acct ending in XXXX ; Resurgent Account ID XXXX, acct ending in XXXX ) for the same pattern of conduct described below. That complaint was filed on XX/XX/year> ( please cross-reference with the case number assigned by the Bureau at the time of filing ). The XXXX account is the subject of this separate complaint because Resurgents initial communication for XXXX was sent at XXXX PM on XX/XX/year> the same day the prior complaint was filed and could not be added to that earlier complaint after submission. I am filing this separate complaint to put the XXXX violations on the regulatory record promptly, before further harm to my credit occurs through furnishing of an additional tradeline. Issue 1 Failure to deliver a complete validation notice ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( a ) ; 12 C.F.R. 1006.34 ) On Thursday, XX/XX/year> at XXXX PM, Resurgent sent me an email with the subject " XXXX, info regarding acct XXXX : owned by LVNV Funding LLC, '' from sender " XXXX '' at XXXX. This is the initial communication from Resurgent regarding the XXXX account. I have received no other communications from Resurgent or LVNV regarding this account. FDCPA 1692g ( a ) requires ( 1 ) a statement that unless the consumer disputes the validity of the debt within 30 days, the debt will be assumed valid ; ( 2 ) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the 30-day period that the debt is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification and mail it to the consumer; and ( 3 ) a statement that on the consumers written request within the 30-day period, the debt collector will provide the name and address of the original creditor if different from the current creditor. Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. 1006.34, further requires specific itemization ( itemization date, principal at itemization, interest, fees, payments, credits ) and a standardized consumer response framework. Issue 2 Third-party disclosure through email subject line ( 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( b ) ) The subject line of the XX/XX/year> email " XXXX, info regarding acct XXXX : owned by LVNV Funding LLC '' expressly identifies LVNV Funding LLC, a known debt-buying entity, in plain text, and references an " acct '' ( account ) " owned by '' that entity. Email subject lines are visible in mobile lock-screen previews, notification banners, shared and household devices, employer-monitored email systems, and inbox listings displayed to anyone with access to the screen. The subject line therefore communicates to any third party who sees the notification that the recipient has an account that has been sold to a debt-buying entity, in violation of 1692c ( b ). Issue 3 Information conditioned on portal authentication does not satisfy delivery requirements The omitted content described in Issue 1 ( 30-day dispute rights, Reg F itemization, consumer response framework ) is not provided in the email and is, at most, available through the " Login '' or " View Your Account '' portal links. To the extent Resurgent will assert that the omitted validation information is made available through portal authentication, that does not satisfy the FDCPA. Section 1692g ( a ) requires the debt collector to " send the consumer a written notice. '' Making the required statutory disclosures conditionally available through portal authentication is not delivery ; it is at most an offer to provide the disclosures upon the consumers further action. The Bureaus Regulation F preamble treats validation as something the debt collector must provide, not something the consumer must retrieve through portal registration or authentication. Requiring consumers to log into a debt collectors portal as a condition of receiving statutorily-required disclosures inverts the burden the FDCPA places on debt collectors. Issue 4 Pattern evidence across multiple accounts The XX/XX/year> email for the XXXX account is structurally similar to Resurgents initial-communication emails for XXXX prior accounts ( XXXX sent XX/XX/year> ; XXXX sent XX/XX/year> ), which are the subject of my earlier CFPB complaint. All three initial-communication emails : Come from the same sender ( " XXXX, XXXX XXXX ). Use subject lines of the form " XXXX, info regarding acct XXXX [ # # # # ] : owned by LVNV Funding LLC. '' Route to a Resurgent web portal via " Login '' and " View Your Account '' links. Lack the 30-day dispute rights language required by 1692g ( a ) ( 3 ) ( 5 ). Lack the Regulation F 1006.34 ( d ) consumer response framework and itemization. Have been followed by no mailed validation notice. The XXXX account also involves an original creditor ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ) that is the same original creditor as the XXXX account. Resurgent therefore has demonstrated capability to deliver compliant 1692g notices for XXXX XXXX accounts through its established procedures and has chosen not to do so for either XXXX XXXX account at issue. The fact that Resurgent sent another non-compliant initial communication on the same day a federal regulatory complaint about exactly this conduct was filed underscores that these practices are automated, systemic, and ongoing. Issue 5 Anticipated furnishing to credit reporting agencies ( 12 C.F.R. 1006.30 ( a ) ) Based on Resurgents pattern with the XXXX and XXXX accounts, I anticipate that LVNV ( with Resurgent acting as servicer ) will furnish a tradeline for the XXXX account to the major consumer reporting agencies in the coming weeks. Under 12 C.F.R. 1006.30 ( a ), a debt collector is prohibited from furnishing information about a debt to a consumer reporting agency unless the debt collector has first either ( i ) spoken with the consumer about the debt, or ( ii ) sent a written or electronic communication about the debt and waited a reasonable period to receive notice of undeliverability. To the extent Resurgent relies on the XX/XX/year> email as the predicate communication, the XXXX should consider whether a communication that itself fails to deliver the validation content required by 1692g ( a ) ( 3 ) ( 5 ) and 1006.34 ( d ) satisfies the 1006.30 ( a ) predicate requirement.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief