Consumer complaint received 2026-01-23 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: IL

Complaint narrative:
Company : Midland Credit Management , Inc Issue : Incorrect information on credit report ; false or misleading statements ; failure to reasonably investigate Related CFPB Complaint Number XXXX This complaint is a follow-up to CFPB complaint number XXXX. I am submitting this complaint to address materially inaccurate and misleading statements made by Midland Credit Management , Inc. ( MCM ) in its response to my prior CFPB complaint and to document subsequent improper credit reporting that occurred after that response. I am requesting correction of the regulatory record and appropriate remedial action.

Background : MCM claims to be collecting and/or reporting two alleged accounts : XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I dispute responsibility for both alleged debts. 

1. MCM made unsupported claims regarding a XX/XX/XXXX initial notice In its response to my prior CFPB complaint, MCM asserted that it mailed an initial validation notice for the XXXX account on XX/XX/XXXX and relied and this assertion to claim my validation request was untimely. 

I did not receive any communication from MC in XX/XX/XXXX regarding the XXXX account. The first correspondence I actually received from MCM occurred shortly before I submitted my written dispute and validation request in XX/XX/XXXX. 

MCM has provided no proof of mailing or receipt of the alleged XX/XX/XXXX notice. Characterizing my dispute as untimely based on an unreceived notice is unsupported and misleading.

2. My validation request was prompt after actual contact My written dispute and request for validation was sent promptly after the initial contact I actually received from MCM. MCMs reliance on an alleged XXXX notice that was never received to characterize my dispute as untimely is inconsistent with the Consumer-Protection Purpose of 15 U.S.C. 1692G.

3. MCM Mischaracterized the scope of my dispute In my XX/XX/XXXX correspondence, I requested validation of any and all debts you are attempting to collect in my name, including but not limited to the debt referenced in your invoice.

Despite this clear language, MCM told the CFPB that I only requested validation for one account and that no validation request was received for the second account. This statement is inaccurate and materially misleading. My dispute was intentionally broad and applied to all alleged debts MCM claimed I owed.

4. MCM mischaracterized my communication restrictions I requested that all communication be conducted in writing by mail and that I not be contacted by phone. I did not request that MCM cease communication for all purposes.

MCM incorrectly told the CFPB that my communication request prevented it from responding with validation. Providing written validation is not prohibited by a written-only communication request and does not excuse failure to investigate or accurately report. 

5. Continued Collection activity after written dispute After receiving my written dispute and validation request, MCM continued collection activity related to the XXXX account, including : Sending a Pre-Legal Notification Sending invoices and payment demands These actions constitute continued collection activity after a dispute and occurred before meaningful validation was provided, contrary to the 15 U.S.C. 1692g ( b ).

6. Improper Credit reporting after CFPB complaint After responding to my first CFPB complaint, MCM reported the XXXX account as a collection tradeline to the consumer reporting agencies. This reporting occurred despite the ongoing dispute and without evidence of reasonable investigation.

The information reported appears to rely on limited seller data summaries rather than documentation establishing accurate ownership, balance calculation, and proper consumer attribution.

7. Failure to reconcile consumer name variations MCMs CFPB response references name variations including misspelling of all or portion of my name as well as the use of a nickname. While a common nickname, MCM has not explained how it reconciled these variations as part of a reasonable investigation prior to collection and credit reporting.

Accurate consumer identification is a fundamental requirement under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. MCMs response does not demonstrate that such reconciliation occurred.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation