Consumer complaint received 2025-07-24 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this as an identity theft claim under FCRA 605B. I do not recognize this debt and never opened or authorized any account with LVNV Funding LLC. I have no relationship with this company. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I formally requested LVNV to provide : Proof of legal standing to report on my credit Clarification of why they were reporting themselves as the original creditor for a XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  account I never authorized On XX/XX/XXXX, LVNV ( through Resurgent Capital ) responded without providing any evidence. In fact, they flatly refused to prove standing or provide chain of custody and stated they were not obligated to do so despite the fact that I had directly challenged ownership and authorization.

This refusal violates : FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) they are knowingly reporting inaccurate information FDCPA 809 ( b ) they failed to validate the debt upon request FCRA 605B after receiving a formal FTC Identity Theft Report, they continued reporting without lawful justification LVNV is falsely identifying itself as an original creditor for a debt I never signed for, never authorized, and never acknowledged. They have provided no signed agreement, no transfer of ownership, and no legal basis for furnishing information to the credit bureaus.

I am requesting the CFPB immediately : 1. Order deletion of this account under FCRA 605B 2. Prevent re-insertion of the tradeline by LVNV or affiliates 3. Investigate LVNVs pattern of ignoring verification and identity theft laws 4. Refer this matter to the FTC for potential enforcement LVNVs refusal to delete this tradeline after receiving an identity theft report and validation request is not a mistakeit is willful non-compliance. 
In XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), the Supreme Court held that ignorance of the law is not a defense under the FDCPA. LVNVs denial of their obligation to validate violates this precedent. 
In FTC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX ), the court found that failure to verify the validity of debts before suing or reporting them violates the FDCPA and FCRA. LVNVs conduct mirrors this unlawful behavior. 

Therefore, LVNV can not claim a bona fide error or procedural mistake. Their response was intentional, dismissive, and damagingtriggering liability under 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( FCRA ) and 15 U.S.C. 1692k ( FDCPA ).

A picture of a supposed former account with no wet signature is not proof of legal standing to collect or report to a consumer reporting agency. This is the only verification they providedno wet signature, no assignment, and no contract. This fails to meet the requirements of 15 U.S.C. 1692g.

This is not a dispute. This is a formal demand for deletion under federal identity theft protections ( FCRA 605B ). LVNV Funding has failed to demonstrate any legal right to report this account and must be held accountable for continued violations of federal law.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation