Consumer complaint received 2025-08-30 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: HI

Complaint narrative:
1. Reason for Complaint I am filing this complaint because Midland Credit Management has completely ignored two certified Notices of Dispute ( NODs ) that I sent on XX/XX/ 2025 and XX/XX/ 2025, both received and signed for at their facility. Despite being legally obligated to respond with meaningful validation, MCM has provided no validation whatsoever. 

Instead of wasting time with a third NOD, I am seeking CFPB enforcement to stop MCMs unlawful conduct. 

2. Pattern of Violations & Proof of Delivery Both Notices of Dispute were sent via XXXX Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested, providing legally conclusive proof of delivery. MCM personnel signed for and received the first dispute on XX/XX/2025, and the second dispute on XX/XX/2025. They can not credibly deny receipt. 

A. FDCPA 1692g ( a ) Initial Communication ( XX/XX/, 2025 ) MCM sent its first collection letter on XX/XX/ 2025, regarding an alleged XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Credit account. The letter stated I had until XX/XX/ 2025 to dispute. I did so, on time, via certified mail. 

B. FDCPA 1692e False/Misleading Representation ( XX/XX/2025 ) MCM emailed me claiming, Weve been trying to reach you. No calls or other attempts were made, making this a false and misleading statement designed to pressure payment. 

C. FDCPA 1692g ( b ) First NOD Ignored ( XXXX XXXX, 2025 ) Sent certified : XX/XX/2025 Received by MCM : XX/XX/ 2025 As of XX/XX/2025, it has been 102 days, which is 72 days past the FDCPAs 30-day requirement to provide validation. 

MCMs only response was a boilerplate XX/XX/2025 collection letter demanding payment and offering plans. This was not validation and violated the FDCPAs cease-collection requirement. 

D. FDCPA 1692g ( b ) Second NOD Ignored ( XX/XX/2025 ) Sent certified : XX/XX/2025 Received by MCM : XX/XX/ 2025 As of XX/XX/, 2025, it has been 46 days, which is 16 days past the FDCPAs 30-day requirement to provide validation.

MCM has provided no response at all.

E. HRS 480-2 & FDCPA 1692e Misidentification of Debtor MCM addressed all correspondence to XXXX XXXX XXXX omitting my full legal name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. There are multiple individuals in Hawaii with the name XXXX XXXX. This raises the risk of mistaken identity and demonstrates a failure of due diligence. 

F. HRS 443B Unlicensed Collection in Hawaii Based on DCCA PVL bond/license records, Midland Credit Management does not appear to hold a valid collection license in Hawaii. If confirmed, their collection activity is unlawful under HRS 443B.

3. Documentation Requested and Never Provided In both certified disputes, I requested : Proof of MCMs legal ownership of the debt ( purchase/forward flow agreement ).

The original credit agreement with my signature.

An itemized accounting of the alleged debt.

Proof of licensure to collect in Hawaii under HRS 443B.

Communication logs substantiating their XX/XX/XXXX email. 

MCM has provided none of this documentation. 

XXXX. Ongoing Violations Beyond 30 Days First NOD : 102 days elapsed / 72 days past due. 

Second NOD : 46 days elapsed / 16 days past due.

This shows MCM has willfully ignored both disputes. Under FDCPA 1692g ( b ), they were required to cease collection until validation was provided. Instead, they continued collection attempts.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation