Per Tamianth
MCM contact page with a location in California:
The also go by the name Encore Capital Group: http://www.encorecapital.com/contact-us
BBB Page is being updated: http://www.bbb.org/sdoc/business-reviews/fina ... diego-ca-101104
However this was previously on their page-note the government action against them:

BBB Accredited Business since 5/1/2000 (1227 complaints and a government action and they are accredited?)
Midland Credit Management Inc
Phone: 800-825-8131
Fax: 877-414-0961
8875 Aero Dr #200, San Diego, CA 92123
View Additional Web Addresses
Additional Web Addresses

BBB® Accredited Business Seal
BBB® B+ Rating

Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 5
Billing/Collection Issues 1105
Delivery Issues 1
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 3
Problems with Product/Service 113
Total Closed Complaints 1227

Government Actions

Swanson V Midland Funding
Date of Action: 12/12/2012
On December 12, 2012, Midland Funding, LLC settled a lawsuit filed by Lori Swanson, Minnesota's Attorney General, against the company last year for filing unreliable “robo-signed” affidavits in collections lawsuits and sometimes targeting the wrong people for payment of old bills that it purchased from credit card companies. The lawsuit alleged that Midland filed thousands of collections lawsuits against individuals in Minnesota courts, often supported by unreliable “robo-signed” affidavits generated at Midland’s St. Cloud, Minnesota offices. Several Midland employees admitted in sworn testimony to signing up to 400 affidavits per day, either without reading them, without personal knowledge of their contents, and/or without verifying the accuracy of the information contained in them.

The Consent Judgment requires Midland to: provide individuals with validation of the debt; verify the identity and address of an individual claimed to owe money at the outset, before any collection effort is made, investigate the matter and, if it cannot substantiate the debt, close the account; take steps to correct any adverse credit reporting, and not later resell the debt; not file affidavits w/ the court unless the person has: a) read and understood them, b) confirmed the authenticity of any documents filed w/ the affidavit, c) only based the affidavit on the signer’s personal knowledge, and d) signed the affidavit in the presence of a notary who acknowledges the affiant’s signature in accordance with law; implement standards to ensure it does not sue people on debt that is beyond the applicable statute of limitations; implement procedures to ensure it does not sue people on debt that it does not own; may not pursue a default judgment without giving the person written notice that their response does not constitute a legal answer and waiting 30 days so the person can seek legal counsel or otherwise respond to the lawsuit; include added specificity about the facts supporting its claims in its lawsuits so that individuals can meaningfully respond to the suits against them; at least 10 days before it pursues a default judgment against an individual, send a copy of the judgment request to the individual.

Under the Consent Judgment, Midland will also resolve outstanding and future consumer complaints made to the Attorney General’s Office and pay $500,000 to the State of Minnesota.
Other complaint Sites:
http://collectionagencydebt.blogspot.ca/2011/ ... management.html
They are a Kansas Corporation. Information from the Kansas Dept. of State:
Current Entity Name Business Entity ID Number


Previous Names:
Current Mailing Address: 3111 Camino Del Rio North Suite 1300, SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
Date of Formation in Kansas: 09/09/1953
State of Organization: KS

Resident Agent and Registered Office
Registered Office: 2900 SW WANAMAKER DRIVE SUITE 204, TOPEKA, KS 66614
Bizapedia has this on Encore which is a Delaware corporations:
And this on the address these criminals are located at. Seems they have a lot of different names:
http://www.bizapedia.com/addresses/8875-AERO- ... O-CA-92123.html
So remember, when dealing with these scumbags remember that you have rights:
Federal law (FDCPA) requires them to send you a letter (US MAIL ONLY) within 5 days of their first contact that contains their name, physical address, the creditor’s name, and the amount of the alleged debt. It also must contains “mini-Miranda” telling you that it is an attempt to collect a debt and that all information will be used for those purposes. The one other important thing that this letter must also have in it is that you have a right to dispute the debt within 30 days of the date of the letter and if you do so, all collection activity must be stopped until the debt is verified.
Read up on your rights here, get template letters to send and also make a complaint at this government site: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/
Also file a complaint with your State Attorney General's office and the California AG’s Office: http://oag.ca.gov/
List of State AG’s offices: http://consumerfraudreporting.org/stateattorneygenerallist.php
Division of Credit Practices
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Clarke W. Brinckerhoff
December 22, 1993
Ms. Kimberlee Arbuckle
500 West First Street
Post Office Box #576
Hutchinson, Kansas 67504
Dear Ms. Arbuckle:
This responds to your letter dated December 2, 1993, inquiring whether Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM") is a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA" or "Act"). You report that MCM "purchases portfolios of delinquent accounts receivable for the purpose of profitable recovery, resale and cure. These accounts are owned solely by MCM . . ."
Section 803(6) of the FDCPA defines the term "debt collector" as "any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another." In our view, a party that purchases delinquent accounts from the party to which the debts were originally owed and attempts to collect them from the consumer debtors fits clearly within that definition. The party is attempting to collect debts that were "owed or due another" and the fact that title to the accounts is passed to the collector in no way changes that fact.
In the leading case on point, involving a company whose business included the purchase of large volumes of checks that had been dishonored and subsequent collection of the checks from their makers (in the same manner as MCM buys defaulted accounts and thereafter attempts to collect from the account debtors), the court wrote persuasively that the purchaser is covered by the FDCPA. It gave short shrift to the fact that the party had actually purchased the checks in question:
By use of the language "owed or due another" Congress was attempting to exclude those entities that extend credit from the effects of the Act. Congress intended to protect borrowers from "third persons who regularly collect debts for others." (Italics by court; citation omitted). (The purchaser) is a third party collecting a debt originally owed to another. . . . It cannot escape the spirit of the Act by the technicality of purchasing the debt upon default so that title technically rests in itself.
Holmes v. Telecredit Service Corp., 736 F. Supp. 1289, 1293 (D. Del. 1990)
The only theory for exclusion of a party such as MCM from the "debt collector" definition (and thereby from coverage under the FDCPA) is that it is a "creditor."(1) Section 803(4) defines "creditor" as "any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but such term does not include any person to the extent that he receives an assignment or trans-fer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another." Since the accounts that MCM buys are delinquent when purchased and are being transferred for the purpose of collection, we believe that MCM is within the class that the "creditor" definition expressly "does not include."(2) The words "for another" at the end of the clause excepting assignees from the definition of creditor in no way changes this result:
(T)he excluding factors in the exception are that the debts are the result of an assignment or transfer and that the debts were already in default at the time of assignment or transfer. With the phrase "for another" at the end of the exception, Congress merely intended that the debts should have originally belonged to another and that the creditor was therefore in effect a third-party or independent creditor. (Italics by court)
Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F. Supp. 1480, 1485 (M.D.Ala. 1987). Accord, Holmes, supra, at 1293.
In sum, it is our view that a party that obtains consumer obligations in default for the purpose of collection is a "debt collector" under the FDCPA, even if that party actually purchases the accounts from the original creditor.
The views set forth in this informal staff opinion letter are not binding on the Commission.
Sincerely yours,
Clarke W. Brinckerhoff
1. Section 803(6)(A) only specifically exempts creditors' officers and employees. However, it "seems clear from the legislative history of the Act that Congress intended that this exclusion cover creditors themselves as well as their employees." Holmes v. Telecredit Service Corp., 736 F. Supp. 1289, 1291n.3 (D.Del. 1990), citing Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F. Supp. 1480, 1484 (M.D.Ala. 1987).
2. See the comment on this subsection in our Staff Commentary on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 53 Fed. Reg. 50097, 50101 (Dec. 13, 1988.)
New Mexico
 Apr 07th, 2015