A collection operation that couldn’t find a consumer’s information in its system to note the account was disputed. A plaintiff’s attorney who claims never to have received the request for additional information that the defendant sent when it couldn’t locate the account. This case has a lot going on. A District Court judge in Illinois has denied claims for summary judgment from both the plaintiff and the defendant in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, while also ruling the defendant cannot invoke the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense and that the plaintiff is not entitled to actual damages.
The background: The case centers on the defendant’s efforts to collect a $919 debt on behalf of a creditor. The plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter disputing the debt and requested that the collection operation mark the debt as disputed and cease further communication with the plaintiff. However, the collection operation was unable to locate the plaintiff’s account because the letter did not include the specific claim number that was used internally by the defendant to manage the account. As a result, the defendant stamped the letter and returned it to the plaintiff’s attorney, requesting more information to identify the account, including the claim number or the plaintiff’s Social Security number.
- The plaintiff’s attorney asserts that he never received the returned letter. Without further communication from either party, the plaintiff eventually filed this lawsuit, alleging that the defendant failed to report the debt as disputed. This violation could affect the plaintiff’s credit report and the accuracy of information shared with credit bureaus.
The ruling: In considering motions for summary judgment from both parties, Judge Sara Darrow of the District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied both motions, finding that there were genuine disputes over whether the defendant should have known the account was disputed and whether it acted reasonably in its efforts to identify the plaintiff’s account.
- Importantly, the judge found that the defendant could not claim the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense, as it failed to demonstrate that an error actually took place.
- Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual damages, which included claims of emotional distress and financial harm. As a result, the plaintiff will not be able to pursue actual damages during the trial.
