Consumer complaint received 2026-04-06 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: False statements or representation — Attempted to collect wrong amount
Company: ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT , INC . Company : Midland Credit Management , Inc . Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX MCM Account Number : XXXX Internal Legal Account Number : XXXX Prior CFPB Complaint : No. XXXX Closed, Response Formally Rejected INTRODUCTION I am filing this complaint to document a continuing pattern of violations by Midland Credit Management XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX MCM '' ). I previously filed CFPB Complaint No. XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. MCM responded on XX/XX/XXXX by promising in writing to this Bureau to cease all collection activity during the investigation. I formally rejected that response as a bad-faith misrepresentation. That rejection is on record. MCM then violated its own written promise to this Bureau within 37 days. Every allegation below is supported by MCM 's own documents, MCM 's own written admissions to federal regulators, or written confirmation from my bank. I am not asking this Bureau to take my word against MCM 's. I am asking this Bureau to hold MCM accountable for what MCM 's own records show.vMCM has responded to a prior complaint to this Bureau with demonstrable falsehoods, each of which is addressed and disproven below using MCM 's own documents. ISSUE 1 : MCM VIOLATED ITS WRITTEN PROMISE TO THIS BUREAU USING A CONCEALED MERCHANT ID AND TIMED ITS OWN LETTER TO MAKE CANCELLATION IMPOSSIBLE On XX/XX/XXXX, I placed a stop payment order with XXXX XXXX XXXX. blocking Midland Credit transactions. On XX/XX/XXXX, MCM promised this Bureau in writing it would cease all collection activity. On XX/XX/XXXX, MCM 's debit attempt was blocked, confirming the stop payment was functioning correctly. MCM then sent a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, signed by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, scheduling a {$200.00} debit from my account for XX/XX/XXXX, and instructing me to call at least XXXX business days before the due date to cancel. That letter arrived on or around XX/XX/XXXX the due date itself making cancellation physically impossible as instructed. The letter also explicitly referenced the stayed court case by file number ( XXXX ), confirming MCM knew an active appellate stay was in effect when it scheduled the debit. On XX/XX/XXXX, MCM used a different secondary Merchant ID to debit my account, bypassing my bank 's stop payment block. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. confirmed this in writing on XX/XX/XXXX : " Midland Credit used a different Merchant ID to process the charge. Because our systems rely on matching these specific identifiers to block transactions, the newest charge was able to continue. '' This is confirmed by a neutral third party and is not disputed. In its response to my prior complaint, MCM admitted " {$600.00} was received on XX/XX/XXXX '' and that " a violation of company policy may have occurred. '' MCM admitted its own policy was violated to this Bureau, then closed my complaint without corrective action, without refunding the seized funds, and without addressing the Merchant ID bypass. MCM 's blocked XX/XX/XXXX attempt proves it knew the stop payment existed. The XX/XX/XXXX bypass proves it researched and exploited a workaround. The letter timed to arrive on the due date proves MCM deliberately eliminated my ability to cancel. This is not an error. It is a sequence of deliberate acts. Applicable violations : 15 U.S.C. 1692f ; 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 10 ) ; Tex. Fin. Code 392.301 ( a ) ( 8 ). ISSUE 2 : MCM INDUCED A PAYMENT THROUGH A FALSE VERBAL PROMISE, IGNORED ALL WRITTEN FOLLOW-UP, AND THEN MISCHARACTERIZED AN UNAUTHORIZED SEIZURE AS A VOLUNTARY PAYMENT On XX/XX/XXXX, an MCM representative told me verbally that litigation would cease if I made a payment. I relied on that and made a {$200.00} payment on XX/XX/XXXX. Immediately after, I emailed XXXX XXXX MCM 's attorney of record at XXXX requesting written confirmation that no judgment would be sought while payments were current. No response. On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a formal Notice of Payment and Request for Reconciliation in the Justice Court proceeding, electronically served to the same address through the Texas eFile system, again requesting written confirmation that litigation would not proceed. No response. MCM 's own prior CFPB response acknowledged I " believed the litigation would cease once you made payments '' but gave no explanation for why its representative made that promise, why it was never confirmed in writing, and why both my email and my formal court filing were ignored. MCM now characterizes the XXXX payment as authorizing " automatic drafts '' including the XX/XX/XXXX debit. This characterization is false and is closed by four independent facts from MCM 's own records. First, no written payment plan was ever confirmed, drafted, or signed. Second, MCM 's own portal on XX/XX/XXXX explicitly states " You don't have any upcoming payments scheduled '' confirming MCM 's own system recognized no active plan. Third, the " Accept offer '' button on MCM 's portal was greyed out and unclickable on that date the offer had not been accepted through MCM 's own authorized channel. Fourth, MCM 's own XX/XX/XXXX official CFPB response never cites any active payment plan as the basis for the XX/XX/XXXX debit. If a valid authorization had existed, MCM would have cited it to this Bureau. It did not. MCM also argues that my XX/XX/XXXX stop payment order did not constitute a valid revocation because no written cancellation had been received. This argument fails. A bank stop payment order is a formal, legally recognized revocation of payment authorization confirmed in writing by XXXXXXXX XXXX MCM 's own blocked XX/XX/XXXX attempt proves it received notice of the revocation. The XX/XX/XXXX bypass using a concealed Merchant ID was not authorized collection under any arrangement. It was a deliberate circumvention of a formal revocation. Applicable violations : 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 10 ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1692f ; Tex. Fin. Code 392.304 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; Tex. Fin. Code 392.301 ( a ) ( 8 ). ISSUE 3 : MCM COLLECTED ON A LEGALLY VOID JUDGMENT AND MISREPRESENTED ITS STATUS TO THIS BUREAU On XX/XX/XXXX, I perfected my appeal of the underlying Justice Court judgment by filing a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs under TRCP 506.1. The appeal automatically stayed all enforcement of the judgment. Under TRCP 506.3 the judgment was vacated by operation of law on that date. The Justice Court 's own docket reflects the case status as " Appealed. '' The case is now a de novo appeal in Collin County Court at Law No. 6 ( Cause NXXXX XXXX ) where MCM bears the full burden of proof on every element. XXXX argues that TRCP XXXX stays only judicial enforcement remedies and not consensual payment agreements. This argument fails here for a specific reason : there was no consensual agreement in effect on XX/XX/XXXX. As established in Issue 2, MCM 's own portal, its own regulatory response, and its own payment documents all confirm no active, accepted plan existed on that date. MCM can not claim a consensual agreement exemption for a debit it can not show was authorized by any existing agreement. Every collection action MCM took after XX/XX/XXXX including the XX/XX/XXXX debit and the XX/XX/XXXX Merchant ID bypass was collection on a void, stayed judgment with no operative payment agreement to justify it. XXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX letter explicitly references the stayed case file number 04-FC-25-01679, confirming MCM knew the appellate stay was in effect when it scheduled the debit. When I raised this directly with MCM, it was ignored every time. XXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX response to this Bureau cited the XX/XX/XXXX default judgment as authority for collection without disclosing it had been vacated 63 days earlier. Applicable violations : 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1692f ( 1 ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 10 ) ; Tex. Fin. Code 392.304 ( a ) ( 8 ). ISSUE 4 : MCM IS FURNISHING THREE MATERIALLY INCONSISTENT AND INACCURATE ACCOUNTS OF THE SAME EVENT TO THREE CREDIT BUREAUS SIMULTANEOUSLY As of XX/XX/XXXX, MCM is reporting the same account event to all three bureaus in three factually incompatible ways : XXXX shows a Last Payment Date of XX/XX/XXXX. This date is false. MCM 's own communications to this Bureau and to me identify XXXX XXXX XXXX as the date of the transaction. XX/XX/XXXX corresponds to no documented transaction in any MCM record. XXXX shows {$0.00} paid on XX/XX/XXXX while simultaneously showing the balance dropped by {$200.00} that same month. A balance can not decrease without a payment or credit event. This is internally self-contradictory within a single bureau 's own data. XXXX shows Last Payment Made = XX/XX/XXXX, directly contradicting XXXX XXXX {$0.00} paid entry for the same date. XXXX also classifies MCM as a " Factoring Company Account '' a false XXXX XXXX loan type. MCM is a third-party debt buyer, not a factoring company. XXXX XXXX own remarks state " Account information disputed by consumer ( FCRA ), Placed for Collection '' confirming MCM 's awareness of my dispute and its decision to maintain the inaccurate tradeline without correction. Three contradictory versions of the same event. All furnished by MCM. None consistent with each other or with MCM 's own letters to this Bureau. I disputed these inaccuracies