Consumer complaint received 2026-01-13 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Sued you in a state where you do not live or did not sign for the debt
Company: ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.
State: MO

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this feedback because the companys response does not fully resolve my complaint, and I am therefore creating a new case, as my prior CFPB case XXXX was closed without providing the relief requested below. 

Most importantly, I do not own these accounts. I was a victim of identity theft, and I have filed an Identity Theft Report and FTC Identity Theft affidavit disputing these accounts as fraudulent. Despite this, Midland Credit Management continues to report the tradelines. 

Midlands response confirms that the accounts have been marked Cease and Desist and that they will no longer contact me. However, this action alone does not constitute a fair or complete resolution, as the disputed tradelines continue to appear on my consumer credit reports, causing ongoing harm. 

Key Issues With the Companys Response Accounts Do Not Belong to Me ( Identity Theft ) These accounts were opened fraudulently and do not belong to me. I filed an FTC Identity Theft report and formally disputed ownership. Once identity theft is asserted, continued reporting without conclusive proof of ownership is improper under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).

Failure to Delete Fraudulent Tradelines Midland admits it does not possess : An original signed contract bearing my signature A complete, original payment history from account origination Proof that I personally applied for or authorized these accounts Instead, they rely solely on seller-provided data. While Midland states such documentation is not required under the FDCPA, credit reporting accuracy is governed by the FCRA, not the FDCPA. Under FCRA 623 ( b ), information that can not be fully verified must be deleted, especially when identity theft is claimed.

Improper and Misleading Credit Reporting Midland acknowledges that the open date reported is the date of purchase, not the original account opening date. This practice misrepresents account history and unfairly harms my credit profile. 

Cease and Desist Does Not Resolve Fraud Marking an account Cease and Desist only stops communications. It does not : Establish ownership Cure fraudulent reporting Satisfy identity theft protections Continuing to report accounts while ceasing collection activity is inconsistent and unreasonable. 

No Confirmation of Deletion Requests to Credit Bureaus Midland does not confirm that it submitted a formal request to delete the tradelines with : XXXX XXXX XXXX  Without this confirmation, the relief described is incomplete. 

Requested Fair Resolution A fair and lawful resolution requires : Immediate and complete deletion of all Midland Credit Management tradelines associated with : MCM # XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) MCM # XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. ) Written confirmation that deletion requests were submitted to all consumer reporting agencies where these accounts were furnished. 

Confirmation that the accounts will not be reinserted, unless all reinsertion requirements under FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) are met, including advance written notice to me. 

Why Deletion Is Required Because : I do not own the accounts I filed FTC identity theft documentation Midland can not produce original contractual proof Collection activity has ceased Continued reporting is inaccurate, unverifiable, and harmful. The billing statements and summaries Midland attached do not prove that I incurred or authorized these debts and do not override my identity theft claim XXXX, XXXX. 

Conclusion This matter remains unresolved because the company has failed to remove fraudulent tradelines despite an identity theft claim and FTC filing. I respectfully request CFPB assistance to ensure : Full deletion of the disputed tradelines Written confirmation of bureau notification Compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act Cease-and-desist status alone is not a sufficient remedy when fraudulent credit reporting continues.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation