Consumer complaint received 2026-04-13 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
My name is XXXX XXXX. I am filing this complaint against Midland Credit Management XXXX XXXX for collecting on a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. debt that I have no knowledge of, repeatedly verifying inaccurate information despite my disputes, engaging in double-collection with another debt buyer ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) on the same underlying debt, and conducting unauthorized hard credit inquiries. Midland Credit Management and XXXX XXXX XXXX are both collecting on the same original XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. debt, resulting in double-reporting that inflates the total amount shown on my credit reports. Midland reports this account across all three credit bureaus XXXX ( Account XXXX ), XXXX ( Account XXXX XXXXXXXX ), and XXXX ( Account XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) with conflicting information across each. I disputed the underlying XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. account through XXXX via XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( Dispute # XXXX ). My dispute reason was : " Ownership I have no knowledge of this account. '' The dispute was submitted XX/XX/XXXX, marked " In review '' on XX/XX/XXXX, and listed as " Resolved '' on XX/XX/XXXX. However, the result was " Unknown '' XXXX stated : " Unfortunately, we did not receive dispute results for this account. '' Despite my explicit fraud/ownership dispute, no investigation results were ever provided, and the debt was never validated. Yet Midland continues to collect on and report this unverified debt. Midland Credit Management is not the only company collecting on this XXXX XXXX XXXX debt. XXXX XXXX XXXX is also reporting the same underlying XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. debt as a separate collection account. On XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX reports a balance of {$670.00} ( Account XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) with original creditor listed as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX reports a balance of {$140.00} ( Account XXXX ) the balance itself is inconsistent between bureaus. Meanwhile, Midland reports {$730.00} across all three bureaus. This means the same single XXXX XXXX XXXX debt is generating {$730.00} + {$670.00} = {$1400.00} in reported collection debt on XXXX alone, and {$730.00} + {$140.00} = {$880.00} on XXXX. This double-collection is a direct violation of the FDCPA and inflates my reported debt obligations, causing additional damage to my credit profile. I disputed the Midland account on XXXX three separate times. Each time, XXXX returned a " Verified and Updated '' result without any substantive change. First dispute : XX/XX/XXXX ( Report XXXX XXXX ) Result : " Verified and Updated. '' Second dispute : XX/XX/XXXX ( Report XXXX XXXX ) Result : " Verified and Updated. '' Third dispute : XX/XX/XXXX ( Report XXXX XXXX ) Result : " Verified and Updated. '' Each time, XXXX stated " the information you disputed has been verified as accurate ; however, information unrelated to your dispute has been updated. '' This pattern indicates that Midland is rubber-stamping verification responses without conducting a genuine investigation, especially given that : ( a ) I stated I have no knowledge of the underlying XXXX XXXX XXXX account ; ( b ) another collector ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) is simultaneously collecting on the same debt ; and ( c ) the account data conflicts across bureaus. On XXXX, the Midland account ( Account XXXX XXXXXXXX ) shows as " Closed '' with a date reported of XX/XX/XXXX, yet continues to report a {$730.00} balance past due. The XXXX dispute filed XX/XX/XXXX ( Confirmation # XXXX ) contains the notation " Consumer Disputes This Account Information '' and shows the account as a " Debt Buyer Account '' with date of first delinquency listed as XX/XX/XXXX. However, on XXXX, the same account shows as an active, open collection with status " XXXX account. {$730.00} past due as of XX/XX/XXXX. '' An account can not simultaneously be " Closed '' on one bureau and actively collecting on another this is a fundamental data integrity failure. Midland reports three completely different business addresses across the three bureaus. XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NJ XXXX, Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX. XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, MI XXXX, Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX. XXXX : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX. Additionally, the account numbers differ : XXXX XXXX XXXX report XXXX / XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, while XXXX reports * XXXX. These inconsistencies raise serious questions about whether any bureau is receiving verified, consistent data from Midland. My XXXX credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX shows that Midland Credit Management has pulled my credit report TEN separate times as hard inquiries : XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. I never authorized any of these credit pulls. I have no account relationship with Midland. These unauthorized inquiries violate 15 U.S.C. 1681b ( permissible purposes ) and are damaging my credit score with each occurrence ten unauthorized hard pulls over a two-year period is egregious. The double-collection issue is compounded by the fact that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX disputed multiple times on XXXX with similar sham results. XX/XX/XXXX ( Report XXXX ) : " Remains '' XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX the information is accurate. XX/XX/XXXX ( Report XXXX ) : " Remains '' same result. XX/XX/XXXX ( Report XXXX ) : " Verified and Updated. '' So both Midland AND XXXX XXXX XXXX are repeatedly " verifying '' the same underlying XXXX XXXX XXXX debt that I explicitly stated I have no knowledge of. Neither collector has ever provided debt validation documentation. Midland 's conduct has caused me significant harm. The {$730.00} collection tradeline, combined with XXXX XXXX XXXX 's duplicate collection ( {$670.00} on XXXX / {$140.00} on XXXX ), has artificially inflated my reported collection debt. The ten unauthorized hard inquiries have further suppressed my credit score. My XXXX XXXX Score XXXX is currently XXXX ( as of XX/XX/XXXX ) classified as " Poor. '' I have been denied credit opportunities, subjected to higher interest rates, and suffered XXXX XXXX from the ongoing collection activity on a debt I have no knowledge of. Despite filing at least four formal disputes across multiple bureaus, neither Midland nor the bureaus have resolved these issues. Based on the facts above, Midland Credit Management has violated : ( 1 ) 15 U.S.C. 1692e False or misleading representation of the character, amount, or legal status of a debt by reporting a debt the consumer has no knowledge of. ( 2 ) 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 2 ) ( A ) False representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt. ( 3 ) 15 U.S.C. 1692e ( 8 ) Communicating credit information known to be false, including failing to communicate that the debt is disputed. ( 4 ) 15 U.S.C. 1692f Unfair practices, including collecting amounts not authorized or permitted by law through double-collection. ( 5 ) 15 U.S.C. 1692g Failure to validate the debt after consumer dispute. ( 6 ) 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( a ) Furnishing information known to be inaccurate to credit reporting agencies. ( 7 ) 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 ( b ) Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation after receiving notice of dispute from a credit reporting agency. ( 8 ) 15 U.S.C. 1681b Obtaining consumer reports without permissible purpose ( ten unauthorized hard inquiries ). ( 9 ) California Civil Code 1785.25 ( a ) Furnishing information to a credit reporting agency that the furnisher knows or should know is incomplete or inaccurate.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief