Select Page

Sengenberger v Credit Control Services | Litigation against collectors, debt buyers and their attorneys | Litigation Forum


Please consider registering

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

— Match —

— Forum Options —

Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Related Related Topics sp_TopicIcon
Sengenberger v Credit Control Services
An excellent Illinois opinion regarding FDCPA and TCPA violations. Treble damages for willful TCPA violations explained, express consent for calls to cell phone analysis and collector's "legal" name to be left with messages.
July 8, 2015
3:04 pm
Forum Posts: 51
Member Since:
May 5, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

At Google scholar:


Credit Control claimed to NOT have received the certified mailing revoking consent to receive calls at the cell phone #:

... Accordingly, after the receipt of Plaintiff's letter, Defendant should have ceased all collection calls and verified the debt. Plaintiff sent his letter via certified mail and the letter was signed for by Troy Delgado. While Defendant states that it has no independent record of receipt, delivery confirmation records indicate that the letter was delivered on December 29, 2008. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff's letter was insufficient to revoke consent because it did not contain any information as to the specific account number and because Plaintiff's zip code was incorrect. Defendant fails to assert how either of these facts are relevant to the revocation of Plaintiff's consent, particularly because the statute does not explicitly name either of those criterion as necessary to halt collection calls regarding disputed debts. Accordingly, I find that Defendant did not have consent to make collection phone calls to Plaintiff after December 29, 2008. ...

Regarding treble damages:


D. Statutory Damages

Courts may treble the damages award if the court finds that defendant's violations were committed "willfully or knowingly." 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). Although neither the TCPA nor the FCC regulations define the terms "willfully or knowingly", courts have generally interpreted willfulness to imply only that an action was intentional. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 41 n.8 (1983). While the TCPA does not define willful, the Communications Act of 1943, of which the TCPA is a part, defines willful as "the conscious or deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision[], rule or regulation." In Dubsky v. Advanced Cellular Communications, Inc., No. 2008 cv 00652, 2004 WL 503757, at * 2 (Ohio Com. Pl. Feb. 24, 2004), the court found that in the context of the TCPA, the term acting "willfully" means that "the defendant acted voluntarily, and under its own free will, regardless of whether the defendant knew that it was acting in violation of the statute. Defendants argue that a finding of "willfully" or "knowingly" is an issue for the trier of fact. Pollock v. Bay Area Credit Services, LLC, 2009 WL 2475167 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 13 2009). In Pollock, the court found that genuine issues of material fact existed. That is not the case here. There is no dispute as to whether Defendants intentionally made the contested phone calls to Plaintiff. Defendants have put forth no facts to contest the assertion that any of the nine disputed phone calls were made willfully or knowingly. Accordingly, I find that Defendants knowingly and willfully made the phone calls.

Regarding the use of a DBA instead of the legal name in the collection message:

It is undisputed that Defendant's message to Plaintiff identified "Credit Collection Services" as the caller. It is also undisputed that Defendant's legal name is "Credit Control Services, Inc." Defendant does business as "Credit Collection Services," and "Credit Collection Services" is an assumed name registered with the Illinois Secretary of State. That name is also listed on Credit Control Services, Inc.'s license provided by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.

The Federal Communications Commission is explicit in its statement that the legal name of a business must be provided in any pre-recorded message. While the d/b/a name can be mentioned in the phone call, it must be in conjunction with the entity's legal name. It is undisputed that Defendant's legal name is Credit Control Services, Inc. and it is further undisputed that Defendant did not provide its legal name to Plaintiff in its prerecorded message. Accordingly, I grant Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to counts twenty-seven through thirty-five.[1]

An excellent ruling!

Forum Timezone: America/Phoenix

Most Users Ever Online: 46

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

blastfrompast: 1

desert316: 1

colorfinger: 1

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 9

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 2

Forums: 15

Topics: 45

Posts: 52

Newest Members:

Kerri, colorfinger, CoitisUMidland, blastfrompast, gmariel13, jawllms, desert316, Garyt, toman67, christine

Administrators: christine: 51