with the bureaus. MCM was notified. The inaccurate reporting continues. Applicable violations : 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) ; Tex. Fin. Code 392.304 ( a ) ( 8 ). ISSUE 5 : MCM MISREPRESENTS ITS STATUS AS ORIGINAL CREDITOR AND CITES A JUDGMENT THAT DOES NOT EXIST MCM is not the original creditor. MCM 's own XX/XX/XXXX payoff letter states " Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' and " Current Owner : Midland Credit Management , Inc. '' MCM purchased a pool of charged-off accounts from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX more than XXXX years after the account originated in XXXX. Any representation in collection communications or credit reporting that obscures this distinction misrepresents the character and ownership of the debt. MCM has also continued citing the XX/XX/XXXX default judgment as authority for collection in communications to me and in responses to this XXXX including its XX/XX/XXXX response without disclosing that this judgment was vacated by operation of law on XX/XX/XXXX. That judgment does not legally exist. Applicable violations : 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 14 ) ; 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) ; Tex. Fin. Code 392.304 ( a ) ( 8 ). ISSUE XXXX : MCM FALSELY CLAIMED IT NEVER RECEIVED MY WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE WHILE USING THAT SAME ADDRESS AS ITS ATTORNEY 'S OFFICIAL COURT CONTACT In its prior CFPB response, MCM stated that my correspondence was sent to XXXX, which it described as " connected to the office of the process server only, '' and that " Internal Legal would have no direct access or connections '' to emails sent there. MCM also stated XXXX XXXX " was the attorney that signed the petition for the lawsuit only and is not involved in/or the communication surrounding your requests for payments or payment arrangements. '' Both statements are disproven by XXXX 's own conduct. XXXX is the registered service address for XXXX XXXX, Texas XXXX XXXX. XXXX, as MCM 's attorney of record. The Texas XXXX system used that address as XXXX 's registered contact for every court filing in this case. The XXXX court 's own docket confirms it was the address to which all court citations and legal documents were emailed throughout the litigation. MCM 's XXXX XXXX court filings were served to and received at that same address. MCM can not register XXXX as its attorney 's official court service address and simultaneously tell this Bureau it is a process server with no connection to Internal Legal. These positions are directly contradictory. The Texas eFile system the State of Texas 's official court filing platform does not merely record when documents are sent. It records when they are opened and read. Court records confirm that someone at XXXX opened and read filings served to that address in this case. MCM 's own judicial online portal confirms XXXX as an active communication address throughout this litigation. MCM did not fail to receive my correspondence. MCM received it, opened it, and chose not to respond. My XX/XX/XXXX Notice of Payment and Request for Reconciliation was filed through the Texas eFile system and electronically served to that address the same address MCM uses to receive all court communications in this case, and the same address the court 's own records confirm was actively opened and read. MCM 's own admission that XXXX is " not involved in payment communications '' combined with its claim the address is " only '' a process server reveals the problem precisely : MCM structured its contacts so that any written payment dispute would be received at an address where no one with authority to act would respond. That is not a gap. It is a design. Separately, MCM 's XX/XX/XXXX letter stated it would cease contact unless responding to a dispute. MCM then continued active collection and continued reporting the account as past-due across all three bureaus. It did not honor that commitment. XXXX violations : XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX. XXXX ; XXXX XXXX. XXXX. CLOSING I request that the CFPB investigate MCM for the violations identified above. MCM 's prior response to this Bureau described an unauthorized seizure as a voluntary payment, cited a vacated judgment as valid authority, claimed it never received correspondence sent to its own attorney 's registered court address, and closed the complaint without addressing the Merchant ID bypass my bank confirmed in writing. This complaint is a documented record of MCM 's own words contradicting MCM 's own actions across its portal, its regulatory letters, its court filings, its payment documents, and an independent bank statement. MCM can not reconcile these records because they reflect a consistent pattern : MCM makes representations to regulators that its own internal records disprove. Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief