LAW4024

Assignment 2
Credit and Collection Procedures
Amber Boudreau
February 13, 2024

Citation
 Anjum v. Collectcents Inc. DBA Credit Bureau of Canada Collections
 2019 BCCRT 616

Parties
 Plaintiff: Anjum
 Defendant: Collectcents Inc. DBA Credit Bureau of Canada Collections

Issue
The pivotal issue in this case revolves around whether the Defendant's debt collection

efforts amounted to "harassment" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alongside

potential breaches of the British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act

("BPCPA") by not providing proof of debt upon Anjum's request.

Facts
Anjum contested how Collectcents Inc. pursued an outstanding credit card debt sold to

them by American Express for collection. The Defendant's repeated calls to Anjum's workplace

and home, even after her requests to stop, prompted her to file a complaint with the Better

Business Bureau, eventually leading to a cessation of the calls. Subsequently, Anjum initiated
legal action, alleging harassment under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and asserting her

rights under the BPCPA were violated due to the Defendant's failure to present proof of debt.

Held
The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (BCCRT) concluded that while

Collectcents' conduct did not reach the legal threshold for "harassment" under the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act—given the absence of excessive frequency and abusive language—it

indeed violated the British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. The

violation was due to the Defendant's failure to supply proof of debt upon request, leading to an

order for Collectcents to halt such practices and an award of $500 in damages to Anjum.

Reasons for the Decision (Application of Law)

 The Tribunal's analysis did not find the Defendant's actions sufficiently severe or frequent
to qualify as "harassment" under the FDCPA.
 Conversely, the Tribunal highlighted a violation of the BPCPA, emphasizing a consumer's
right to obtain proof of debt. Collectcents' non-compliance with this requirement
constituted a breach of the Act.
 The decision underscored the equilibrium between creditors' rights to debt recovery and
consumers' entitlement to fair treatment and verification of claimed debts.

Ratio (Ratio Decidendi)

This case's determinative principle hinges on the debt collectors' obligation to conform to

legal standards governing debt collection, particularly the imperative to provide debt proof upon

a consumer's request as mandated by the BPCPA. It accentuates consumer protections against

unsanctioned debt collection methods and the imperative for collectors to ensure their practices

strictly comply with legal stipulations.

Commentary
The Anjum v. Collectcents Inc. case illuminates the complexities of debt collection laws

and the balancing of creditors' and debtors' interests. It underscores the Tribunal's role in

upholding consumer protection statutes and delineates the boundaries of harassment under the

FDCPA. This ruling sets a precedent for analogous disputes, stressing the importance of tangible

evidence and strict adherence to statutory mandates in debt collection endeavours.

List of Authorities
 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692e
 British Columbia Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act
 Prior case law and legal scholarship on debt collection practices, consumer rights, and
harassment allegations.

This case brief encapsulates the factual backdrop, judicial inquiries, resolutions, and

ramifications of the Anjum v. Collectcents Inc. litigation, offering insight into the legal

benchmarks employed to evaluate debt collection practices against consumer protection laws.