Consumer complaint received 2025-11-14 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: GA

Complaint narrative:
I am writing in response to a recent letter I received from your office attempting to collect an alleged debt originally owed to XXXX XXXX XXXX which you now claim to own. After reviewing your communication, I have reason to believe that your representations violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., and possibly the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.

In your correspondence, you list the following :
Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX, XXXX. 
Current Creditor : Midland Credit Management , Inc .

Under 15 U.S.C. 1692a ( 4 ), the term creditor refers to the original party to whom the debt is owed or who extended credit in the first place. The law specifically excludes any person or entity who acquires a debt already in default for collection purposes. Therefore, your identifying yourself as the current creditor is a false representation and constitutes a violation of 1692e, which prohibits misleading a consumer regarding the character, amount, or legal status of a debt. 
Furthermore, in the fine print of your letter, you state : This communication is from a debt collector. 
As legal owner of this account we are entitled to repayment. 
Even though your account has been charged off and sold. 
This creates an inherent contradiction you can not legally be both a creditor and a debt collector. Your admission that the account was charged off and sold confirms you are operating as a debt collector and not as a creditor within the meaning of the FDCPA. Please be advised that your false representation of your status as the current creditor constitutes a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e. Under 1692k, I am entitled to seek statutory damages of up to {$1000.00} per violation, plus any actual damages, attorneys fees, and costs incurred. I reserve all rights to pursue these remedies if this matter is not resolved within 30 days.

Additionally, if this debt was charged off as already stated, accounting rules require that it be written off as a loss and removed as an active receivable by the original creditor. Any attempt to continue collecting or reporting this as an outstanding balance may constitute furnishing inaccurate information under the FCRA. A charge off indicates that the original creditor received payment either through insurance, tax deduction, or sale thus transforming it into collected income that I am not entitled to pay anymore. If a 1099-C ( Cancellation of Debt ) was issued, I am entitled to receive a copy.

Accordingly, I am formally disputing this alleged debt and demanding the following actions within 30 days of receipt of this letter : 1. Provide full validation of the alleged debt as required by 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ), including : o A copy of the original signed agreement with XXXX XXXX ; o The full chain of title and assignment demonstrating legal ownership ; o Verification of the charge-off status and date ; and o Any 1099-C or tax reporting documents issued by the original creditor.

2. Cease all collection activities and remove any credit reporting related to this alleged debt until full validation is completed.

3. If you are unable to provide complete validation and documentation within 30 days, you must delete this account from all consumer reporting agencies and confirm such deletion in writing.

Failure to comply will result in my pursuing all available remedies under federal law, including claims for statutory damages, actual damages, and attorney fees for violations of the FDCPA and FCRA. I further request {$1000.00} for violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( a ) ( 4 ). We can settle this dispute out of court. Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806 ( 1945 ) The U.S, Supreme Court held that the court must not aid a party who has acted fraudulently. The guiding doctrine in this case is the equitable maxim that " he who comes into equity must come with clean hands. '' Thus, while " equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives, '' Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U. S. 216, 292 U. S. 229, as to other matters, it does require that they shall have acted fairly and Page 324 U. S. 815 without fraud or deceit as to the controversy in issue. Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co., 290 U. S. 240, 290 U. S. 245 ; Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co., 321 U. S. 383, 321 U. S. 387 ; 2 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence ( 5th Ed. ) 397-399. Accordingly, one 's misconduct need not necessarily have been of such a nature as to be punishable as a crime or as to justify legal proceedings of any character. Any willful act concerning the cause of action which rightfully can be said to transgress equitable standards of conduct is sufficient cause for the invocation of the maxim by the chancellor. Moreover, where a suit in equity concerns the public interest, as well as the private interests of the litigants, this doctrine assumes even wider and more significant proportions. For if an equity court properly uses the maxim to withhold its assistance in such a case, it not only prevents a wrongdoer from enjoying the fruits of his transgression, but averts an injury to the public. The determination of when the maxim should be applied to bar this type of suit thus becomes of vital significance. See Morton Salt Co. v. Suppiger Co., 314 U. S. 488, 314 U. S. 492-494.

Finally, I request that all further communications be made in writing only, either by email or U.S. mail. Do not contact me by phone under any circumstances, as I expressly refuse to discuss or pay this alleged debt. Any attempt to do so will be considered harassment under 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ). Only contact me to confirm you have deleted the debt from my credit profile and sent a {$1000.00} check for the violation. 
Sincerely, XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation