Consumer complaint received 2025-11-19 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive enough information to verify debt
Company: ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns a XXXX XXXX originally issued by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. Midland Credit Management is now claiming to own the debt. Their claim is impossible, unverified, and contradicts the legal structure of this credit program and the prior fraud findings already acknowledged by a CFPB investigation. 

This same account was previously the subject of CFPB Complaint # XXXX. 
On XX/XX/year>, XXXX  official response stated : We reviewed the complaint you submitted and sent it to the company for a response. The company responded that you may have been a victim of fraud. 

This is a furnisher-level admission that the account data is fraud-tainted or unreliable. 
Under FCRA 605B and CFPB Regulation V 1022.43, once a furnisher acknowledges potential fraud, all consumer reporting agencies and any subsequent data users including debt buyers like Midland are required to treat the information as fraud-compromised unless and until it is fully validated. Which No such validation exists. 

Securitization and Ownership Structure Proving XXXX  Can not Sell This Debt : The XXXX XXXX XXXX is securitized through XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX and placed into the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. Once receivables are transferred into that Trust, XXXX relinquishes all ownership rights. 

XXXX does not retain receivables, creditor status, or assignment authority. 
XXXX can not sell, assign, or transfer ownership of a receivable it does not legally own. 

Because this receivable was securitized, neither XXXX nor XXXX had any creditor rights at the time Midland claims to have purchased the debt. 

Therefore, Midlands assertion that XXXX sold the account to Midland on XX/XX/year> is : legally impossible, in conflict with securitization documents, and incompatible with federal chain-of-title requirements under FDCPA and FCRA. 

What Midland Would Need to Legally Prove Ownership and Does Not Have : For Midland to lawfully claim ownership of a securitized XXXX account , it must provide : 1. A bill of sale from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( not from XXXX ) ; 2. A complete chain of title from the Trust to Midland ; 3. Documentation proving the receivable was ever removed from the securitization pool, which is rare, tightly controlled, and must be explicitly documented. 

Midland has produced none of these.

Under FDCPA 809 ( b ) and FCRA 623 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ), Midland can not lawfully collect or report this debt without proving legal ownership.

Conflict With Prior Fraud Acknowledgment : Because the CFPB-related response already acknowledged the account may be tied to fraud, the following federal protections apply : FCRA 605B mandatory fraud block FCRA 611 ( a ) ( 5 ) ( A ) unverifiable information must be deleted CFPB Regulation V 1022.43 ( b ) ( 2 ) no reinvestigation with th
e same furnisher once fraud is acknowledged FDCPA 807 ( 2 ) ( A ) misrepresentation of the legal status of a debt FDCPA 807 ( 10 ) use of deceptive means to collect UDAAP unfair and deceptive acts or practices Midland is attempting to collect on an account that : was already flagged for possible fraud, has no proven owner, and could not have been legally sold by TBOM.

Summary / Required CFPB Action : Midland is asserting ownership of a receivable that XXXX has not legally owned for years. 
The claim conflicts with : the securitization of XXXX receivables into the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, and a prior CFPB-confirmed fraud acknowledgment. 

I request that the CFPB : 1. Require Midland to cease collection unless it provides full and lawful unbroken chain-of-title documentation. 
2. Investigate XXXX  for misrepresenting ownership of a securitized receivable. 
3. Require confirmation from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding true ownership. 
4. Enforce the FCRA 605B fraud block based on the prior CFPB acknowledgment.

5. Order deletion of any Midland reporting if no valid ownership exists. 
6. Review XXXX XXXX , and Midland for violations of FDCPA, FCRA , and UDAAP.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief