Consumer complaint received 2018-03-18
Company: ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.
State: CA
Product: Debt collection
Sub-product: Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
Sub-issue: Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged

Complaint:
I requested debt validation and amendment or all credit reports from XXXX XXXX XXXX as detailed below. Both debts reported information contrary to my evidence. This demonstrates a lack of good faith reporting effort. My findings are as follows : XXXX XXXX/XXXX : The XXXX XXXX Superior Court ordered a judgement in favor of myself with no putative damages awarded to Midland in XX/XX/XXXX. ( 1 ) Midland failed to remove item when requested in writing when provided the court ordered judgement as evidence. ( 2 ) Midland failed to accurately reflect the account status as paid or remove the item altogether and instead sent me an invoice of the original amount owed of XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX. It is my understanding a lost judgement nullifies any future collection efforts and my credit reports should have been amended last year removing the debt altogether. The Fair Debt Collection Act does not stipulate reporting responsibility however various other court cases dictate nullification. What is the responsibility of the debt collector in this circumstance? ( 3 ) This has resulted in Midlands noncompliance without specific instruction. 

Secondly, Midland is notorious for pursing legal action relating to debt acquired from XXXX/XXXX. Upwards of 90 % of the cases result in default judgements for the original debt amount owed to XXXX and the incurred expenses of Midland. ( 4 ) If just 10 of 50 cases are pursued in a portfolio are awarded in favor of Midland, this more than satisfies the cost of price paid for all bad debts in that portfolio, any assumed administrative burden and satisfies entitled usury collection of no more than twice the state rate. 

Reporting this debt as a revolving account to XXXX assumes Midland has a banking or financial services license, they do not. Refer to XXXX vs. XXXX XXXX XXXX, ( 5 ) despite court judgement, XXXX XXXX continues to assume the same rights to collection as the original debtor, a national bank by misrepresenting the actual status effecting the most harm to my credit report and score. 

( 6 ) Without oversight, there is high potential for gross profiteering. ( 7 ) Additionally, Midland continues to take threatening action against me by posting this debt as an active collection to all bureaus. They continue to misrepresented the status of the debt as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Act with the attempt to usurious interest as defined by the RICO Statue for a debt they no longer have the right to collect. 

XXXX XXXX/XXXX XXXX XXXX : The attempt to collect XXXX is unfounded and without merit based on actual expenses incurred by Midland to be estimated at less than 500.00 to date. Without pursuing collection in court and incurring the legal expenses, Midland can not justify the amount they are attempting to collect from me. I have requested amendment, pursuit of legal recourse or removal of the attempted debt collection in XX/XX/XXXX. I in turn received notice of original amount owed with instruction of how to pay. ( 1 ) They failed to validate acquisition they price and incurred expenses ( my new liability to Midland as a debt buyer ) to justify continued collection attempts. This is my right.

Midland continues to take threatening action they not have authority to pursue. ( 2 ) Midland continues to misrepresented the status of the debt by reporting active collections on both XXXX and XXXX for a total of XXXX and as a revolving account to XXXX. ( 3 ) Represents failure to consistently report the same data to all bureaus and is ( 4 ) an active attempt to collect usurious interest as defined by the RICO statue, pursuing of collection posted to all my credit reports. 

Reporting this debt as a revolving account to XXXX assumes Midland has a banking or financial services license, they do not. Refer to XXXX vs. XXXX XXXX XXXX, ( 5 ) despite court judgement, XXXX XXXX continues to assume the same rights to collection as the original debtor, a national bank by misrepresenting the actual status effecting the most harm to my credit report and score. 

The 12 cited issues above establish a precedence of Midlands illicit collection practices failing to meet the standards of the Fair Debt Collection Act, to honor a court ordered judgement, continues pursuit to collect usurious interest as defined by RICO Statue with intent to cause damage to my credit outside what would be legally allowed.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief