Consumer complaint received 2026-03-07 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action — Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Company: ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP INC.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Company : Midland Credit Management , Inc . Account / Reference : MCM Account No. XXXX Alleged Original Creditor : XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX I am submitting this complaint to create a formal record of Midland Credit Managements use of pre-legal and credit-reporting pressure without providing meaningful account-level validation of the alleged debt. Midland sent me a letter dated XX/XX/year> titled Pre-Legal Notice For Non-Payment of Debt regarding an alleged XXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX account. In that letter, Midland stated that it was considering forwarding the account to an attorney in Florida for possible litigation and also stated that it would begin credit reporting if payment was not started. The letter identified Midland as the current owner of the debt and demanded {$3500.00}. I disputed Midlands authority, ownership, and the accuracy of the amount demanded. I requested competent account-level documentation sufficient to independently verify the claim, including documentation supporting Midlands ownership or authority to collect, the amount demanded, and the basis for the pre-legal attorney-referral language. Midland did not provide a meaningful response. In response to my prior CFPB complaint, Midland stated only that it enclosed verification information provided by the seller and directed me to its website for additional documentation. That response did not resolve the issues raised. It did not clearly provide account-level documentation sufficient to establish chain of title for this specific account, a complete itemized accounting supporting the exact amount demanded, or documentation supporting the basis for the attorney-referral / pre-legal language used in the collection letter. This remains concerning because the collection pressure used by Midland was not limited to ordinary collection language. Midland used pre-legal attorney-referral language and credit-reporting pressure, and then failed to provide a meaningful response after the debt was disputed and validation issues were raised. Referring a consumer to a website after using that type of pressure is not a meaningful resolution of a disputed debt claim. I also previously identified an inconsistency between Midlands demand and the related credit-report context. The related TransUnion tradeline appeared with balance {$0.00} and remarks indicating the account had been purchased by another lender/ paid in full/ was a charge off, while Midland demanded {$3500.00} and used pre-legal and credit-reporting pressure. Midlands CFPB response did not meaningfully address that inconsistency. I am not refusing to pay a lawful debt. I am requesting competent documentation before Midland uses litigation pressure or credit-reporting pressure to induce payment. I request that the CFPB preserve this complaint as a record of Midlands conduct and require Midland either to provide clear account-specific documentation supporting its ownership, the amount claimed, and the basis for its threatened collection escalation, or to cease such threats and collection pressure on this alleged debt. The conduct described above appears inconsistent with the validation and disclosure requirements of 15 U.S.C. 1692g and 12 C.F.R. 1006.34, and raises concerns under 15 U.S.C. 1692e because Midland used pre-legal and credit-reporting pressure and then failed to provide a meaningful response after the debt was disputed and validation issues were raised.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation