Consumer complaint received 2026-06-01 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Midland Credit Management , Inc. ( " Midland '' ) regarding a single alleged credit card debt that originated with XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and the pattern of credit-bureau hard inquiries Midland has run against my consumer credit file in connection with that single account. Midland is a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, which is subject to the XXXX CFPB stipulated final judgment and the XXXX consent order. Issue 1 : Excessive hard inquiries on a single alleged account. My XXXX credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX shows that Midland has pulled my credit thirteen separate times between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, on the following dates : XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX. Thirteen hard inquiries in approximately twenty-six months on a single alleged consumer debt is not a reasonable account-review or skip-trace pattern. It exceeds the permissible-purpose authorization under FCRA section 1681b ( f ). Midland is required to have a permissible purpose for each pull. Repeating a credit pull every two months on the same alleged account does not satisfy that standard, and the pattern has measurably damaged my consumer credit profile. Issue 2 : Illegal re-aging documented by XXXX in writing. In response to my prior bureau dispute, XXXX provided a written dispute response dated XX/XX/XXXX on the Midland tradeline. That response discloses Date of First Delinquency of XX/XX/XXXX and Date Major Delinquency 1st Reported of XX/XX/XXXX. These dates are nearly two years apart. Under FCRA section 1681c, the seven-year reporting clock runs from the original Date of First Delinquency on the underlying account ( XX/XX/XXXX ), not from the date a debt buyer first reported the account after acquisition ( XX/XX/XXXX ). If XXXX or Midland is using the XX/XX/XXXX date for the seven-year obsolescence calculation, that is illegal re-aging in violation of section 1681c. The proper removal date is XX/XX/XXXX, not XX/XX/XXXX. Issue 3 : Statute-of-limitations posture. The underlying alleged debt has Date of First Delinquency of XX/XX/XXXX ( as XXXX documented in writing on XX/XX/XXXX ). I am a XXXX resident. The applicable statute of limitations on written-contract consumer debt in XXXX is four years ( XXXX Code of Civil Procedure section 337 ), which expired on XX/XX/XXXX. Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. section 1006.26, prohibits a debt collector from suing or threatening to sue on a time-barred debt. The continued aggressive credit-pull pattern on a time-barred debt is consistent with conduct intended to pressure payment outside lawful collection channels. Issue 4 : Failure to satisfy section 1681s-2 ( b ) investigation duty. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX verified the disputed tradeline as reporting accurately without producing any underlying documentation. Under Hinkle v. Midland Credit Management , Inc., 827 F.3d 1295 ( 11th Cir. 2016 ), a case directly against this furnisher, the furnisher 's section 1681s-2 ( b ) reasonable investigation duty is not satisfied by re-confirming internal records ; primary-source documentation must be examined. Midland 's verification is facially non-compliant with the controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent governing this furnisher. Issue 5 : Pattern of CFPB consent-order violation. Midland ( with affiliates Encore Capital Group, Midland Funding LLC, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) is subject to the XXXX stipulated final judgment with the CFPB ( $ XXXX in consumer redress, a portion suspended ; $ XXXX civil penalty ) building on the XXXX consent order. The compliance terms include required possession of documentation, prohibition on collection of time-barred debts, and full investigation of consumer disputes. The conduct described in this complaint is inconsistent with each of those compliance terms. I have filed ( or am about to file ) a parallel complaint with the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation under the Debt Collection Licensing Act ( Cal. Fin. Code section 100000 et seq. ) and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( Cal. Civ. Code section 1788 et seq. ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief