Product: Debt collection

On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a complaint to the CFPB regarding the threatening, false, and misleading tactics used by XXXX XXXX and two of their associated companies XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( MCM ) regarding a disputed debt. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a response ( attached ) from XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX ( since my complaint was to XXXX XXXX, I assume XXXX XXXX was acting as an agent of XXXX XXXX ). 

That response contained false and misleading statements. It is unclear to me why I can not get a straight response from XXXX XXXX ( and associated companies ). I called the CFPB regarding this issue, and the representative I spoke with encouraged me to document this problem by submitting another complaint. The purpose of this complaint ( supported by my original complaint ) is to demonstrate to the CFPB that XXXX XXXX and its associated companies continue to make false and misleading statements, use threatening and deceptive tactics, and recklessly share personal information to coerce payments on disputed debts. 

These are the statements that I take issue with in the response from Midland : 1 ) Midland writes, On XX/XX/XXXX, a letter was sent to you advising that XXXX was servicing the account. ACFs business records indicate that after attempts to reach you were unsuccessful, an additional letter was sent to you advising you of potential next steps that could be taken on your account. I received only two letters from XXXX. The initial communication from XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Letter # 1 - attached ) and one Pre-Legal Notification letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ( Letter # 2 - attached ). In the 8-day time span between Letter # 1 and Letter # 2, I received no phone calls or additional correspondence. There were no attempts plural to reach me before Letter # 2. I also believe that Letter # 2 violates the FDCPA in that it made false and misleading statements and overshadowed my right to request debt validation through the letters timing, typeface, and imposed response deadline of XX/XX/XXXX that was well before the 30-day validation period concluded. Additionally, the letter threatened that if I did not respond before XX/XX/XXXX, the matter would be forwarded to an attorney in my state. The next written communication I received was from MCM. I do not believe MCM is an attorney in my state. 

2 ) I previously complained that XXXX XXXX was trying to extract a double payment from me by demanding payment for the alleged debt from two distinct entities XXXX and MCM. In the response from Midland, the letter states, You indicate that when you disputed the debt to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, you received a letter from XXXX XXXX instead of XXXX. Please note, your correspondence was received by XXXX, and was subsequently forwarded to XXXX XXXX to respond to your concerns. Additionally, the account was returned from XXXX to XXXX XXXX for continued servicing at that time. While this transfer between the companies was apparently obvious internally, it most certainly was not obvious to me, the recipient of the communication ( there was no mention of any handoff from XXXX to MCM in any communication ). As stated above, the last communication from XXXX indicated that the next communication to me would be from an attorney in my state. I assume this legal threat was a tactic to frighten me into paying them before I had a chance to request debt validation. While I was waiting to hear from the attorney in my state, I instead heard from MCM providing me with a payment coupon for the same alleged debt. As neither company mentioned the other, it would be logical for anyone to assume that XXXX and MCM were distinct companies trying to extract a double payment for the same alleged debt. 

3 ) Midland writes, Additionally, in response to your dispute, verification information provided by the seller was also mailed to you on XX/XX/XXXX. A copy of the verification information is once again enclosed for your records. The verification that was included in their response was NOT what was sent to me on XX/XX/XXXX. The original verification information was a single credit card statement ( two-sided ) that I found dubious because it contained many errors and contradicting information. The verification information that was included in the response was 12 months of credit card statements that I have never seen and were never mailed to me. Verification issues aside, Midland is again using misleading statements by stating that the verification information is once again enclosed for your records. If they never sent me this verification information before, how can it be provided to me once again? 

4 ) Midland writes, XXXX XXXX business records indicate that it has not furnished any information to the credit reporting agencies regarding the account at this time. Midland did, in fact, report negative credit information in XX/XX/XXXX, two months after this response. While Midland did not explicitly state that they would never report negative credit information, they implied it. Im curious as to what changed between the timing of their CFPB response.