Whyspers, You reckon that the clerk's office might have had 1 or 2 request for the complaint this morning?{G}
July 31, 2002 Jury Awards $5.3 Million for Credit Report Errors Courts: The verdict against Trans Union is the largest ever for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Times Headlines By KATHY M. KRISTOF, TIMES STAFF WRITER An Oregon woman who fought for six years to clear erroneous items from her credit report was awarded $5.3 million Monday by a federal jury in Oregon. The verdict against Chicago-based credit reporting firm Trans Union was the largest amount ever awarded for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires credit reporting companies to keep accurate records and promptly correct mistakes, consumer attorneys said Tuesday. "This amount, awarded to one plaintiff, eclipses everything we've seen before," said Andy Henderson, a Los Angeles attorney who has litigated several such suits. "But it's a continuation of a trend that has been going on since 1996. "We have seen increasingly large awards against credit reporting agencies--and rightly so. The credit reporting industry has been acting in conscious disregard of the law for years." Trans Union is expected to appeal the verdict, but a company spokesman did not return calls seeking comment. The case was filed two years ago in U.S. District Court in Portland by Judy Thomas, a Klamath Falls real estate broker who discovered that her clean credit history had been marred by the credit problems of another woman with a similar first name and Social Security number. Thomas had first attempted to clear the inaccurate items in 1996 by contacting Trans Union, said her attorney, Mike Baxter of Portland. Baxter said Trans Union had mixed Thomas' credit history with that of a woman who lived one state away and whose Social Security number was just one digit off from Thomas'. Thomas didn't discover that the inaccuracies were still on her credit report--and showed her credit had gotten even worse--until three years later, when she was in the process of buying a home. Turned down for a mortgage, Thomas learned that her credit report included an "a.k.a." or "also known as" listing, indicating to potential lenders that she and the other woman were the same person. According to Baxter, when renewed efforts to get Trans Union to fix the problem were unsuccessful, Thomas contacted the other woman, and persuaded her to write a letter to the credit agency stating that she was not Thomas. The "also known as" remained on Thomas' credit report until only a few months ago, Baxter said, thwarting Thomas' efforts to clear her report of credits problems. "She has not had a clean credit report in six years," said Baxter, who asked the jury for both compensatory and punitive damages. "We are hoping that this case will make it clear that credit reporting agencies have to follow the law." The Fair Credit Reporting Act spells out a procedure for consumers to dispute erroneous items on their credit report--a document used by lenders and insurers to set rates and determine whether to issue new loans and insurance policies. Trans Union is one of three major credit reporting companies that compile such data. The other two are Atlanta-based Equifax and Costa Mesa-based Experian. The Fair Credit Reporting Act also requires that credit reporting companies investigate disputes and correct or delete the incorrect items within 30 days. Credit reporting firms typically investigate consumer complaints by sending a form letter to the creditor that reported the disputed item, asking to verify its accuracy. If the creditor does not verify the item within 30 days, the item is dropped. If it's reinstated later, the credit reporting company is supposed to notify the consumer. However, Thomas contended in her lawsuit that the procedures Trans Union used to investigate and correct her report only worsened the problem. The agency never wiped out the erroneous "also known as" listing, Baxter said, so its computer-generated form letters gave creditors the impression that Thomas and the other woman were one and the same. The result was that Thomas' report was never cleared. Thomas eventually got her mortgage by contacting the creditors directly, providing the correct information about her name, address, Social Security number and stating she wasn't using any other names or any other addresses. "It's a perfect example of what happens to hundreds of thousands of consumers," attorney Henderson said. "It's a reflection of the fact that credit reporting systems often don't have the proper mechanisms in place to correct a problem even after it's been identified and proven to be inaccurate by the consumer."
LOL...that just occurred to me, keepmine. I hope everyone keeps in mind that it wasn't the complaint that did it...lol. It might have been the worst complaint ever filed...lol...who can say? This case went to trial so there was evidence and testimony involved and apparently a few jurors who saw the light regarding CRAs. L
Yes, but what happened after the Terry Cousins $4.5 million verdict against TransUnion? Did they appeal? Did they pay? http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/special/19990820.asp What became of Michael Lewis? What about Denise Richardson?
