Consumer complaint received 2026-04-01 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I am responding to Midland Credit Management , Inc. regarding your correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX, and the documentation you provided in connection with the above-referenced account. I have carefully reviewed your response and the attached materials, including the statements and affidavit, and I must formally dispute your conclusions and request immediate corrective action. At the outset, I want to be absolutely clear : this account is not mine. I did not open, authorize, use, or benefit from any XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account referenced in your response. I have already filed a formal Identity Theft Report with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and I have provided notice that this account is fraudulent. Your response acknowledges receipt of this information, yet you continue to report and attempt to validate the account without providing legally sufficient proof of my liability. Your position appears to rely heavily on seller-provided data and internal records. However, under federal law, this is not sufficient. The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) requires that any information furnished to consumer reporting agencies be accurate, verifiable, and supported by original documentation. Reliance on third-party data, assumptions, or electronic records without underlying source documentation does not meet this legal standard. According to your own documents, the account allegedly originated on XX/XX/XXXX, with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX and was later charged off on XX/XX/XXXX, with a balance of {$550.00}. However, nowhere in your response have you provided any signed contract, application, or agreement bearing my signature that would legally bind me to this account. The absence of such documentation is critical and renders your claim unverifiable. You also assert that purchases and payments were made on the account and that the address on the statements matches my address. This assertion does not establish liability. Identity theft frequently involves the use of accurate personal information, including addresses, which is precisely why Congress enacted FCRA 605Bto protect consumers from fraudulent accounts that may appear superficially consistent with their personal data. In fact, the statements you provided show transactions and balances, but they do not prove that I was the individual who authorized or conducted those transactions. For example, the statements list purchases at XXXX locations and payments made, but there is no evidence linking those transactions to me personally beyond name and address association. That is insufficient to establish legal responsibility. Additionally, your affidavit ( as shown in the later pages of your attachment ) relies on internal business records and data transferred from the original creditor. It explicitly states that the records are based on information acquired from the seller and maintained in the ordinary course of business. This is not the same as original documentation. It is hearsay-based recordkeeping, not direct evidence of a contractual relationship with me. Furthermore, your response indicates that this account was placed with a law firm and resulted in a judgment. This raises serious concerns about procedural due process and whether I was properly served or notified. If a judgment was obtained without my knowledge or participation due to identity theft, then that judgment itself is subject to challenge and does not validate the underlying debt. Your request for a police report as a condition for further investigation is also noted. However, under FCRA 605B, a valid Identity Theft Report from the FTC is sufficient to trigger the obligation to block fraudulent information. While a police report may be helpful, it is not a prerequisite for compliance with federal law. You are already in receipt of my FTC Identity Theft Report, and that alone requires action on your part. Additionally, your decision to mark the account as cease and desist does not resolve the issue. While it may limit communication, it does not remove the account from my credit report. The continued reporting of this account as a derogatory tradeline is causing harm to my credit and is in direct conflict with the protections afforded to me under federal law. At this time, I am formally demanding the following : Immediate deletion of the Midland Credit Management tradeline from all consumer reporting agencies, including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Written confirmation that the account has been permanently removed and will not be reinserted into my credit file. Full disclosure of the method of verification used, including whether the account was verified through e-Oscar, manual review, or any other system. Production of original documentation, including : A signed application or contract Complete account opening records Identity verification documents used at the time of account creation A complete chain of assignment, including all purchase agreements and transfer documents from XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX to Midland Funding / Midland Credit Management. A full audit trail, including : Dates of reporting and updates Internal system logs Identification of individuals who verified the account Confirmation that this account has been marked as disputed due to identity theft in compliance with FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 3 ). Your failure to provide adequate documentation and your continued reporting of this account despite clear notice of identity theft raises serious concerns about compliance with federal law, including but not limited to FCRA 1681e ( b ), 1681i ( a ), and 1681s-2 ( b ). If this matter is not resolved promptly, I will escalate further by filing additional complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), and my State Attorney General. I will also consider pursuing legal remedies for willful noncompliance and damages resulting from the continued reporting of inaccurate information. Let me be clear : this is not a request for investigation alonethis is a formal demand for deletion based on identity theft and lack of verifiable evidence. I expect written confirmation that the Midland tradeline has been removed and that my credit file has been corrected accordingly.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief