According to an attorney representing Equifax, he states: As we discussed, Equifax need only have resonable procedures. It does not need to be perfect, nor can it be. As a result, there is no strict liability against Equifax.(1) (1)Cahlin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151, 1156 (11th Cir. 1991); Spence v. TRW, Inc., 92 F.3d 380, 381 (6th Cir. 1996); Guimond v. Trans Union Credit Info. Co., 45 F.3d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir. 1995); Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 284 (7th Cir. 1994)("credit reporting agency is not liable under the FCRA if it followed 'resonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy,' but nonetheless reported inaccurate information in the consumer's credit report"). I am looking for that bold quote specifically. I can not find it anywhere. What I do have though is: According to Jennifer Cushman v. Trans Union Corporation, the court ruled, â??We hold that in order to fulfill its obligation under § 1681i(a) "a credit reporting agency may be required, in certain circumstances, to verify the accuracy of its initial source of information." Henson, 29 F.3d at 287. We further hold that "[w]hether the credit reporting agency has a duty to go beyond the original source will depend" on a number of factors. Id. One of these is "whether the consumer has alerted the reporting agency to the possibility that the source may be unreliable or the reporting agency itself knows or should know that the source is unreliable." According to Denise M. Richardson and Robert L. Richardson v. Fleet Bank of Massachusetts, Equifax Credit Information Services, Experian, Trans Union, and Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, â??The Court declines to say that relying on creditors for accurate credit information constitutes [*12] a reasonable procedure as a matter of law where, as here, the credit reporting agency had reason to know of the dispute between the plaintiffs and Equifax. See Bryant v. TRW, 689 F.2d 72, 77 (6th Cir. 1982) (where agency knew of dispute between consumer and creditors, confirming consumer's credit information with creditors constituted unreasonable procedure); Barron v. Trans Union Corp., 82 F. Supp. 2d at 1295-96. A credit reporting agency is initially entitled to rely on information contained in the reports issued by credit grantors, because it would be unduly burdensome and inefficient to require an agency to look beyond the face of every credit report. However, once notified that a consumer disputes the information contained in such records, exclusive reliance on such information is neither reasonable or justified. See Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 285 (7th Cir. 1994) (credit reporting agency entitled to rely on court dockets to correctly recite consumer's credit history absent notice that information is flawed); Gill v. Kostroff, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1161, Civ.A. 98-930- T17A, 2000 WL 141258, at *6 (M.D. Fla. 2000). Thus, "[a] [*13] credit reporting agency that has been notified of potentially inaccurate information in a consumer's credit report is in a very different position than one who has no such notice." Henson, 29 F.3d at 286.â? And in: Faye A. Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc., the court ruled, â??UDR overlooks its broader obligations under the statutes as a credit reporting agency. Both [the] CCRAA and FCRA require ' maximum possible' accuracy. (Civ. Code, 1785.14, subd. (b); 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b).) This means that a report violates the statutes when it is misleading or incomplete, even if it is technically accurate. . . . ' Congress did not limit the Act' s mandate to reasonable procedures to assure only technical accuracy; to the contrary, the Act requires reasonable procedures to assure "maximum accuracy." The Act' s self-stated purpose is "to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit . . . in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information." 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b). Certainly reports containing factually correct information that nonetheless mislead their readers are neither maximally accurate nor fair to the consumer who is the subject of the reports.' " (Cisneros v. U.D. Registry, Inc., supra, 39 Cal.App.4th at pp. 579-580, italics added.)â? I am looking for the exact quote that the lawyer references which is credit reporting agency is not liable under the FCRA if it followed 'resonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy,' but nonetheless reported inaccurate information in the consumer's credit report It appears all the cases I found don't quite say that. In fact, they say the exact opposite.
SUN, Enemy atty's, do that all the time. Put stuff in their letters which "appears" to be a case quote but isn't. Example: As we discussed, Equifax need only have resonable procedures. It does not need to be perfect, nor can it be. As a result, there is no strict liability against Equifax.(1) This is not true. They MUST follow those resonable procedures. Merely having them is not a defense. .
Lets see if I can guess your scenario. THE CRA claims they have a right to rely on what they are told, and report same as accurate. Your postion tho, is that "True, but that all changes when you are notified that the info. is not accurate". Am I close? I can't find it either Sun. .