Often times, they will come back and offer to settle it for a lesser amount. My guess is that is what happened in these cases. Denise Richardson is, I believe, still in contact with Christine. L
Cousins lost the appeal due to 2 reasons: 1. he had no actual damages 2. and this one is very interesting... no 3rd party ever saw his file errors; thus, his copy wasn't considered a "consumer file" under which he could file a lawsuit (look up defs and you'll see it)... it's slimey.. but true... that's why I always tell people you need someone else to see the errors and you need to be denied... while there is case law backing the idea that you don't need actual damages to sue... if you get a large award you can bet they'll pull the def back out at you and say you have no fcra standing to sue b/c your copy isn't a consumer file... read his appeal decision and it's outlined well
Let me tell you this: Wait until all is said and done regarding the case and the amount of penalty. The damages are more reflective of lack of reasonable procedure by the data furnishers. CRA's I guess the mood here is, "Yay! TransUnion got beat!" Maybe it should be: "I hope in the end, no matter what the awarded amount, that the actual screw-ups who failed this woman are held as accountable. There is a pattern developing, and that pattern is a total lack of respect for the reinvestigation process by the data furnishers. I'll withhold celebrations until they (DFs) are forced to adhere to reasonable guidelines. The CRAs take the process seriously, only to have the important data furnisher reinvestigation skimmed over." Unfortunatley, the largely biased posters here always jump to celebrate the CRA loss. Maybe you set aside your ignorance and focus on how a real investigation takes place, and how the DFs have about 98% of the responsibility. Until everyone recognizes that fact, nothing will change, and this award will be shrunk to nothing, and no one will pay...no one will be held accountable. CRA are focused on by Feds, Media, and you the public. They run tight ships, but the glue that holds the seems of those ships together (the DF reinvestigation) isn't water tight. Get the eyes on them. The lowest paid clerks, the dunces of the DF world are the ones making the most important decision about whether an account is verified or not. Speculate your asses off....this IS how it IS. ~InsideGuy
Oh nice try. Frankly we couldn't give a rats ass less who's fault it is and who gets slammed. I say, if fining TU causes you nitwits to clean up your act then great, that's a win for us. If it really is the OC, (like you say it is) then YOU poeple work it out. Don't even think about trying to tell us you don't protect each other. You're coming onto this board and pointing the finger at the Data Furnisher ain't gonna fly around here my friend. We know way too much. You, at the CRA are lazy and incompetent liars who should go get a real job at McDonalds. The pay is better. You do as little as possible, at the last possible moment to make it APPEAR as though you care about accurate information and frankly I wish the 5.3 mill came out of YOUR pocket. Go try your crap on someone elses board.
That's an interesting post... and I do agree that DFs are responsible to a degree... and yet... that presupposes that the cra is actually doing a reinvestigation and that there even is a DF contacted in some way. How do you explain reinvestigations that yield a trade line remaining the same when the CRA doesn't have a correct address, phone, or fax for a company (DF)... or how about a DF that actually no longer exists and yet the trade line is still magically verified... is that the fault of the DF? No. I believe the change from phone/fax/letter verifications to computer verifications has also led to a lesser quality reinvestigation process. If a CRA employee is doing a automated or computer verification... basically the computer data is verified by the computer data... even on an AKA issue... Equifax adds a trade line into the dispute.. checks with that trade line to see if your name has/is/has ever been the aka.. .and then uses 1 or 2 trade lines to verify or not an aka... I've seen this personally... yet my aka is still verified when I know that it is in fact a file confusion issue... still.. there's no DF involved here in liability... there is NO CHANCE that any one of those DFs verfied an AKA that I've never used... just the end person at Equifax deciding to "verify"... when the DF did not. I believe it's a combination of CRA ignorance and apathy. I've had an 11th hour UDF sent to Equifax from a major bank to stay off a lawsuit by me and still... the UDF was sent directly from bank VP to their own Equifax rep.. what happened? 3/4 items were corrected. Even the bank's own rep getting involved didn't get the corrections done completely or in a timely manner... is that the DF's fault? Nope... Equifax... These issues don't even get into the issue of complete reports being hidden from the consumer.. arbitrary rules per CRA as to whether high credit vs credit limits are reported... when inquiries are disputable vs not... Why updating a paid or closed account isn't done in a timely manner (under 90 days)... Why "closed by consumer" shows up as a "consumer statement" but not as a coding... so the account still codes as open but the consumer believes it shows as closed... why "current status" isn't given to the consumer by every CRA... why even the DF has a right to say "we'll report or not the credit limit"... after all.. whose contract is it anyway??? oh... yes, drafting is done by Equifax, TU, and Experian... but it must be the DF's fault when/when not the complete trade line is reported... right... As to responsibility... ultimately it's the CRAs who hold our data, verify our data, and sell our data... and ultimately that makes the buck stop there. I also know for a fact from an ex Equifax trainer... yes.. trainer here in Atlanta... that there is a decided predisposition against consumers. The CRAs assume every consumer with a derog is just lying to get it off... after all (ok, I'll choose another CRA).. look at Experian's automated dispute process. If your trade line is housed in the "negative" column and has been disputed once before... you will be given an error code and you will not be allowed to put in a reinvestigation request online (it states you may submit info and they will reconsider).. however, we know for a fact that most CRAs will not consider consumer information regardless of what the fcra states until the consumer sues and presents the information in court... By the way... on Experian's auto dispute system.. a positive account may be disputed more than once... To get around to my opinion... as a consumer, I believe the only way CRAs will start taking their responsibilities seriously is when enough of us sue and their bottom line profits are actually impacted.. until then... I actually, unfortunately agree that most large lawsuits won't pay out.. it'll be an appeal that will yield who knows what and it'll be stalled and stalled and stalled... BUT... the headlines of a good lawsuit will encourage more and more consumers to sue until.. hopefully... the CRAs will decide that it's a better business decision to correct reports than to get sued... but by the time that ever happens (if it happens) I'm sure the CRAs will have bought enough politicians to water down the FCRA so much more that even if we all sued and won in the same year... the CRAs would still be profitable... Until then.. the CRAs really have little to fear from Jane Consumer... most of their contracts hold them liable for only 1k with the DF holding most of the liability for noncompliance (willful or negligent)..... so with a liability of 1k to the CRA and the rest being shouldered on the DF... it's more likely that a DF will be more careful in the future than the cra... what gets rewarded gets done...
I agree w/ everything that Marie has said here. I would like to highlight that although sometimes it can be the DF not looking at the dispute and validating blindly, I also have experiences where the DF has told me that there's been no contact from a particular bureau. And I believe this b/c the same creditor could tell me when the other 2 bureaus contacted them. Also, I believe that the reaging that goes on is the fault of the CRA. So is reinsertion, where the consumer has been notified of deletion but not notified of reinserstion and the acct is on the rpt again. And mostly, that the CRA's can't give a straight answer to many basic questions. Have you ever asked Experian-What does the date of status mean? The fact that the reps try to avoid answering the question indicates something. And don't even get me started on the subject of CRA's hiding info from the consumer. And not properly coding the closed accts on the rpts? Whose fault is that? Back to the case in this post--If TU had properly invesigated, this woman would not have had all these problems. She shouldn't have had to be the one to contact the creditor to clear up what shouldn't have been her problem. It was TU that merged her file and placed those accts on her rpt. How can you shift this back to the DF?
Disclaimer: this is not picking on TU or InsideGuy.. this one is just a TU case.... in my opinion... all CRAs suck wind to some degree or another __________________________________________________ Actually.. in this case it's so much more TU's fault than anyone's...in fact... it's only Tu's fault on this one which is why the punitives were so high. confused files are mostly the domain of the CRA... the DFs submitted the info correctly... TU confused the files... the consumer tried in vain to prove the accounts weren't hers... and still they stayed confused for 6 years... Kafka couldn't write this better... 6 years... how many opportunities were lost because she couldn't qualify for them based on TU's information? How many times didn't she even apply because she knew she couldn't get them with her file errors as is... ugh... she's emotionally earned millions... and I hope she gets a fraction of what she deserves (less atty fees, of course If the DFs had issued fraudulent accounts and reported them to Tu.. that would have been one thing (the DF's initial fault and then joint responsibility with the CRA to reinvestigate and still clear the innocent's file in a reasonable time frame)... or if the DF had confused id info and reported the wrong account with the wrong identifying information.. (as AMEX did when they changed their reporting system this year) then it would have been the DF's fault for initially reporting it but still joint responsibility for resolving the issue with the CRA... but in this case, it was just a file confusion issue. TU and noone else. And since I've had file confusion issues off and on since I was 18... I understand the frustration. At least Equifax gave me my own rep and I could visit their office and present in person info... with a response time under 30 days normally... but it still happened repeatedly (even after "p coding the accounts") for over a decade... and I still see errant accounts pop up from time to time (thank Goodness they're always positive)... they just make me look very overextended... but still.. for a consumer it's costly, time consuming... and very frustrating at best... the CRAs are supposed to be database geeks and yet they use so little info as a means to attach trade lines to us... then the CRAs whine and say the sheer volume of information makes it prohibitive to have accurate files past xxx accuracy... yet it's clearly been proven that with the appropriate database combined with effective policies and procedures... the files can be dramatically more correct... that was actually the initial intention of computer verification systems (we were told)... But then again... TU is the system that can't even mark items in dispute as being "in dispute" so they generate a FCRA violation for each and every dispute you ever request... so what do you expect from them They really need to hire some consultants! well... for us it's food for lawsuits...
"screw-ups" What are the CRAs doing to control, punish and correct furnishers of information who make inaccurate or incomplete statements about consumers? Why don't you cut them off? http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=207136#post207136
Re: "screw-ups" This is been the most enlightening thread. I thought I would give it the courtesy bump it deserves, so it doesn't get lost in CN oblivion!!!
Re: "screw-ups" I would respond to InsideGuy... Yes, I do feel the datafurnishers are 98% to blame for the misinformation that is reported. However, I don't take the attitude of "oh, poor litte credit reporting agency. Sued again and it wasn't my fault". If the CRA's want to reduce their liability, perhaps they should have more stringent requirements. Yes, it would require an overhaul on the way things are done...which yes...would be expensive, but on the other hand, if the data furnishers were required to submit supporting documents and the cra's had employees who used their brains to determine whether or not an account can be late before an account was even opened...well, I think that would go a long way towards correcting the problem. The law requires that incorrect information not be reported. Since the CRA's are reporting...they are culpable. If the info is wrong...then the CRA's need to take steps to see that there are penalties for those who report incorrect info. Another solution would be to have the CRA's give a consumer 30 days to dispute information before it ever appears on a credit report. If a consumer disputes, it could be kicked back to the datafurnisher and if the datafurnisher cannot back up the claim with documentation, then it doesn't get reported. The way things stand now...anything can be reported. Your credit report can indicate that you are older than your mother (Breeze), or that you live in Reno when you might never have even been in the state of Nevada...or anything whether it is true or not. I'm sorry, but with 70% of credit reports having errors, the financial report card of consumers is pure fiction and I have to chuckle that businesses actually rely on them to determine whether or not to lend someone money. Am I any more credit worthy now than I was 11 months ago? Nope, and yet the financial community certainly sees me a lot differently. In short...I know this is long winded, and I really have not thought a lot of these comments through, but the bottom line is, there needs to be more stringent requirements for reporting information. This is people's lives here and one's credit report can play a huge role in the quality of someone's life from auto insurance, to where you live and if you can get that job you applied for, etc. L's rant
Re: "screw-ups" I hope Inside Guy stays on for now and posts his insights/and or opinions. Because that is how I will take his posts, rather than as fact or law. At least he can spell ( can he differentiate between no and know ?) and seems to be intelligent, as opposed to other recent posters. And at least he posted, rather than just lurking. JMHO,
