After putting in some serious hours in preparing for this hearing, Experian's Rep. shows up and promptly objects to the pro tem judge and requests that the hearing be held before a permanent judge. I expected some kind of stunt from Experian. I guess this is the first of many. They also plan to argue that the case should be dismissed because I didn't sue them in their home town. In the meantime, the rep and I discussed possibilities of settlement. The dispute is over a Subaru tradeline. I voluntarily surrendered a vehicle, but Subaru reports as a c/o and repo, with no reflection of the court case (Subaru vs. kickman) or the settlement. Efx and TU have deleted the TL, but Exp. is holding firm. There's a possiblity of rewording the status and calling it a surrender instead of a repo. But their rep says that they cannot include settlement unless there's a zero balance. I showed them a notice of settlement filed with the court. They still refuse to report it; they'll only report the current balance (which, thus far, they never properly reported.) This leads me to conclude that Experian has more of an interest in characterizing the debt than just objectively reporting it. If it's settled, why should they care what the terms are, especially if the OC doesn't report it anyway. I'm going to get back to them today with my proposals, including $$. Any thoughts, ideas or opinions are greatly appreciated. Thanks guys.
court case (Subaru vs. kickman kickman ====================== What do the court records for this show on the cr.report. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
I still WONDER if the BUSINESSES pay the CRA'S more than you would ever think that they should... LIKE BRIBES...KICK-BACKS...among other things... LIKE THEY ARE ON COMISSION MAYBE IT IS A TWO WAY STREET...MAYBE THEY FEED EACH-OTHER...
I tell you what; in trying to negotiate settlement, they're asking me to go a little too far out of my way (gathering documents, making phone calls) to prove something that should already be coming from the creditor. But it does make you wonder why they fight so hard to prove that the creditor is right and the consumer is wrong. All I know is that they wouldn't be in business if they depended solely on average consumers purchasing credit reports once or twice a year. Seems to me that there's some kind of synergy in effect. The CRAs and grantors of credit both depend on one thing to keep their industries in business: high interest. What better way to generate high interest than through sloppy CRs. For now though, Experian wants me to contact the law firm that represented the OC and have me authorize the attorneys to disclose the current balance owed to the OC. My response was "Why can't you contact the OC yourself?" Before she could answer, I reminded her of how Freudian it was for her to depend on someone other than the OC for accurate information.
I have a suit against them too, and they did the same thing to me. Request documentation from me during initial settlements talks to prove my case. They refused to contact any creditors, preferring to defend them and remain accusatory towards me. Even when I provided them with sufficient documentation that would clearly show the accounts were incorrect, they just denied it. I **think** they just a have policy in play that when a pro se files against them, just engage in trivial games. I have wasted far too much time returning phone calls and acting in good faith by providing documentation to them during the course of my claim, only to realize that I think they are just playing games and wasting my time. I really think they have a specific policy in play against pro se's to behave a certain way. At this point, I don't waste my time discussing the case with them. See ya' in court, I'm down on the docket for trial by jury next year. By the way, I forgot who once said it, but it I think the best word to describe our relationship with the CRA's is not as a consumer, but really a commodity, which reflects in the way they treat us.
1*The CRAs and grantors of credit both depend on one thing to keep their industries in business: high interest. 2**What better way to generate high interest than through sloppy CRs. kickman ***************** 1*Right.See these links for a better insight on this point. http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...=&threadid=39313&highlight=rule+AND+of+AND+72 http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=40366&goto=newpost 2*The better way is Called FICO. Set up a bogus scoring method full of myths & half truths and derive the scores based on the false information contained in the uncontrolled rummer mills known as CRAS. Here is how Fico works: A bag of marbles represents the consumer. CRA 1 shows 25 red marbles in the bag. CRA 2 reports 25 blue marbles in the sack CRA 3 Says 25 Green marbles in the bag. FICO analyzes the information from all three of the CRAS and assigns a score of 75 to the sack made up of 25 each of red blue and green marbles. Upon opening the sack we find it contains 100 black marbles. Why was Fico unable to assign the correct score? ????????????? For more insight click the link below. http://members.aol.com/victcrdrpt/Score.html
The court records are non-existent on the report. Suddenly now Experian is asking for them. kickman ================= Yep so they can add another derog to your report. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
Because I wanted to see if we were dealing with the same rep. from Experian, and whether or not they were using the same tactics.