You can look those cases up on WESTLAW, or go to your local law library for the third series of the Federal Reporter (published by West). The librarian can help you find it. You want to have the full text of those cases, and if you don't find in there anything that justifies what the attorney has written, you want to write a counterpoint to meet it: "Defendant has mischaracterized the holdings of the X, Y and Z cases. While in those cases the CRAs did indeed maintain some inaccurate information for which they were not held liable, (inser reason why their cases were different here)"
He claims at least that the "credit reporting agency is not liable under the FCRA if it followed 'resonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy,' but nonetheless reported inaccurate information in the consumer's credit report" quote comes directly from Cahlin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. I guess we won't know for sure though until the case is found It probably did say that somewhere but then later went on to say UNLESS the CRA was notified and shown that a tradeline was not accurate. They may then no longer rely only on the word of the data furnisher.
That quote is from Henson v CSC -- you can find the full text of the decision here: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?yr=93&num=3441&Submit1=Request+Opinion
Seems I don't have permission to edit, so I am adding instead. That quote has to do with following reasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy absent any dispute by the consumer. Once the consumer disputes the accuracy of an item, the CRA is held to a higher standard. In the same case that quote was taken from, the court goes on to say, "Even so, Trans Union argues that it did not violate a duty to reinvestigate because it had no duty, as a matter of law, to go beyond the Judgment Docket in conducting its reinvestigation. We disagree. A credit reporting agency that has been notified of potentially inaccurate information in a consumer's credit report is in a very different position than one who has no such notice. As we indicated earlier, a credit reporting agency may initially rely on public court documents, because to require otherwise would be burdensome and inefficient. However, such exclusive reliance may not be justified once the credit reporting agency receives notice that the consumer disputes information contained in his credit report. When a credit reporting agency receives such notice, it can target its resources in a more efficient manner and conduct a more thorough investigation." The lawyer is using that quote out of context. It was a nice try, but it won't fly.
i also want to point out that those cases he lists also set the precedent that if you are awarded a non-monetary judgment you are not entitled to attorneys fees.
Re: Re: Can you find this court case? Sunhawk, I will try to find the case for you which addresses this specific issue, it is against "Fleet Bank". The judge did specifically state that "when a consumer gives evidence that information is correct, then they cannot rely upon what is reprted to them. Not to "muddy the waters here", but the case is posted on http://www.creditreportsrights.com
Re: Re: Re: Can you find this court case? OOPS! Misspelling on site! here it is: http://www.creditreportrights.com/forum/
Re: Re: Re: Can you find this court case? Unless I am reading this wrong, the quote is from Henson v CSC (I am not that good at reading legalese, what does "Id." mean? Maybe the Court in Henson was quoting Cahlin v. General Motors?): "In order to state a claim under 15 U.S.C sec. 1681e(b), a consumer must sufficiently allege "that a credit reporting agency prepared a report containing 'inaccurate' information." Cahlin v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 936 F.2d 1151, 1156 (11th Cir. 1991). However, the credit reporting agency is not automatically liable even if the consumer proves that it prepared an inaccurate credit report because the FCRA "does not make reporting agencies strictly liable for all inaccuracies." Id. A credit reporting agency is not liable under the FCRA if it followed "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy," but nonetheless reported inaccurate information in the consumer's credit report." (Italics added.) See the link in my previous post. I got this off the website of the 7th Circuit Court.
Re: Re: Re: Can you find this court case? This is all true, however the difference is in "claims for damages", before and after "disputing" the inaccurate info. You CANNOT make a claim against a CRA for reporting inaccurate info without disputing the info. IF, you dispute, and have some evidence, AND they continue to report, THEN you have a claim for damages. So,a CRA cannot be held "liable" for info "merely" reported.
Right -- this was covered in an earlier post. Later on in Henson v CSC, after the above quote, the court basically said that once a consumer has disputed the item, the CRA is then under the obligation to independently investigate the matter rather than merely repeating what was reported to them by the original source of the information.
Don't forget to Shepardize your cases. You don't want to rely on some case that's been distinguished a lot, questioned, or god forbid reversed.
Re: Re: Can you find this court case? Thanks Flacorp. Do you know of an online tut. teaching how to shepardize? ??? Sun, OK we can go with that the CRA does/did have reasonable procedures in place, no problem there. But your argument is that they failed to follow them. "Failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, blah, blah, blah". Whether or not the CRA FOLLOWED their procedures puts a genuine issue of material fact in dispute that only a Jury can sort out. Therefore the case is created. You now have an issue that onley a "finder of fact" can determine. Belive me the CRA's do NOT want to have to go to court and prove they did follow those procedures. It's a HUGE pain in the butt. see? .
Re: Re: Can you find this court case? The atty. is trying to confuse you into believing that "having" the procedures, and "following" them are one in the same. That's what I'd do if I were a CRA atty. lol But you're too smart for that. ~
