Claimant took out a personal loan from Prosper Marketplace, Inc.; she became late on the payments and Prosper began attempting to collect the debt.   Claimant sent Prosper a letter stating that she was unable to pay the debt and requested that the collection calls cease; however, the letter was sent to an address designed only for the receipt of payments that was not monitored by employees of Prosper; therefore, it did not receive actual notice of the request to stop collecting the account. Claimant contended that Prosper harassed her by collecting the account after she had mailed the letter.  Claimant further contended that Prosper violated the federal TCP by making automated dialer calls to her cell phone without permission; and a number of other derivative claims.

 

The arbitrator, a former Circuit Court judge, granting summary judgment on all allegations of misconduct based upon Claimant's failure to provide evidence to support her claims in opposition to evidence produced by Prosper that it was unaware of the contends of her letter; that all calls to collect the debt were made by representatives and not an machine; and, that Claimant failed to present evidence of any intent to harass her in the collection of the debt.    The arbitrator relied upon the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year in Lenahan v. Valentine & Kebartas; my case as well; wherein the Court held that collection calls alone is not sufficient evidence of an intent to harass under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.