BUMP Maybe I should elaborate. The part of the FCRA that they are violating is this: Section 611 Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (copied from ) (B) Requirements relating to reinsertion of previously deleted material. (i) Certification of accuracy of information. If any information is deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A), the information may not be reinserted in the file by the consumer reporting agency unless the person who furnishes the information certifies that the information is complete and accurate. THIS IS WHAT THEY DID NOT DO: (ii) Notice to consumer. If any information that has been deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A) is reinserted in the file, the consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of the reinsertion in writing not later than 5 business days after the reinsertion or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the agency. AND THIS: (iii) Additional information. As part of, or in addition to, the notice under clause (ii), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing not later than 5 business days after the date of the reinsertion (I) a statement that the disputed information has been reinserted; (II) the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available, or of any furnisher of information that contacted the consumer reporting agency, in connection with the reinsertion of such information; and (III) a notice that the consumer has the right to add a statement to the consumer's file disputing the accuracy or completeness of the disputed information.
seems like you have them to me, although i am probably no the expert in this area. but your foundation based on the fcra seems logical. either way this serves as a courtesy bump.
Re: Any other opinions? Let me give this one a shot. You successfully disputed the two collection accounts back before you got married. At that time, you only had one credit file -- the one with your maiden name. Then you got married. Then, recently, you were turned down for a car loan and found out that they had pulled your MAIDEN name credit file which now had the two collections reinserted. You also found out that they had a second file on you under your married name but the collections don't appear there. For that reason, your married name credit file is irrelevant to the problem at hand. Let's forget about the second credit file when discussing the reinsertions because that detail sort of through me off track when considering this. Ok, if I've got all this straight, then, YES, Equifax violated the FCRA by not notifying you about the two reinsertions. They deleted two collection accounts and then reinserted them on the same file without letting you know -- and that's not kosher. As for damages, hopefully the medical collection wasn't on the report when the auto dealer pulled it. If it was, then Equifax could reasonably contend that you would have been turned down anyway because of the third collection account which would render moot their reinsertion error. Legal people call this the "doctrine of unclean hands." Their argument would be that you're coming to the table with plenty of dirty laundry anyway so that you can hardly pin your heartache and trouble on their mistakes. Regardless, they did violate the statute, and for some judges a statutory violation is enough. This will really depend upon the luck of the draw judge-wise when the case is heard. It's certainly worth giving it a try in small claims court, and here's why... EQUIFAX IS NOTORIOUS FOR NOT WANTING TO APPEAR IN COURT IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO SO. In other words, their friendly national defense counsel will likely write you a letter offering to settle. I hope this feedback was helpful! Doc
Re: Any other opinions? Doc, when the "friendly national defense counsel" offers a settlement, what does that usually mean? In other words, will they just delete the item in question, will they pay up the $1000 per violation, or will they offer damages also?
Terri, since the CRAs had screwed up my reports so fully, my goal was simply to clean up my credit reports. I included a settlement letter with my lawsuits in which I offered to drop each suit in exchange for deletions of negative tradelines. I never sought money and, of course, didn't receive any. Therefore when Equifax's friendly national defense counsel wrote me, for example, he included the revised report and asked that I send him copies of the dismissal request. Doc
Terri, Equifax small claims lawsuit filed -- August 19, 2001. Equifax was served -- September 4, 2001. Equifax settlement letter dated -- September 14, 2001. Original court date had been -- October 17, 2001. (All negative tradeline deletion requests were granted.) TU small claims lawsuit filed -- August 19, 2001. TU was served -- September 7, 2001. TU moved case to Federal District Court -- October 7, 2001. I telephoned TU's counsel to discuss settlement -- October 7, 2001. Original court date had been -- October 17, 2001. (All negative tradeline deletion requests were granted.) Experian small claims lawsuit filed -- December 19, 2001. Experian was served -- January 3, 2002. I received final confidential settlement letter -- February 9, 2002. Original court date had been -- January 28, 2002. Court date had been moved by me to -- February 20, 2002. (I agreed not to discuss the Experian case any further.) I hope this helps you, Terri. Doc
Unfortunately, there was one showing for $500... I multiplied the amount of my current payments times the number of remaining payments, then subtracted from it the amount of the 'new' payments times the number of payments that would have been in that contract. The difference would have been right at $5000. Thanks Doc for saving me before I made a fool of myself. I think I will just ask for the 1K per violation instead. I think I have a better shot at that. BTW, did I say thanks, Doc?
Obviously a great job you did there Doc. And because you can't discuss the Experian case, congrats. The only reason they wouldn't want you to discuss it is if you kicked their ass. Again, great job.
LOL, thank you LKH. It doesn't matter much, but I managed to screw up a couple of dates working from memory. Since Terri may make judgements based upon this, here are the corrections: Equifax small claims lawsuit filed -- August 20, 2001. Equifax was served -- September 4, 2001. Equifax settlement letter dated -- September 14, 2001. Original court date had been -- October 17, 2001. (All negative tradeline deletion requests were granted.) TU small claims lawsuit filed -- August 20, 2001. TU was served -- September 7, 2001. TU moved case to Federal District Court -- October 8, 2001. I telephoned TU's counsel to discuss settlement -- October 8, 2001. Original court date had been -- October 17, 2001. (All negative tradeline deletion requests were granted.) Experian small claims lawsuit filed -- December 19, 2001. Experian was served -- January 3, 2002. I received final confidential settlement letter -- February 9, 2002. Original court date had been -- January 28, 2002. Court date had been moved by me to -- February 20, 2002. (I agreed not to discuss the Experian case any further.) Doc
Since you can't discuss particulars, can you just answer this with a simple yes or no? Did you get what you wanted? Yes or no. That's all I want to know and I won't ask any more questions. LOL
