Consumer complaint received 2025-11-20 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint to outline significant discrepancies and concerns regarding two collection accounts currently appearing on my credit file under the names MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT ( MIDLAND CRED ) with the reference numbers XXXXXXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX. These accounts are being reported as charged-off, delinquent, or outstanding obligations that Midland Credit Management asserts were purchased or obtained from an original creditor. However, after thoroughly reviewing my financial records, past statements, notices, and personal history, I do not have any verifiable knowledge of these alleged debts, nor have I been provided documentation that meets the federal standard of validation, verification, or lawful substantiation. 

This complaint is not a refusal to pay, nor is it an admission of liability. Instead, it is a good-faith effort to obtain clarity, accurate reporting, and full compliance with consumer protection laws. The purpose of this submission is to : ( 1 ) document the events that occurred, ( 2 ) summarize my efforts to understand or dispute the debts, ( 3 ) outline where Midland may have failed to meet federal obligations, and ( 4 ) explain why these two accounts appear to be inaccurate, incomplete, unverified, or improperly reported. 

Below is a detailed chronological explanation of what happened regarding MIDLAND CRED XXXXXXXX XXXX  and MIDLAND CRED XXXXXXXX XXXX. 

1. The Appearance of These Accounts on My Credit Report I first learned of these two Midland Credit Management accounts when reviewing a copy of my consumer credit file. Both accounts were listed as third-party collections, with Midland acting as the debt buyer or servicer. The entries did not include any of the original loan documents, contracts, applications, itemized statements, or any legally required chain-of-assignment documents that would confirm whether Midland actually owns, controls, or has the legal right to collect or report these debts. 

Account 1 : MIDLAND CRED XXXXXXXX XXXX Reported as a collection/charge-off Reporting a past-due balance, derogatory status, and historical delinquency Listed under Midland without detailed supporting documentation Account 2 : MIDLAND CRED XXXXXXXX XXXX Also reported as a collection/charge-off Contains derogatory remarks and negative payment history No consumer-facing documentation proving assignment or ownership When these accounts appeared on my credit report, I was not contacted by Midland beforehand with an initial notice, as required under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ). I did not receive a dunning letter, nor was I offered the opportunity to dispute the debt within the mandatory 30-day period. The absence of this notice prevented me from exercising my rights early in the process. 

2. Lack of Notice and Absence of Legally Required Validation FDCPA 809 requires debt collectors to provide : The amount of the alleged debt, The name of the original creditor, A consumers right to dispute within 30 days, A statement that verification will be provided upon request, Mailing information for the collector. 

In the case of both Midland accounts XXXXXXXX XXXX  and XXXXXXXX XXXX, none of these rights were fully granted. I did not receive the initial written notice. I did not receive itemized breakdowns. I did not receive the original creditors name, account number, terms, or evidence of default. And most importantly, I did not receive verification that meets the legal standard which requires more than internal spreadsheets or summary data. 

As a result, I had no meaningful opportunity to challenge or confirm the debts. 

3. Issues With Debt Buyers and Incomplete Chain-of-Assignment Midland Credit Management is a known debt buyer, meaning they purchase portfolios of previously charged-off accounts in bulk from various creditors. These portfolios often lack complete account files. 
For a debt buyer to legally report a derogatory account, they must possess documentation proving : They own the debt The debt is accurate The amount is correct The consumer is the right person The chain of assignment is valid and documented To date, no such documentation has been provided for either XXXXXXXX XXXX or XXXXXXXX XXXX. 

I requested validation, but Midland did not present : A signed contract showing I opened the account A detailed payment history Copies of billing statements Charge-off records from the original creditor Proof that the account was legally purchased Notice of assignment Chain-of-title or bill of sale referencing my individual account Without these documents, Midland can not legally confirm that I owe these debts, and therefore should not be reporting them. 

4. Potential Metro 2 and FCRA Violations Credit reporting agencies require strict adherence to the XXXX XXXX Format Standards, which govern how financial data must be reported. If even one field is inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable, the account should not be reported. 

For both accounts, several potential issues appear evident : Missing ECOA codes Inconsistent date of first delinquency ( DOFD ) Lack of original creditor identification Conflicting open/closed dates Cloned or duplicate account structures Incorrect status codes Missing compliance condition codes Lack of factual verification of ownership When data is incomplete or can not be verified, the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) requires the furnisher to delete or correct it. 

Both accounts XXXXXXXX XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX contain entries that appear to violate these standards. 

5. E-OSCAR and Improper Automated Verification When I disputed the accounts with the credit bureaus, I suspect the disputes were processed through E-OSCAR, an automated system that handles disputes with limited data exchange. Rather than actually verifying : documents, contracts, statements, chain-of-assignment, or original records, furnishers often respond with a simple verified as accurate code. 

This process does not satisfy the legal requirement for a reasonable investigation under FCRA 1681s-2 ( b ). 

Given that Midland has not provided any substantiating documents to me : It seems unlikely they produced any to the bureaus. 

It is more likely they simply responded verified, relying on incomplete internal data. 

This is not lawful verification. 

6. I Have No Relationship With Midland or the Alleged Original Creditors I have never entered into a contract or agreement with Midland Credit Management. I have also never been shown any agreement proving : I opened an account with the original creditor I received credit, funds, or services from the original creditor I defaulted on any such obligation Midland is now the legal owner of the alleged debt Without a contract, there is no legal obligation. 

The fact that Midland has not provided a single page of documentation further confirms that they can not substantiate these accounts. 

7. Harm Caused by the Inaccurate Reporting The presence of these two Midland accounts has caused significant personal harm, including : Denied credit applications Higher interest rates Reputational damage Emotional stress Inability to qualify for certain financial opportunities Distorted creditworthiness Artificially lowered credit score The harm is ongoing, as the accounts remain unverified and inaccurately reported. 

8. Summary of the Problem In summary : For MIDLAND CRED XXXXXXXX XXXX  and XXXXXXXX XXXX  : I never received required notices I never received validation No original documentation has been provided No contract has been presented No proof of ownership has been shown No chain-of-assignment documents exist The accounts appear to be unverifiable The reporting is inconsistent and incomplete E-OSCAR disputes were likely handled improperly I have suffered actual financial harm These accounts appear inaccurate under FCRA and FDCPA Based on all available evidence, these accounts do not belong to me, or at minimum, can not be verified according to federal requirements. 

Therefore, the continued reporting of these accounts is unlawful and unauthorized.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief