Hey people. Well, I don't know if you all recall, but I filed a lawsuit against NCO Financial Systems for violations of the FCRA, and the FDCPA. Today was the hearing, they didn't show. As of matter of act, I was in the middle of reading my opening statement, when the judge interrupted me. She told me that the NCO rep called and said she was at the wrong court house!!! Well, one hour later, the judge just continued the case as they had not shown up! So I get in touch with this rep that was supposed to show up. It (that was intentional) said that NCO was not going to settle with me and that I was "Not going to get anything from this company". It proceeded to tell me that since they removed the information from my reports, that I could not have been damaged by the listing. Also, that since they removed the tradeline, that somehow obsolved them of their violations of the FDCPA and the state laws as well. It then said, that I told some CSR something about me not having to pay them. My lawsuit has nothing to do with the validity of the debt (which is barred by time btw). It has to do with a collection notice they sent that violated the FDCPA, and about them not noting the account as being in dispute when they received my original letter before they verified with the CRAs. Damn, I'm so ticked off. That they would resort to lying and bringing in hearsay makes me wonder what they'll actually pull out their collective a$$es at trial. I'm thinking about dismissing the case and filing in district court (its small claims now). However, my judgement is a bid clouded due to my current state of mind. Well, as always, any input would be greatly appreciated. These jerks just can't get away with this stuff, there has to be something!
The judge told me that if he issued a default judgement, I'd just end up back in court anyway, so in light of that, he'd just give me a continuance. I know what you mean though, it's b.s. I would really like to stick it to NCO. They're notoriously non-compliant with both federal and state law. Maybe they didn't want to settle with me because the case was brought in small claims court. So they figured that they it'd be an easy win. Especially with their claim that since they deleted the info, then all is well. From the conversation I had with that idiot that was supposed to show up but couldn't find the damn court house, I know they're going to try whatever it takes to make me look bad in front of that judge. I have BBB reports on them, and the only thing they can say is: "Well, the OC says that you owe them the money". However, no one can produce a copy of the check they say bounced. Nor can they produce any agreement or documentation as to what the damn check was for. grr! So if that's the case, then why the hell would I need to provide them a copy of a check they themselves can't find, and if they OC insists that I owe it, why the hell did they delete it in the first place?! Oh and get this. They say that Marlin owns the account, but assigned it to NCO for collection. wtf? They're the same company! THey just think people don't know this stuff.
Oh yes... the No Harm, No Foul defense. Ya gotta love it. Mention this to the judge. If you go into a liquour store and rob it, then return the money, does that mean a crime did not occur? No!
Yep, that's a good analogy. Let's hope the judge understands that type of logic. It's okay though, now that I've calmed down a bit, this is a good thing. It just give me more time to prepare a more solidified case against these clowns. Although I did have a lot of evidence, I'd like to bring case law with me, to back up the FTC opinion letters. It'll be tough for them to refute that. Anyone know of any caselaw regarding the FDCPA and NCO or anything at all w/ NCO being at fault?
Hmmmmm, how about this: class action for violations in IL: http://www.edcombs.com/CM/Notices/notices34.asp
Man you hit the nail on the head. That's exactly what I believe is going in this case. They're reasoning is something along the lines of, "Why should we settle when we can fight this virtually for free?". At this point, I am seriously considering dropping this case, and refiling in a higher court. I'm going to look into costs for Federal court in my state. I sure as hell am not going to let them off the hook at this point.
That is what i would like to know also.Sure looks like Default Judgments are a flim flam used against us don't it?
I understand that an action cannot be brought by an individual under the FCRA 623(a), but it can under 623(b). If your bring suit under 623(b), can you then cite violations of section 623(a)?
just one correction and an addition. In my small claims court if you are suing a corporation, they must be represented by counsel....so it does cost them money!... Also, in terms of rules, my federal district court gave me a cd rom with their local rules on it.
§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. (1) Prohibition. (A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate. (B) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors. A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if (i) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and (ii) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. (C) No address requirement. A person who clearly and conspicuously specifies to the consumer an address for notices referred to in subparagraph (B) shall not be subject to subparagraph (A); however, nothing in subparagraph (B) shall require a person to specify such an address. (2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who (A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person's transactions or experiences with any consumer; and (B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate. (3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer. (4) Duty to provide notice of closed accounts. A person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a consumer who has a credit account with that person shall notify the agency of the voluntary closure of the account by the consumer, in information regularly furnished for the period in which the account is closed. (5) Duty to provide notice of delinquency of accounts. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action. (b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute. (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; (B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i]; (C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and (D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis. (2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information. (c) Limitation on liability. Sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] do not apply to any failure to comply with subsection (a), except as provided in section 621(c)(1)(B) [§ 1681s]. (d) Limitation on enforcement. Subsection (a) shall be enforced exclusively under section 621 [§ 1681s] by the Federal agencies and officials and the State officials identified in that section.
Unfortunately, mine (Cali), doesn't allow attorneys at all. On your second note, my federal court has a similar service, except it provides all the forms via their website in PDF format. Also, get this, you can fill them in!! I wonder why my small claims court doesn't do that; some nonsense about not being able to verify it as the original.
After reading the apellate case summary, the statues, and the article you presented, I now have a better idea of how this works. Basically it's as follows: Enforcement by private parties is barred under 623(a) in order to prevent everyone and their brother from being able to sue a furnisher of information if they feel (or don't like) the information being reported is erroneous in some way. However, 623(b) DOES allow enforcement by a private party because it first gives the furnisher of information an opportunity to correct/investigate the information in question. They are given this opportunity via notification by the credit bureaus of our disputes. When they fail to take the steps afforded to them to correct or at least investigate the problem, they make themselves liable under 623(b). Man, I can't believe a bunch of guys/gals sat around and thought all this crap up, lol. Good for us though!
I just learned all of this this week also. One caveat - you must have involved the CRA at some point before you attempt to get the OC under 623(b). Essentially, your dispute through the CRA begins their obligation under (b).
