The Handlins applied to rent an apartment. They were turned down because a tenant screening report showed a previous eviction. The Handlins provided information showing that the previous eviction case had been resolved in their favor. The credit reporting agency corrected the report. The Handlins were still turned down for the apartment they wanted.
The Handlins requested a copy of their report via the credit reporting agency’s website. They wanted to know what additional negative information kept them from getting the apartment they wanted. When they did not get a response, they sent the request through an attorney by email, fax, and certified mail.
Because their current lease was close to expiring the Handlins could not continue waiting for a response, and had to rent a less suitable apartment.
A few weeks later the Handlins received information from the credit reporting agency. The material they received did not include their rental scores, or the credit reporting agency’s recommendations to prospective landlords. Mandatory disclosures about their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act were also omitted.
The Hadlins sued. The trial court dismissed. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed.[1]
The credit reporting agency argued that the Handlins could not show actual damages. The Court of Appeals held that actual damages is not an element a plaintiff need prove in a Consumer Protect Action claim, and that harm other than monetary damages may suffice to show injury.
The credit reporting agency also argued that the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires disclosure of all “items of information” in the agency’s file, and that since no copy of report was physically kept in the Handlins’ file, they were not in violation. The Court of Appeals found this argument to be “hypertechnical” and ruled that the Fair Credit Reporting Act is designed to benefit consumers by giving them the same right to access to their credit information as is available to landlords, employers, and others.
The credit agency also argued that the Fair Credit Reporting Act does not specifically authorize injunctive relief, and that only the Federal Trade Commission could grant injunctive relief against a credit reporting agency. The Court of Appeals held that the Consumer Protection Act authorizes injunctive relief, and that the relief requested “could not possibly interfere with federal law.”
By landlord-tenant attorney Travis Scott Eller
[1] Handlin v. On-Site Manager, Inc., ____ Wn.App ____ (No. 71954-8-I May 26, 2015).
