Good news for the industry in the form of a positive ruling in an “inconvenient time or place” lawsuit filed against a collection operation. A District Court judge in Alabama has granted a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling that indicating a preference for receiving communications via email does not mean communications in other forms are inconvenient.
The Background: The plaintiff had filed a lawsuit against the defendant, a debt collection agency, alleging that the agency violated the FDCPA by communicating with her in a manner she deemed inconvenient. Specifically, the plaintiff had requested that all communications be conducted via email, but the defendant sent a verification letter through the mail.
The Ruling: Judge Emily C. Marks of the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama looked at the FDCPA and Regulation F as part of her ruling.
- The court distinguished between the medium of communication and the time or place of communication. The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from contacting consumers at unusual times or places or at times or places known to be inconvenient to the consumer. However, the plaintiff’s complaint focused on the medium — mail vs. email — rather than the time or place of the communication. The court found that the plaintiff did not allege that the time or place of receiving the mail was inconvenient, only that she preferred email as the medium of communication.
- Regulation F allows debt collectors to respond once through the same medium used by the consumer if the consumer initiates contact. Since the plaintiff had sent her dispute via mail, the defendant was permitted to respond via mail1.
