Bus Company Egged to Pay NIS 16,000 for Wrongful Debt Collection

A small claims court in Rishon LeZion has ordered the transportation company Egged to pay 16,000 shekels to a resident of Bnei Brak whose bank account was seized due to a fine mistakenly attributed to her. Senior Registrar Doron Ziv-Av ruled that the company acted with gross negligence and that initiating enforcement proceedings for a non-existent debt constituted libel. The company was also ordered to pay 1,500 shekels in legal costs.

The incident began in June 2024 when an Egged inspector caught a passenger on a bus without a valid ticket. The passenger provided the identity number of the plaintiff, a woman from Bnei Brak, but claimed to be a man from Bat Yam. Despite discovering that the ID number did not match the name provided, and that the ID belonged to a woman while the fine was issued to a man, Egged proceeded to pursue the debt against the woman.

Letters of warning about the unpaid fine were sent to an address in Bat Yam provided by the passenger, not to the plaintiff's actual address. In January 2025, Egged initiated enforcement proceedings against the plaintiff for 167 shekels, leading to the seizure of her bank account. She discovered this when she attempted to make transactions. After she contacted the company, Egged admitted its error, and the seizures were removed within two weeks.

The plaintiff testified in court about significant distress, shame, and humiliation, having to explain payment delays to various institutions. She also stated she had to borrow money from relatives and that her credit rating was damaged. Egged argued it acted in good faith based on the information it had and that the error was corrected quickly. The court rejected these claims, finding the company negligent in multiple respects, including failing to verify the ID and mistakenly assigning the debt to the plaintiff despite clear discrepancies.

The court noted that a simple check of the ID by the inspector would have prevented the error. Furthermore, the company unilaterally changed the debtor's details to the plaintiff's, even though it was clear they were different individuals. The court stated, "With authority comes responsibility," and that the duty of care was "severely breached." The court also found negligence in the company's failure to send warning letters to the plaintiff's correct address, preventing her from knowing about the debt before enforcement actions were taken. The court dismissed claims of future damage to her credit rating, stating she had not proven actual damages, and also rejected the claim that the company violated a statutory duty by not sending the notice. The plaintiff withdrew her claim against the enforcement authority after it corrected the record.