Consumer complaint received 2020-01-25 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Communication tactics — You told them to stop contacting you, but they keep trying
Company: ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
This Complaint Notice is for Midland Credit Management ( aka MCM ) to investigate an incident that occurred on XX/XX/XXXX : specifically, the collection tactic taken by an agent who placed an outbound collection call to a cellular mobile phone number to an authorized 3rd party ( who DOES NOT have an established business relationship with MCM ). 

The Chronology of Events : - On XX/XX/XXXX contacted Midland to give verbal authorization to allow an Authorized 3rd Party ( a family member ) to speak to Midland representatives regarding an alleged outstanding debt credit card debt " purchased '' by Midland. 

- On XX/XX/XXXX the Authorized 3rd Party called Midland at XXXX to offer a lump sum settlement payment. Midland rejected the offer. Note : the Authorized 3rd Party did not provide Midland with any point of contact information for himself [ i.e., a phone number ]. Midland should have a recording of this call. 

- On XX/XX/XXXX the Authorized 3rd Party called Midland at XXXX extension XXXX in a second attempt to resolve the debt via a lump sum settlement offer. Midland again rejected the revised offer. Note : during no point in this call did the Authorized 3rd Party provide point of contact information [ i.e., a phone number ] to Midland. Per Midlands disclosures, they should have a recording of this conversation. 

- On XX/XX/XXXX a representative from Midland contacted me on my mobile phone. I advised the representative I was unable to discuss the matter and that I authorized a family member to attempt a resolution but Midland rejected the offers to resolve. The representative continued the efforts to collect the debt despite my attempt to advise I could not speak at the present moment so I terminated the call. Midland should have a recording if this call. 

- On XX/XX/XXXX the family member I designated as an Authorized 3rd Party received a phone call on his mobile cellular phone from a Midland representative, attempting to collect the debt. When the Authorized 3rd Party asked the representative HOW Midland obtained his mobile cellular number, the Midland representative would only reply that I had provided an Authorized 3rd Party Permission for Midland to speak to him. This is not in dispute. The Authorized 3rd Party again tried to ask the Midland representative how Midland captured and dialed his mobile cellular phone number, but the representative would not answer. The Authorized 3rd Party terminated the phone call.

The Complaint : It is a common business practice of Midland Funding to utilize Automatic Telephone Dialing Systems ( ATDS ) when initiating debt outgoing collection calls. An ATDS is equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers. The capturing of origination telephone number of an incoming call is also commonly referred to Automatic Number Identification ( ANI ).

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA ) of 1991 [ 47 U.S.C. 227 ] restricts the use of automated telephone equipment aka ATDS.

- Specifically : Section 227 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) of the Act and its implementing rules require some form of prior express consent for auto-dialed non-telemarketing call to wireless numbers. The Act also maintains the requirement of prior express consent for auto-dialed non-telemarketing calls to wireless numbers that are not subject to any exemptions under section 227 ( b ) ( 2 ) of the Act. The Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) leaves it to the caller to rely on either oral or written consent in complying with the statutory consent requirement.

- The Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA ), Pub. L. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394, prohibits making calls to cellular telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system ( also known as an autodialer ) or an artificial or prerecorded voice, except for emergency purposes or with the prior express consent of the called party. 47 U.S.C. 227 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ). The FCC has express authority to prescribe regulations to implement this provision. Id. 227 ( b ) ( 2 ) ; see also 47 C.F.R. 64.1200 ( implementing regulations ).

- Congress enacted this prohibition to protect telephone users from unwanted communications that can represent annoying intrusions into daily life. GroupMe, Inc./Skype Communications S.A.R.L Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Declaratory Ruling, 29 FCC Rcd 3442, 2014 WL 1266074 ( 1 ) ( 2014 ) ( GroupMe Ruling ). Congress did not expect the TCPA to be a barrier to normal, expected, and desired business communications. Id. at 3444 ( 8 ). See H.R. Rep. 102-317, at 17 ( 1991 ). 

- The FCC has determined that debt collection calls are non-telemarketing calls and calls made to the subscriber of the wireless telephone that received the call, in an effort to collect a debt, must have provided the debt collector with express oral or written consent prior to the debt collector calling the wireless number [ 47 U.S.C. 227 64.1200 ( a ) ( 1 ).

- This Complaint states that Midland Funding, operating under MCM, received neither oral nor written consent from my Authorized 3rd Party to contact him on his wireless number which he uses for both personal and business use. Please investigate this incident and advise if the Collection Agent who initiated the outbound call, in an attempt to collect a debt, followed MCM policies and procedures. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I submitted a complaint to Midland 's Dispute Department ( via their on-line dispute/complaint submission process ).

I specifically asked Midland to provide an explanation as to why they called the mobile number of an Authorized 3rd Party, who does not have an established business relationship with them, who never provided them with the mobile, and how : 1 ) Did they obtain the number and 2 ) Did they, without permission, enter the mobile number into their ATDS.

In the 45 + days since my submission, the only response from Midland, except for the automated e-mail confirmation of the Dispute/Complaint submission, was for them to send me a Collection Letter.

I am asking the CFPB to bring this to the attention of Midland, aka Midland Credit, aka Midland Credit Management Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in the matter.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation