Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou Wouldn't the fact that it lowered your FICO score elude to "actual damages"?
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou But in the case of willful noncompliance without damages, aren't the fines owed to the FTC and not the individual? Dancer
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou § 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n] (a) In general. Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of (1) (A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 Fines are owed to the consumer.
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou True. If you can prove damages in excess of $100 otherwise, no money is due to you. The questions actually under discussion are what fines are imposed if you weren't damaged and who gets the $$$? I believe, per FCRA they don't owe you anything but they are still responsible to the FTC for violations. Dancer
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou I believe the import of the statute is that actual damages of at least $100 are presumed.
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou Okay I see your point on that. However, I didn't paste the entire 616 section. Look at subsection (a)(2) & (3) -punitive damages are not actual damages. You may be referring to section 616 (b), which is where the defandant is responsible for paying the CRA's. § 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n] (a) In general. Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of (1) (A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or (B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater; (2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and (3) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court. (b) Civil liability for knowing noncompliance. Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or $1,000, whichever is greater.
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou Ahhh! I see, said the blind man, to his deaf son....... Thanks. Dancer
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou "any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure OR damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1000."
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou what about them? The first clause describes compensatory damages...either actual damages proved at trial OR presumed statutory damages..the court must award compensatory damages of at least $100. Punis aren't intended to compensate the victim, they are intended to punish the defendant. The statute permits a plaintiff to recover statutory compensatory damages and also punitive damages, even in the absence of a showing of any actual damage. Its pretty clear. Also note, 3(b) refers to damages payable to the CRA, not to the consumer.
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou I wasn't referring to 3(b). Your second paragragh only confirms what I already said.
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou I don't understand what point it is you think that was reinforced....your comment punis are not actuals has me confused. Do you agree no actual damages must be proved in the case of wilful noncompliance?
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou Yes I agree that no actual damages need to be proved in a case of willful noncompliance. Why should there be a need for actual damages when their is willful noncompliance on the part of the CA, or OC? If they cannot follow the simple guidelines of the FCRA and FDPCA, then too bad, so sad for them. Just because I didn't happen to apply for credit during the timeframe when the CA or OC failed to comply with the law doesn't mean I wasn't damaged, and that's where punitive damages come in. Our personal credit files are not their personal trampling grounds.
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou I sort of disagree with you on two sort of technical points. 1. Applying for credit, though the easiest way to show actual damage, is not the only way. Emotional distress, if it could be shown, would be recoverable. As would any other "hard" damages if you could demonstrate them with reasonable certainty...eg, "I have an 8.5% mortgage, mtg bkr offered 7.5%apr refi for scores of 680, I had a 670 with this derog 690 after, now the rates are back up to 8%" I don't think the application is necessary. 2. Punitive damages are not there to compensate you. Yes you may have suffered. But that's what compensatories are there for...to make you whole. But punis are there to *penalize* the CRAs and (this is the important part) should be calculated and awarded in an amount reflecting the resources of the CRA, its conduct, and in an amount adequate to penalize the CRA, not based upon the effects on the consumer.
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou I guess the way I see it is, why should we have to apply for credit because of a wrong-doing of a CA or OC? We all know an inq cost us in the neighborhood of 3-5 FICO points. Same thing with a mortgage. What if you're someone who's not applying for one. Or who already has one. The point I'm trying to make is, it's unfair to the consumer to have to have actual damages and to have to go out and damage their credit further by applying for a card they wouldn't be able to receive. Even though punitive damages may be there to penalize the defendants, it's the plantiffs' (us) who receive the benefits of punitive damages. And again, why shouldn't we? Emotional damages would be more along the lines of punitive damages, not actual, correct?
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou no, emotional distress is damage the plaintiff suffers -- actual damage -- and is remedied (to the extent money can) by compensatory damages. punitive damages are intended to punish and deter the conduct of the wrongdoer. Lets say McD's sells coffee that is too hot. They know it because there have been 700 prior claims for 3rd degree burns. They don't fix the problem because their consultants say they'll sell more if its scalding -- even though at this temp its not fit for human consumption. Finally 80 year old woman gets serious burns from coffee. Incident no. 701. She gets actual (compensatory) damages for 1) her vascular surgeon bills, 2) her lost wages during hospitalization and 3) her emotional distress (her "pain and suffering"). Total $200,000. But to punish mcd's for doing this so many times, despite so much forewarning, she also gets $2 million in punitive damages. The punis bear (close to) no relation at all to her damage. They are not meant to compensate her. They are calculated based on the wealth of mcd's, the jury's view about the extent intentional badness of the act, etc. They are meant to punish the wrongdoer, essentially to deter them (and others) from doing it again.
Re: Can't get rid of ANB/Citi accou Okay, so if punitive damages are meant to punish the defandant, but essentially it is still rewarding the plantiff (because that's who receives the money), and punitive damages are based on the wealth of the defandant, shouldn't folks who sue CRA's, CA's, OC's, come away with a substantial amount of dollars? I understand your analogy with McD's, so wouldn't the CA, who we all know break laws continually, and who "hurt" consumers just like McD's hurts customers with their scalding coffee, be punished to the same extent? i.e. instead of the consumer merely being awarded a few thousand dollars, they should be receiving ten's of thousands, especially in cases against the CRA's and OC's.
