I may have posed this one before. Has anyone successfully sued a CRA where the CRA's defense was "no actual damages"? I've read the Guimond case where the court reasoned that there was no denial-of-credit prerequisite in order to prove damages. Anyone (Butch?) come across cases that agree with or strengthen Guimond?
The actual damages issue has another nasty side. Reread the FCRA definition of file.. it's not your copy. So to sue under the FCRA the "file" has to have been seen by a creditor or potential creditor, employer etc... so in the process of getting actual damages you also get your errors seen by someone which then triggers the definition of "file" under the FCRA under which you can sue that was a reversal issue on a very nice award.. can't think of which case it was off the top of my head... Most attys will tell you to apply for credit with a local bank (that way they can subpeona a local bank representative)... and that way those issues are not issues and you have a fair shot at your lawsuit.
I was declined for a 2 mortgages. I have one of the tripple/tri-merge files sitting in my porta file with the rest of my CRA/CA crap. I can get the other copy, plus statements from both of the people who pulled them that would state that based on my income, etc they would have given me a mortgage, but because of the credit report they couldn't get me a dollar.
So you have actual damages--a LOT of them. Go to a subprime mortgage company and get a quote. Get the folks who denied you to write up a statement that based on your income, etc, you would have gotten a mortgage at X% EXCEPT FOR THE CREDIT REPORT> Get the statement of what each would cost you over the 30 year term. Make sure they're the same amount. The difference in the total interest is your damage.
