Do I have a case? Damages?

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55811

Over two months after I sent the letter posted in the thread listed above, the creditor (Pacific Gas & Electric) partially fixed my tradeline on TransUnion. It is still negative, but when they fixed it my score went up 50 points (~690 to ~740). The account was listed as an installment loan instead of a open account (utility) and the DOLA was off by about 4 months.

What are the best grounds for a suit? I have two weak violations and I don't know how to classify the third.

1) They failed to notify me before or after they placed the negative info on my report.

2) They failed to place a notification of "Consumer Disputes This Information" on my report.

3) Would I be best off just showing that they verified incorrect information on multiple occasions and failed to take action in a reasonable amount of time after I notified them directly. They have demonstrated that they knew there was incorrect info on my report by correcting it. What would my grounds be against the creditor? Libel?

I have actual damages now ... I just got a mortgage for over $500,000 and those FICO points were the difference between 5 3/8 and 5 1/2 % interest. This equates to $10,000 to $15,000 over the life of the loan. I can't get the lower rate now being as the rates have edged up for super jumbo loans.

What else should I do to make a solid case?

 

bUmp

 

====
Aletes:
"All I received was a balance sheet (printout) from PG&E showing the bill amounts, payment amounts, and dates for the life of the account."

Hiding90:
-Boy if this isn't verification, I am not sure what is.

Aletes:
**According to all the case law I have read, a printout is considered validation in most cases. According to popular conception on credit forums, it is not. I called this out just in case I missed something.
====

====
Aletes:
"They also sent a letter indicating that they are going to do nothing in regards to the tradeline because they "know" they are reporting correctly."

Hiding90:
-Sounds like a nice letter they didn't even have to send.

Aletes:
** In California, the Robbins-Rosenthal FDCPA holds OC's and CA's to the same set of laws. The creditor was required to answer my previous request for validation, which they did.
====

====
Aletes:
"(i.e. They gave me a partial validation and told me to go sit and spin.)"

Hiding90:
-What is "partial" validation?

Aletes:
** This is just a poor choice of words in reference to the printout I received.
====

====
Aletes:
"At a minimum, PG&E is reporting the wrong account type (installment instead of open)"

Hiding90:
-Ok, have you disputed this SPECIFIC thing with the reporting agency ?

Aletes:
** Yes, I have disputed specific portions of the tradeline many times with the CRA's -- At least until they sent me one of those "frivolous" letters. However, I have not disputed specific info with the OC. In order to get a violation under California law or the (new) FCRA, I will need to dispute specifics with the OC.
====

====
Aletes:
"and the wrong date of last activity"

Hiding90:
-What is this elusive "date of last activity" and how do you know it is wrong?

Aletes:
** I have canceled checks. I closed the account in 9/2000. It was paid off a little over a month later (as soon as they managed to get the closing bill to the forwarding address I provided). The OC is reporting the DOLA as 2/2001, which is obviously wrong.
====

====
Aletes:
"Not to mention the fact that they reported the tradeline after I paid and failed notify me before they reported the negative info."

Hiding90:
-You are mis-interpreting the Ca Civil Code section . When you signed up for service, the contract MOST ASSUREDLY included a "notification" clause which put you on notice.

Aletes:
**I am not mis-interpreting California Civil Code - I am just being hopeful.

**While it is possible that the creditor notified me at some point, I looked at every bill I received from them and found no notification. Now, common sense would make me think that they may have put the notification on one of those envelope stuffers. The law states that they can provide notification anytime prior to sending a negative report or within 90 days after. So, just because I don't have any notification on a bill doesn't mean they didn't send it.
====

====
Aletes:
"I would like to get some more violations before I go that route though."

Hiding90:
-Another common misconception. You only need ONE VIOLATION. BUT MAKE SURE IT ACTUALLY IS A VIOLATION.

Aletes:
**I have one solid violation. The creditor failed to mark the tradeline as in dispute when they provided verification to the CRA's. I feel this violation is pretty weak and may not be received well by a judge if it actually goes to court. Has anyone on this forum actually taken this single violation to court?
====

I may go with what I have or dispute dispute specifics with the OC next.