They have made my credit report unavailable for viewing. I spoke to Kim Hughes and she told me that because I filed a lawsuit against them I cannot access my report and any inquiry that I have must be made through their attorneys. Also, I got a referral for an attorney to represent me from NACA.net. His secy called back but could not tell me how much he charges. Do these atty usually work on a contingency basis? I have no dough!!
are you trying to settle this or go for blood? the only way i know to get an attorney on contingency is on cases of $20-30K or more. otherwise its just not worth their time. I thought USDC had pro bono attornies to help out pro se litigants. have you checked that angle?
They're pro bono? Someone on the board told me that they have pro se helpers to help you out but I don't know how helpful they are. My lawsuit is for $21k but if it's moved to Federal Court I will amend the complaint for more $$$. I only sued for 21k so that I can go into civil court because the max 25k in Civil but my FCRA violations were about 75-80k if you calculate $1,000 per violation because there are 13 accts. involved and EX violated many times.
Vixen, Don't worry about atty. fees. The law allows for a plaintiff to sue for blah, blah plus atty. fees. As long as you win your case, even if it's only for 1 dollar, the atty. will be paid. Also, the CRA may not deny you your report just because you filed suit. Go ahead and go through the atty's as suggested and request a copy. If they deny you, it'll be another violation. Good luck, keep us posted.
I think you are going for too much, I have been reading case law and it seems like the deck is really stacked in the favor of the credit bureaus. There are so many tricks the attornies have as far as defenses go. And with the amount of money your sueing for you'll be dealing with the best of them. I have a feeling their lawyers are going to roadkill you in court. Then again who knows. IMO lawsuits against the credit bureaus should only be used as leverage for deletions, unless they really have p*ssed you off and caused you some major damage. In that case you would be able to get an attorney to sue them on contingency.
I will be filing against the EVIL EXP. Trust me, I have got more tricks up my sleeves than the defense lawyers. They will never see me coming! As far as I am concerned, EXP can show up with their brass rings and I will show up my bat, last one standing wins.
This is confusing to me because I was previously advised that I could only get $1000 per lawsuit regardless of the number of violations that occurred. However, you are considering filing in federal court for $1000 per various violations involving 13 accounts for a total of $80k. I wish someone could explain (for those of us who are unfamiliar with this process) how to calculate the number of violations and the amount we should be suing for. There ought to be a formula for this. Otherwise, we will all be running off to court with our own guesses as to how many violations we have and how much we should be suing for. Perhaps everyone else already knows how to do this, but I for one certainly need to do some research before attempting to go pro se. I donâ??t mean to hijack your thread, but I think this would be an excellent topic for discussion on a different thread if it hasnâ??t already been done before. What if we had an exercise: Give an example of a CRA, CA or OC committing various FCRA or FDCPA violations involving various accounts on your credit report, add up the violations, consider statutory/punitive/actual damages, calculate the total amount of your lawsuit, consider the advantages of small claims/civil/federal court, consider pro se vs. contingency fee, consider one lawsuit vs. multiple lawsuits, discuss settlement offers, etc. If there are no hard and fast formulas, then rules of thumb would be helpful. I havenâ??t been to law school so this would certainly be educational for me. Since the members of this board appear to be adopting a more litigious frame of mind, is this something that would be worthwhile? Or do I just need to read a book?
You can ask for anything you want. That does not mean you are likely to get it in court. When it was previously discussed here it was explained it was $1000 per inquiry w/o permissable purpose, and UP TO $1000 for all other violations together. You can also sue for actual and punitive damages. Of course these last two are more dificult to prove.
Let me ask you another thing, are you including defamation of character in with your lawsuit? Also are you going to be asking for nominal damages?
Greenvan, you are correct. Under FCRA, if a cra commits the same violation 100 times, it is still only 1 violation. Under FDCPA rules, it would be, or could be, 100 violations.
Re: Re: Due to lawsuit against Experian... Am I misreading your response, LKH? If not, then now I am the one who is confused. I thought the FDCPA only applied to CAs (not CRAs) and that you could only be awarded up to $1000.00 in total regardless of the number of violations of the FDCPA. And, that the FCRA applies to both CAs and CRAs and you could sue for multiple violations at $1000.00 per pop.
Re: Re: Re: Due to lawsuit against Experian... Oh boy did I screw this up. This is what happens first thing in the morning without having a cup of coffe first. FDCPA does apply to ca's and not cra's and in most cases does not apply to oc's. FCRA applies to any furnisher of info to the cra's. As for the violations. FDCPA is limited to up to $1000 in awards, plus actual damages. I am confident though, that filing a lawsuit against a cra for committing the same violation 5 times, is not counted as 5 separate violations. It is one, however, you can bring action for more than one violation. I hope I cleared up my jibberish from this morning. ech!
Well, as far as the advantagas for type of court, here is how I see it: Small claims advantages: -less filing fees ($29) about -quicker resolution of claim -better chance for "frivolouse suits" (judge can't rule your claim was in bad faith, and require you to remiburse defendant) small claims disadvantage: -may or may not have power to do injuntive relief (depends on your state) -defense may try to up your claim to federal court -judge may be a complete idiot and is unfamiliar with FCRA laws and FDCPA laws (be prepared to "educate" the judge) -no punitive damages or actual damages that include emotional distress State Court advantages -laws may be construed more liberally for plaintiff (ex. in California OC is bound by Fair Debt Collection Practices) -Fines/Penalties for FCRA and FDCPA (states version) may be higher State Court disadvantages -same as first two above -Judges are generally more educated than small claims, but not as much as federal -higher filing fees -longer resolution of claim -possibility of attorney fees awarded to defense if claim filed in bad faith (hard to prove, but can weigh on a stressed out plaintiff) Federal Court advantages -Federal judges should be the most knowledgable of all judges regarding FCRA/FDCPA (more so than small claims) -Better quality of judges -The threat of an opinion being published against a defendant, establishing case law in favor of consumers (very threating to a cra, think if a judge ruled in favor of a plaintiff regarding the CRA had an obligation to investigate an inquiry??)--federal published opinions carry a lot of weight -You can really make the cra, ca do a lot of work -----interrogatories, questions, depositions---Cra's don't want you snooping aroung their files, who knows what you will find??? Scary stuff -Actual damages (emotional distress) -Punitive damages -injunctive relief Federal disadvantages -Costs--filing fees, witness fees, depo fees (if you decide it might be fun to hold a deposition with -Carla Blair....) -Can take a toll on you -Can be lengthy -More scare tactics employed by defense....they love to try to intimidate pro se's (be prepared for this if your case does not settle) -defense fees if your claim is filed in "bad faith"
vixen, I have the same thing with equifax. Have filed against them for several violation (small claims) and they denied access to my credit report. My mortgage company couldn't get access either, so, now i can't refinance one of my houses, which creates a financial hardship, because it's a 12% interest rate. Well, I sued them again for that. On 2-20 i called equifax and requested a copy of my report (they had said on a voice message, that i can still get hardcopies, so that's all i requested). They didn't send one out, but instead i got a letter from their attorney, that i was to not contact wquifax again. Oh, well, they want to fight and i will see them in court.
Wow.. you need an atty. that's a large amount of actual damages you now have. You need to bump to federal court and actually take this one to the mat. taking your file offline is punitive in nature. any chance you're in alabama or louisiana? if so, I can refer attys to you
I had a dispute with TU over not being denied access to my online credit report. I was told that as long as I can get my cr via snail mail, I'm not being denied access. If your claim is that you cannot access it online (but you can access via snail mail) I don't think you can claim that you do not have access. Do you have access via snail mail? I might add that my access online to TU cleared up soon after I starting letters.
George, you're right! I'm glad, they didn't send it to me ;-). It further proves my point of the 2nd lawsuit. That way it's not only me and my mortgage company, that can't get it electronically, but they also won't send it to me by mail, which discredits them further.
