Consumer complaint received 2025-08-28 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Account status incorrect
Company: Resurgent Capital Services L.P.
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
CFPB Complaint XXXX XXXX Respondent ( s ) : LVNV Funding LLC / Resurgent Capital Services Summary : LVNV Funding LLC and its servicer Resurgent Capital Services are engaging in systemic credit reporting abuses, unlawful re-aging, deceptive debt collection, and failure to provide verification. Their conduct violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), and established case law. These actions are harming my credit profile, financial standing, and ability to obtain credit.

1. Failure to Provide Verification of Debt FDCPA 809 ( b ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ) Resurgent has not provided original contracts, complete payment histories, or purchase/sale agreements proving ownership.

Courts have consistently held that a collector must provide sufficient proof of ownership and validity of the debt, not just generic statements.

Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 ( 4th Cir. 1999 ) mere account summaries are insufficient.

Spears v. Brennan, 745 N.E.2d 862 ( Ind. App. 2001 ) a debt buyer must produce actual proof of assignment, not just affidavits.

2. Furnishing False Information FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ) LVNV is reporting accounts as open with current balances even after charge-off.

This misrepresentation creates the appearance of ongoing delinquency.

Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 526 F.3d 142 ( 4th Cir. 2008 ) knowingly reporting misleading information constitutes an FCRA violation.

3. Unlawful Re-Aging of Accounts FCRA 605 ( c ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1681c ) LVNV is re-aging accounts from 2018 and 2020 to DOFDs in 2024.

This unlawfully extends the 7-year reporting window.

FTC v. Asset Acceptance , LLC, No. 8:12-cv-182 ( M.D. Fla. 2012 ) debt buyers were fined for deceptive re-aging of accounts.

United States v. Equifax , Inc., No. 1:12-cv-899 ( N.D. Ga. 2012 ) regulators penalized re-aging as a deceptive practice.

4. Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation FCRA 1681i ( a ) My disputes were verified through automated e-OSCAR parroting, not through independent investigation.

Cushman v. Trans Union, 115 F.3d 220 ( 3d Cir. 1997 ) CRAs can not merely rely on furnisher responses ; they must perform reasonable reinvestigations.

Henson v. CSC Credit Services, 29 F.3d 280 ( 7th Cir. 1994 ) unreasonable reinvestigations violate 1681i.

5. XXXX  Deletions as Evidence of Inaccuracy XXXX  has already deleted multiple LVNV accounts of mine as unverifiable. 
If LVNV/Resurgent were truly furnishing accurate information, it would remain uniform across all three bureaus. 
This inconsistency demonstrates systemic unreliability. 



6. Deceptive Collection Practices XXXX I received settlement offers from XXXX for the same debts, presented as if they were independent. 
XXXX is an affiliate/partner of Resurgent/LVNV, designed to confuse consumers and obscure ownership. 
FTC v. Asset Acceptance and Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 ( 2d Cir. 1993 ) false or misleading collection communications are prohibited.

This tactic constitutes deception under FDCPA 807 and UDAP ( Unfair & Deceptive Acts and Practices

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation