Consumer complaint received 2025-06-15 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: CA

Complaint narrative:
To Whom It May Concern, I am filing this complaint regarding an account allegedly associated with my name that is being handled by Midland Credit Management. I believe that XXXX has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and engaged in unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. 
On XX/XX/year>, I called Midland Credit Management to request a good-faith settlement inquiry. During that conversation, I made it explicitly clear that I was not acknowledging or admitting to any debt. I was merely requesting a debt validation letter due to never receiving XXXX previously. Despite this, the representative ( XXXX ) refused to move forward with my settlement inquiry unless I acknowledged ownership of the debt a condition that I understand is not required under federal law. This refusal constitutes a coercive and unfair collection tactic. 
Later that day, after multiple attempts and repeated delays in transferring my call, I was finally connected to a supervisor named XXXX XXXX at approximately XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. I asked XXXX XXXX whether acknowledgment of a debt was a required condition for negotiation, and he echoed the sentiment that no negotiation could proceed unless a " dispute '' on the account was removed. I made it clear again that I never used the word dispute during any of the conversations. At no point during any of the calls with XXXX or any other representative prior to XXXX XXXX did I use language suggesting a dispute. 
Despite this, I was informed by XXXX XXXX that a dispute had been placed on the account either because of my use of the word dispute ( which I did not say ) or because I requested debt validation neither of which are lawful or reasonable grounds for labeling an account as disputed. I explicitly asked for a written version of the policy they were referencing, and XXXX XXXX told me that he could not send any written policy or written confirmation of their internal rules. I was instead directed vaguely to the companys website, which contains no documentation of the internal policy used to justify denying my settlement inquiry. 
Additionally, I was told repeatedly that, due to the dispute tagwhich I did not request, authorize, or consent to during any of the phone XXXX XXXXXXXX at XXXX ( at that time ) could negotiate with me, and that I would need to speak with Consumer Support Services the following morning. Again, I requested written confirmation of the internal policy being cited, and again I was denied. 
Furthermore, I was told repeatedly that because of the dispute tagone that I did not place and did not consent XXXX XXXX at XXXX could speak to me about settlement unless I spoke with another department the following day. I asked if there was a written policy confirming that a dispute tag prevents negotiation, and again, I was denied any documentation or confirmation in writing. I consider this a serious failure in transparency and accountability. 
In addition to this experience, I made a follow-up call on Friday, XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXX XXXX I first spoke with a representative named XXXX in an effort to confirm my mailing address to receive the debt validation letter. Without being asked, I was transferred abruptly to another representative named XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX refused to confirm that XXXX had my correct mailing address unless I provided personal details beyond my first name and zip code both of which I had already provided. I found this to be another obstruction to my lawful right to receive validation information. 
Additional Concern : During my call with XXXX XXXX, he mentioned that this was my first time requesting a debt validation letter. That statement led me to believe that one may never have been sent following the companys first contact with me. I am requesting formal proof that a debt validation letter was sent within the required five-day window following their initial communicationalong with the exact date that XXXX considers to be the first contact regarding this alleged debt. I have no record of receiving any such letter, and I was never made aware of my rights under the FDCPA until recently. This raises concerns about whether proper procedures were followed. 

To summarize : I was told by XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) that acknowledgment of the debt was required before negotiation. 

I was denied a good faith negotiation unless I removed a dispute I never made. 

I was denied any written policy outlining this internal restriction. 

I was obstructed from speaking with a supervisor on multiple calls. 

I was transferred and denied basic services even after confirming identifying information. 

I made clear on every call that I was not acknowledging or admitting the debt, and was acting only to explore settlement and to request debt validation.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation