Re: COURT OKs SUING Credit Agencies Dogman, you're exactly right -- it's a great article and a potentially helpful development. My comment was simply directed at the idea that "reporting" is in some way synonymous with "providing." The sad thing is, of course, that by steadfastly maintaining inaccurate information the credit reporting agencies certainly do cross over the line from simple reporting to something much more. Doc
Re: COURT OKs SUING Credit Agencies That's the GREAT THING about this credit board. This was a classic example of spreading important information to a wide audience - a huge audience that did not see this in the SANF FRAN Chronicle. ALL OF US HERE now have more knowledge about possible tactics or threats we can use with BOTH the credit companies and agencies - effectively - to make the dogs hunt! Can you imagine how many lawsuits there would have been against the old Providian, Cross Country, and Future cards - if this had been decided during those years of screw the consumer.... Always enjoy your comments PD! aarrrffff - dogman
Yup, let's sue. It is damaging!! I just don't see why they should be allowed to do this to us. It's like we have no rights. Did you read the thing where the Chase Manhattan lawyer said they provided accurate information, and they will prevail at trial. The dude did not take bk and was paying the debt. And they tried to ruin his credit. Unbelievable.
Breeze - tried to ruin his credit - AND NOT BOTHER TO FIX IT! WILLFULLY! Typical corp atty - even when they are squashed -= they don't ever say they were beat - BY CONSUMERS everywhere LOL! arrfff - dogman
I wish I had gotten this article yesterday. I filed complaints against asset. I wouldn't have bothered filing the complaints. I just would have sued them and Citibank for willful noncompliance. I hope the ca are reading this board and paying attention. They cannot abuse us and expect us to take what they dish out anymore. There really is a recourse. I thank you, Dogman for the info. I too can't wait until the whole case is available. I hope someone posts a link to it.
THX betacredit for the appreciation. I believe it will make a lot of companies and credit bureaus RESPOND to US, their client! But these corporate conglomerates are not going to be stupid - one deletion prevents a lawsuit and saves labor and expense and aggravation??? - er ah OK! aarrff - dogman
WILLFULL....... will probably become quite a buzz word in our letters/challenges to our incorrect reporting friends,,,,LOL! willfull - hmmmm - willfull negligence - sounds pretty strong to me, given this article ruling! willfull and stubborn - dogman
Re: WILLFULL....... I'm doing some midnight reading regarding this case, and it does look to be quite the landmark. Here's the case: Nelson v. Chase Manhattan (click to download a PDF of the full case summary and opinion) Until now, courts have held that only the government (the FTC) could bring suits to ENFORCE portions of the FCRA which demand that creditors furnish information to CRAs correctly. I didn't realize that only the FTC could bring such suits. Now, however, consumers are formally "deputized" to enforce the FCRA against creditors who fail to correct inaccurate information they have provided to CRAs. Interesting! For those who don't want to take time to download and read the case (it's rather brief, har har), here's my five-sentence summary: Basically, a fellow named Toby Nelson cosigned a mortgage for his partner. They paid the note on time, and then later Nelson's partner declared bankruptcy for other reasons. Regardless, Mr. Nelson continued to pay the mortgage note on time without fail. Soon, however, Nelson discovered that he was turned down for new credit; furthermore he was hassled by Chase Manhattan (the bank holding the mortgage) in numerous ways (Chase reported the tradeline as "included in BK"). Nelson sued Chase, and although the first court ruled against him, the federal appeals court ultimately reversed the lower court's decision and ruled in Nelson's favor. The lawyers are summing it up even more concisely (we can use this language when writing nasty nutcase letters to creditors): Section 1681s-2(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act creates a cause of action for a consumer against a furnisher of erroneous credit information. Thanks again, Dogman, for pointing the way (as you always do -- are you a pointer dog perchance?). Psych "Arf" Doc
Re: WILLFULL....... Does this mean that I can now name Sprint PCS in my lawsuit against Collectech? Wonder how fast they'll offer up a settlement.....
Re: WILLFULL....... KHM, Were I you, I'd print out these links and get them to my lawyer. I think the parameters have really shifted in consumer rights protection. Sprint may well find themselves with unexpected liability.
Re: WILLFULL....... Dogman, Let me add my thanks in finding and sharing this story. I would suggest we post the link to every consumer finance or personal finance board we can find. And, be sure and tell 'em where you got it!
Re: WILLFULL....... Ok one more question (BTW GREAT LINK) Hubby has a repo that just popped back on, I have about 20 credit reports that showed when it was on along with the original creditor and 2 other CA's, but now just one CA is back on. Well this Ca says LDA 9/97, but the old reports with the original creditor says charge off 6/95, shouldn't that be the date the CA reports? Isn't this reaging? Do I have to go through validation still or am I covered by this new law? BTW DOC, is that section you put the one that covers us now? Thanks guys and gals!
Re: COURT OKs SUING Credit Agencies Doc, that may be, it does seem sorta gray. Perhaps the courts will make further rulings and provide more definition on what a providers is and what responsibility the craâ??s have.
Re: COURT OKs SUING Credit Agencies KHM, I wouldn't consider this a new law. An appeals court just broadened the interpetation of existing legislation. What they did, is tell a lower court that you have to give this guy a trial and let him prove damages. What is important, is the FTC sided with the consumer in this case. This is important and, it'll affect a lot of cases. Let your lawyer know what is happening with Nelson v Chase Manhattan. He may well wish to rethink his entire approach to litigating consumer rights cases.
Re: COURT OKs SUING Credit Agencies On the basis of whether the oriignal creditor is involved.. wouldn't it also make a difference on whether the debt was 'sold' or 'ttransferred'?I could see if it was transferred, the original creditor would still have liability.. but as to sold, wold this still hold true?
Re: COURT OKs SUING Credit Agencies I'm happy to see this ruling. I was prepared to sue Verizon for inaccurate reporting violations of the FCRA. They folded the day before I was going to file, so I didn't have to. I didn't realize at the time that I couldn't sue the original creditor for FCRA violations. I wonder what would have happened if I went to court. This quite possibly is going to happen again (for me) as I pursue another creditor who is reporting inaccurate info. I guess now I have a suit to reference. THANKS Dogman!!!
Re: COURT OKs SUING Credit Agencies wouldn't think it would make any difference inaccurate is inaccurate sold transferred or assigned. The issue is the accuracey of the reporting - not what becomes of the account!
Re: COURT OKs SUING Credit Agencies Psych Doc. good link! As always, you rock!!!! (even if you are 40) LOL!
