Consumer complaint received 2026-04-09 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Midland Credit Management , Inc. ( subsidiary of Encore Capital Group ) filed a debt collection lawsuit against me in XXXX XXXX, Florida, Case No. XXXX, claiming I owe {$34000.00} on two accounts ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). On XX/XX/XXXX, Midland filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that contains two directly contradictory sworn statements, filed on the same day in the same case : ( 1 ) The Motion for Summary Judgment itself states that my " last payment '' to XXXX was on XX/XX/XXXX. ( 2 ) On the same day, Midland filed a separate " Notice of Filing of Affidavit of Indebtedness '' in which their Legal Specialist XXXX XXXX certified under penalty of perjury that my " last payment '' was on XX/XX/XXXX for the XXXX account and XX/XX/XXXX for the XXXX XXXX account. These two sworn statements differ by more than eleven years on the most basic fact of the case. Both were certified by Midland on the same day, in the same case file. In addition, Midland 's lawsuit relies on three sworn declarations : - Affidavit of XXXX XXXX ( XXXX account, XX/XX/XXXX ) - Affidavit of XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX account, XX/XX/XXXX ) - Certification of XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) Both XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX identify themselves only as " Legal Specialists '' for Midland Credit Management. Neither is an employee of XXXX or XXXX XXXX. Neither claims any familiarity with the recordkeeping practices of the original creditors. All three declarations use word-for-word identical boilerplate language about " personal knowledge '' of records that were merely " incorporated into MCM 's business records upon purchase or assignment. '' This is exactly the robo-signing conduct that was the subject of the XXXX CFPB Consent Order against Encore Capital Group ( CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0022, {$10.00} XXXX civil money penalty ) and the XXXX CFPB enforcement action against Encore for violating that consent order ( {$15.00} XXXX additional penalty ). It is also the same conduct that resulted in the XXXX multistate Attorney General settlement with Encore involving 42 states including Florida. The Bills of Sale that Midland filed to prove ownership of the accounts are also defective. The XXXX Bill of Sale has its Exhibit A almost completely redacted ( number of accounts, sale balance, and purchase price percentage all blacked out ). The XXXX XXXX Bill of Sale has no Exhibit A at all, only references to electronic files that have never been produced. Neither Bill of Sale identifies my account specifically. I am pro se ( representing myself ), do not read XXXX fluently, and have very limited financial resources. I am the sole income earner in my household, earning approximately {$400.00} per week in W-2 wages, and I support my dependent daughter who attends school in XXXX. I am head of family and judgment-proof under Florida Statute 222.11. I am asking the CFPB to : ( 1 ) Investigate whether Midland 's conduct in this lawsuit violates the XXXX Consent Order ; ( 2 ) Investigate whether the contradictory sworn statements filed on XX/XX/XXXX constitute a deceptive practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act ; ( 3 ) Investigate whether the use of word-for-word identical " personal knowledge '' affidavits by multiple Legal Specialists in different states constitutes a continuation of the robo-signing practices specifically prohibited by the XXXX Consent Order. This complaint is being filed in parallel with my defense of the lawsuit and in parallel with a complaint to the Florida Attorney General 's Consumer Protection Division. ( 1 ) Withdraw the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on XX/XX/XXXX, which contains contradictory sworn statements ; ( 2 ) Voluntarily dismiss Case No. XXXX with prejudice ; ( 3 ) Delete all tradelines for both accounts from XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX ; ( 4 ) Provide a written explanation of how the contradictory sworn statements were filed in the same case on the same day under penalty of perjury.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation