Consumer complaint received 2026-01-24 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: PA

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting a formal consumer complaint against Midland Credit Management , Inc. ( MCM ) and the nationwide consumer reporting agencies XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus Regulation F, and applicable Pennsylvania consumer protection laws. 
At the outset, I wish to make clear that I am not disputing that an account may have originally existed with XXXX XXXX. My dispute is specifically and solely with Midland Credit Managements assertion that I owe a debt to Midland Credit Management, and that Midland Credit Management has any lawful ownership of, or authority to collect, this alleged debt. 
I have never entered into any contract, agreement, or wet signature obligation with Midland Credit Management. Under both federal law and Pennsylvania law, a third-party debt buyer must significantly verify through competent, reliable evidence that it is legally entitled to collect a debt before engaging in collection or credit reporting activity. Midland Credit Management has failed to do so. 
I disputed the account reported by Midland Credit Management ( Account XXXX. XXXX ) and timely requested debt validation pursuant to the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692g, CFPB Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. 1006.34, and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act ( FCEUA ), XXXX P.S. XXXX et seq., which incorporates the FDCPAs requirements as a matter of Pennsylvania law. 
My request was not for proof that the alleged debt originated with XXXX XXXX Rather, I specifically requested proof that I owe the alleged debt to Midland Credit Management, including proof that Midland Credit Management has lawful ownership of, or authority to collect, this account. 
Under CFPB Regulation F and Pennsylvania law, a debt collector must possess and provide substantiating information sufficient to demonstrate that the consumer owes the debt to the collector, including evidence of ownership, assignment, or authority to collect. Pennsylvania courts and class-action litigation applying Pennsylvania law have consistently recognized that a debt buyers failure to meaningfully verify ownership or authority to collect constitutes a violation of the FCEUA and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ( UTPCPL ), XXXX P.S. XXXX et seq. 
Midland Credit Management has not significantly verified that it is legally able to collect this alleged debt. 
The only response I received was a generic document allegedly from the original creditor, which did not establish : XXXXProof of purchase, assignment, or complete chain of title transferring the alleged debt to Midland Credit Management XXXX XXXX Any contractual authority or legal instrument granting Midland Credit Management the right to collect this alleged debt XXXX. Any evidence that I consented to, authorized, or entered into a contractual relationship with Midland Credit Management XXXX. An itemized accounting explaining how the alleged balance was calculated Providing documentation related solely to the original creditor does not constitute significant verification under the FDCPA, CFPB Regulation F, the FCEUA, or the UTPCPL, and has been repeatedly found insufficient in consumer protection enforcement actions and class-action litigation involving Midland Credit Management and similarly situated debt buyers. 
Additionally, I expressly instructed Midland Credit Management in writing to cease all telephone communications and to communicate only in writing, solely for the limited purpose of providing lawful validation and significant verification establishing that Midland Credit Management has the legal right to collect this alleged debt. 
That instruction did not authorize Midland Credit Management to continue sending collection demand letters absent such verification. Rather, any further communication was expressly conditioned upon Midland Credit Management first providing competent evidence demonstrating its lawful ownership of, or authority to collect, the alleged debt. 
Midland Credit Management has failed to provide such validation or significant verification. 
Despite this failure, Midland Credit Management has continued to send written communications asserting that I still owe the alleged debt. Most recently, I received a letter continuing to demand payment without providing any new or additional verification, ownership documentation, or substantiating evidence. 
By repeatedly sending collection notices without lawful validationafter being expressly instructed that communications were permitted only to provide such proofMidland Credit Management has engaged in a perpetual cycle of unlawful collection activity. This conduct constitutes harassment and abuse under FDCPA 806 ( 15 U.S.C. 1692d ), circumvention of cease-communication protections under FDCPA 805 ( c ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) ), and continued collection activity in violation of FDCPA 809 ( b ) ( 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ) ). 
Under Pennsylvania law, this conduct also violates the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), which incorporates the FDCPA, and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ), as it constitutes deceptive, unfair, and abusive collection practices. 
Rather than curing the dispute by providing lawful verification, Midland Credit Management has chosen to repeatedly assert the same unverified claim, creating an ongoing loop of harassment, coercion, and consumer harm. 
5 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ) ) and corresponding Pennsylvania consumer protection standards. 
Despite the lack of lawful validation and significant verification required by federal and Pennsylvania law, Midland Credit Management continues to report this account to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Each credit bureau has continued reporting the account as verified, despite the unresolved dispute and Midland Credit Managements failure to significantly verify its legal authority to collect, in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681i, CFPB regulations governing reasonable reinvestigation procedures, and Pennsylvanias FCEUA and UTPCPL. 
These repeated violations concerning Account XXXX. XXXX have caused me harm, including ongoing stress, unlawful telephone harassment, reputational damage, and interference with my ability to obtain credit. 
Requested Action I respectfully request that your office : XXXXRequire the immediate deletion of this account from my credit reports with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXXRequire Midland Credit Management to provide full and lawful validation and significant verification, as required by the FDCPA, CFPB Regulation F, the FCEUA, and the UTPCPL, establishing that the alleged debt is legally owed to Midland Credit Management before any future reporting or collection activity. 
XXXXProhibit Midland Credit Management from selling, transferring, or assigning this account to any third party, which would perpetuate further consumer harm. 
XXXXInvestigate these violations and pursue appropriate enforcement actions, including restitution for damages suffered.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation