Anyone see this?

Wow, that is startling. Thanks for posting that.

Doc

 

Searched the New York Times and found their coverage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/national/14SCOT.html?pagewanted=print

Doesn't look good for us, frankly. It's easiest to dispute items that are older than 2 years (especially when the dispute involves something very specific about the account) since the original creditors will often have a more difficult time, or simply won't take the time, with respect to accessing the original records. Anybody care to comment?

Doc

 

The article is really stretching the actual decision. The decision was more specific that "barring any suit for damaged credit" , to paraphrase the article.

In addition the Court REVERSED a lower courts decision and Remanded the case to the court for resolution.

Here is a copy of the decision:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1045.ZS.html

 

Hal, thank you for your help. A couple of questions:

1) So your reading of this does not preclude our right to dispute tradelines?

2) Do you think our right to take a CRA to court is impacted in situations where the tradeline is older than 2 years and the dispute outcome isn't to our liking?

3) What question specifically is being remanded for the lower court's consideration?

Doc

 

How I read it, it appears you only have 2 years to sue them for any inaccurate information. But you can still dispute, but if they don't correct your items and they are older than 2 years you can't threaten to file a lawsuit, so even though can still dispute older items, if you can't back it up with a lawsuit threat, then it appears we are getting the short end of the stick here

 

We are used to that .



Thay can jack us around all they want but they can't make us do business with them.

 

lbrown59, this time I'm going to give you my most considered professional opinion: I think you've completely lost your marbles. We're discussing credit bureaus ("credit reporting agencies"), and you come up with, "They can jack us around all they want but they can't make us do business with them." What, praytell, are you talking about?

Doc

 

Hey y'all

Thee is a Netbank $50 bonus link on that page, if anybody wants an online account and $50 worth of free money.

I have an account with them - they've been good to me - overdraft coverage and everything. They checked Equifax (but then, doesn't everyone?)

 

It doesn't change the creditor's responsibilities under FCRA and FDCPA, such as reporting accurately, reporting within five days any account that is disputed directly with the creditor by the consumer, providing proper Validation within 30 days when demanded by the consumer, etc. If they take those away from us, we're toast. This, well, it's not good (two years from discovery would be much better), but it's not the end of the world either.

 

I believe that this issue intended to limit the time in which damages can be claimed by a consumer AGAINST a credit reporting company or affiliate for wanton acts that harm the consumer.

I do not believe that this will have any bearing upon the consumers right to dispute past the two year threshold.

I believe that this ruling will actually put MORE pressure on the CRA's to become more consumer friendly and consciousness so that upon appeal, that the CRA would be able to clearly show that there were numerous avenues for the potential "damaged consumer" to find out and cure any issues prior to the expiration of the two year statute.

I believe that the CRA's will have to make the system even easier than it is today to access and dispute "potential" derogatory and damaging items that appear on a consumers report. This would be the only possible way to prove that the consumer had EVERY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY to protect his/her rights. Anything less would be subject to severe challenge by Plaintiff's counsel.

Again, Just a thought!

 

Good points, Westcap. However, from a practical standpoint, it's a fact that it's always more likely that disputes for older items are far more likely to succeed than disputes for newer items.

Doc

 

Doc,
That os absolutely 100% true. The main reason for this is that there is a substantial loss of MEDIA (the industry word for the original application, statements, chagre slips, etc) as the mergers and acquisitions of larger banks continue. Many of the data necessary to prove the original app's is many times gone!

Always ask for copies of ALL MEDIA. That will blow them away that you know this term! or say..
"How long will it take you to process the media request from Chase Manhattan once I request validation?" or "When you purchased the portfolio, was the media included in the purchase to prove my debt?"

or... "I need to know if you are collecting this on a contingency basis for the original creditor (Citibank) or if you received my account as part of a "standard portfolio sale?")

Have Fun!
WestCap

 

Great post and info, Westcap!

Doc