Consumer complaint received 2026-05-13 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I have repeatedly disputed this account and repeatedly requested proper validation of this alleged debt, CFPB hold Midland accountable. To date, I have not received proper validation, competent documentary evidence, or proof that this account is being reported accurately in compliance with federal law and XXXX XXXX standards. Most importantly, I never received an initial notice from Midland Credit Management before this account was placed on my credit report. Under FDCPA 809 ( a ), consumers are entitled to receive proper notice containing the amount of the debt, the creditor information, and notice of the consumers right to dispute the debt. If Midland intends to claim that notices were sent, then competent proof of mailing and delivery should exist. I have done my research regarding Midlands repeated claims that consumers received notices, yet I never received any lawful validation notice prior to reporting. I have repeatedly requested proper validation, including : Full chain of assignment/ownership of the debt Proof Midland has legal standing to collect Signed agreement or documentation bearing my signature Full payment/account history Documentation supporting the balance being reported Verification the account is being reported accurately in compliance with XXXX XXXX standards Instead of providing proper validation, Midland and the credit bureaus continue reporting this account with contradictory and inaccurate information across the bureaus. The reporting contains multiple factual discrepancies and XXXX XXXX inconsistencies, including : The account only reports on XXXX and XXXX and is absent from XXXX Past due amounts are inconsistent : XXXX reports {$540.00} past due XXXX reports {$0.00} past due The account type is reporting as OTHER XXXX reports NONE REPORTED for payment history while XXXX reports an extended collection history Reporting dates are contradictory : Date Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Date of Last Activity : XX/XX/XXXX The Date of Last Activity predates the alleged opening date of the account, which raises serious concerns regarding the integrity and accuracy of the reporting being furnished. Under FCRA 607 ( b ), consumer reporting agencies and furnishers are required to maintain reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information reported. Under FCRA 611, the credit bureaus are required to conduct a lawful and reasonable reinvestigation when a consumer disputes information. Additionally, pursuant to FDCPA 809 ( b ), collection activity must cease until proper validation is provided after a consumer disputes an alleged debt. Instead, I continue receiving automated responses, contradictory reporting, and failure to provide competent documentary evidence supporting this alleged debt. Courts have repeatedly ruled that credit bureaus and furnishers can not simply rely on automated systems or superficial investigations. In Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220 ( 3d Cir. 1997 ), the court held that consumer reporting agencies are required to conduct reasonable reinvestigations rather than merely relying on furnisher responses. Additionally, in Dennis v. BEH-1, LLC, 520 F.3d 1066 ( 9th Cir. 2008 ), the court reaffirmed that credit bureaus may be held liable for failing to conduct proper investigations into disputed information. At this point, I am left asking : Is Midland Credit Management above the law? Because despite repeated disputes and repeated requests for lawful validation, this account continues reporting inaccurately and without competent verification.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation