Consumer complaint received 2025-11-15 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: MO

Complaint narrative:
This statement provides a complete, detailed account of what occurred regarding the collection account being reported by Midland Credit Management XXXX XXXX ( MCM ) under the identifier XXXXXXXX XXXX  The account appears as a derogatory collection/charge-off with a reported past-due balance of {$950.00}, marked as Late XXXX  Days, and featuring derogatory payment history including multiple XXXX lates. This account is being reported on my XXXX  credit file and has caused considerable damage to my creditworthiness, financial stability, and overall ability to access fair and lawful credit. 

Midland Credit Management is a debt buyer, not an original creditor. As a debt buyer, they are subject to heightened documentation requirements, validation obligations, and verification mandates under both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). Midlands reporting, handling, and failure to validate this account represent a pattern of non-compliance, procedural negligence, and statutory violations. 

Below is a detailed explanation of what happened, how Midland Credit Management failed to comply with federal law, how the credit reporting agencies failed to conduct a lawful investigation, and how the inaccurate reporting has harmed me. 

XXXX. XXXX of the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Collection Account XXXX XXXX While reviewing my XXXX  credit report, I discovered an account reported by Midland Credit Management with the following details : Creditor Name : MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT Account Number : XXXX * * * Balance : {$950.00} Status : Collection / Chargeoff Past Due : Entire balance Payment History XXXX XXXX  days late XXXX XXXX times XXXX  days late : XXXX time Credit Utilization : 0 % XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX only This account immediately raised concerns for several reasons : I did not receive any prior communication or validation notice from Midland Credit Management. 

I could not identify what original creditor the alleged debt supposedly originated from. 

No contract, no statements, and no documentation had ever been provided. 

The account was reported without my knowledge or verification. 

The derogatory tradeline significantly impacted my score due to the severity of collection reporting. 

Because I had no prior knowledge of this debt and had never received a single document or notice regarding it, the reporting appeared suspicious, inaccurate, and potentially unlawful. 

XXXX. Midland Credit Management Provided No Validation of the Alleged Debt Debt buyers must maintain and be able to provide : Original account-level documentation Signed contracts Full account statements Chain-of-title documentation proving ownership Itemized ledgers showing how the balance was calculated But Midland Credit Management provided none of the following : A. No Contract or Application Bearing My Signature They failed to provide : A signed credit application A signed loan agreement Any document showing I agreed to the original account Any identification documentation tied to me Under FDCPA 809 ( b ), the lack of contractual documentation invalidates their ability to report or collect. 

B. No Itemized Billing or Account History XXXX did not provide : Monthly statements Ledger entries Date-stamped transactions Interest, fees, or charge breakdowns Without this, the {$950.00} balance is unverified and likely inaccurate. 

XXXX No Proof of Ownership or Chain of Assignment As a debt buyer, XXXX must prove they own the alleged debt. This requires : XXXX of sale Assignment contracts Chain-of-custody documents Forward Flow Agreements Evidence the specific account was included in the transfer XXXX provided none of these. 

XXXX No Initial Communication or FDCPA Validation Notice Under FDCPA 809 ( a ), a collector must send a validation notice within 5 days of first contact. 

XXXX never sent : Any letter Any notice Any validation Any proof This is a federal violation. 

XXXX. The Account Appears to Be Re-Aged or Reported With Incorrect Dates The delinquency and date last reported information does not align with credit reporting rules. The account appears to show delinquency patterns that extend beyond what would be realistic for the alleged account age. 

This suggests the reporting may involve : Improper re-aging, which is illegal Manipulation of the Date of First Delinquency ( XXXX  ) FCRA 605 ( c ) violations, which govern the XXXX reporting period Improper re-aging can dramatically extend the life of a derogatory accountsomething debt buyers frequently attempt to do to keep old accounts on consumer reports longer. 

XXXX. I Disputed the Account With XXXX  and Requested Validation Upon discovering the account, I immediately took action. I filed a dispute under FCRA XXXX and requested : What method of verification was used What specific documents were reviewed Whether the verification was manual or done via e-OSCAR Copies of all documents provided by XXXX XXXX of ownership Chain-of-title documents A full itemized ledger The law permitting reporting without validation Equifax acknowledged receipt of the dispute. 

XXXX. XXXX  Did Not Conduct a Proper Reinvestigation XXXX  responded with a standard form letter indicating the account had been verified. 

However : A. No Method of Verification ( XXXX  ) Was Provided Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( XXXX ), I requested XXXX, but XXXX  : Did not explain the verification procedure Did not identify the furnisher contact Did not confirm whether XXXX submitted documents Did not state what data was compared Did not explain how the accuracy was determined This violates federal law. 

B. No Documentation Was Provided XXXX  provided XXXX documents from XXXX. 

XXXX Verification Was Likely Done Through e-OSCAR e-OSCAR is an automated system where furnishers respond using XXXX digit codes. 

This system : Does not transmit documents Does not verify accuracy Does not support manual review Is legally insufficient Has been criticized by the CFPB and courts Thus, XXXX investigation was not a reasonable reinvestigation. 

XXXX XXXX  Failed to Request Original Documentation XXXX  is required under FCRA to investigate beyond automated responses when : The consumer requests validation The furnisher is a debt buyer The account appears inaccurate The documentation is unclear None of this was done. 

XXXX. XXXX Failed to Mark the Account as Disputed Under FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ), when notified of a consumer dispute, the furnisher must : Mark the account as disputed by consumer Update all credit bureaus accordingly XXXX did not add the dispute notation. 

This misleads lenders and damages my creditworthiness. 

XXXX. The Reporting Has Caused Substantial Harm The presence of this unverified XXXX collection account has caused : A. Credit Score Reduction Collections significantly lower credit scores under all major scoring models. 

This affects : Loan eligibility Interest rates Credit approvals Housing opportunities B. Denial of Credit Applications Applications have been denied specifically due to this XXXX account. 

XXXX Higher Interest Rates Even approved credit came with punitive interest rates. 

XXXX Emotional Distress The constant presence of an invalid, unverifiable collection : Causes anxiety Creates uncertainty Damages financial stability Interferes with planning E. Out-of-Pocket Financial Loss I have spent money on : Certified mail Document printing Credit monitoring Time resolving inaccurate reporting These are direct consequences of Midlands unlawful reporting. 

XXXX. Violations of Federal Law by Midland Credit Management XXXX has violated numerous laws, including : FDCPA Violations 807 ( 2 ) ( A ) Misrepresenting the character/status of a debt 807 ( 10 ) Deceptive means 808 ( 1 ) Unfair practices 809 ( a ) No validation notice 809 ( b ) Continued collection without validation FCRA Violations 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) Reporting inaccurate information 623 ( a ) ( 3 ) Failure to mark account as disputed 623 ( b ) Failure to investigate These violations are material and ongoing. 

XXXX. Violations of Federal Law by XXXX XXXX  violated : FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 1 ) Failure to reinvestigate FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 6 ) Failure to provide MOV FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) Failure to delete unverifiable info FCRA 607 ( b ) Failure to assure maximum possible accuracy These violations prevented proper resolution of my dispute. 

XXXX. Why This XXXX Account Can not Legally Remain on My Credit Report Debt buyers can not legally report a debt unless they can prove : XXXX XXXX Identity Validity Documentation XXXX has failed to prove all XXXX. 

Thus, the account is : Inaccurate Incomplete Unverified Unsupported Legally invalid Under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ), it must be removed. 

XXXX. Summary of What Happened To summarize : Midland Credit Management is reporting a {$950.00} collection account under number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 

XXXX never provided contractual documents, statements, or proof of ownership. 

XXXX did not send an FDCPA validation notice. 

I disputed the account with XXXX. 

XXXX  failed to perform a lawful reinvestigation. 

No method of verification was provided. 

XXXX did not mark the account as disputed. 

The reporting contains inaccuracies and possible re-aging. 

Both XXXX and XXXX violated federal law. 

The account is unverifiable and can not remain on my report. 

The account continues to cause financial and emotional harm. 

This concludes the required explanation of what happened.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief