Consumer complaint received 2016-06-05 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card
Issue: Cont'd attempts collect debt not owed — Debt is not mine
Company: ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.
State: MA

Complaint narrative:
I live in XXXX, XXXX. I am currently being sued by Midland Funding LLC ( represented by the Law Firm XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ) for a nonexistent credit card debt. The case is currently in XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I believe this lawsuit is illegal, and by filing it and continuing this litigation against me both the plaintiff and their attorney violated and continue to violate the US and XXXX XXXX XXXX Laws, as well as the Consent Order issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in XXXX XXXX. I am going to describe two main reasons why I see these actions as illegal : 1. According to the evidences the plaintiff provided, this alleged debt is time-barred. During discovery period as part of their evidences they sent me a copy of XXXX XXXX XXXX Credit Card Agreement. They allege that this is the debt they own and this is the debt I owe them money for. This Credit Card Agreement has a following clause on XXXX : " WHAT LAW APPLIES : This Agreement is made in XXXX and we extend credit to you XXXX XXXX This Agreement is governed by laws of the State XXXX ( without regard to its conflict of laws principles ) and by any applicable federal laws ''. Statute of limitations for a credit card debt XXXX is 3 years. The plaintiff claims that the last payment on that credit card account was made in XXXX XXXX, they filed their complaint in XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX. This is well beyond the 3 year statute of limitation that should apply in this case. 

2. The Consent Order issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in XXXX XXXX describes numerous Affidavit use violations by Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management LLC. I believe that this ongoing lawsuit against me also contains some of such violations. The latest example was the XXXX Statement by MCM employee ( they call it " Affidavit '' even though it was not notarized ) dated XXXX XXXX, XXXX. This affidavit is supposed to verify the documents they provided as evidences. The employee refers to several such documents specifically and by name ( XXXX of which, by the way, is the Credit Card Agreement mentioned above ) calling them " true and correct copies ''. But then at the end of her affidavit there is a following clause : " The documents attached hereto are true and correct copies of the originals, being reproduction of the records on file on behalf of plaintiff based upon my review ... '' The purpose of this clause seems to be to create an impression that " all other documents '', not mentioned specifically by name are also " true and correct copies '' of the originals, without stating clearly that they are, without clearly taking responsibility for such " verification ''. Thus, to prove their assignment the plaintiff provided copies of XXXX bills of sale. The second of them ( from XXXX XXXX ) the MCM employee specifically names and describes in her sworn statement and " verifies '' as " true and correct copy ''. But she never mentions the first bill of sale XXXX from XXXX XXXX ) copy of which is also included as part of exhibit attached to her affidavit. This XXXX bill of sale is obviously not a copy from an original, it was altered in some way at some point. This generic, nonspecific clause at the end of the affidavit seems to be put there in order to create an impression ( without taking responsibility ) that the MCM employee " reviewed and verified '' ALL the " evidences '' attached to her affidavit, including this altered copy of bill of sale and a bunch of other pieces of paper. There are several other affidavits included as " evidences '', which certainly will not stand at trial, but they are placed there in order to create a false impression of a case, and to force the defendant to agree to pay to the plaintiff without trial.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation