Two days from the continuance of our hearing, and we appeared to be headed toward settlement. Exp would not delete, but they would report essentially what I wanted, absent the "Consumer Statement". Now they're saying that they can't. Here's the issue: Upon a voluntary surrender of a car, I owed $6k to Subaru Credit. I reach a settlement with their Subaru's attorneys and I've paid down the debt to $3k. Exp says they can't report the DOLA as the day of surrender; rather they must report it as of today. Their reasoning is that their computer program cannot show both a surrender off AND a running balance. By computer logic, it can only be one or the other. Exp is suggesting that they make the current balance $0. But in order to do that, they have to change the DOLA to today and they will have to change the status from "voluntary surrender" to "charge off/repossession". Any thoughts on this? I have a good mind to dismiss this case and re-file in Superior court in order to conduct discovery.
Sounds like BS. If it is in fact a voluntary surrender as per your agreement with Subaru, then it is not a chargeoff/reposession. Experian's legal responsibility is to report the information accurately, not make up false information and get you to agree to it. Along similar lines, DOLA has specific legal meanings, regardless of their software limitations. It appears they want you to agree to a tradeline that will show chargeoff/reposession with DOLA of now until the loan is paid. This is both very derogatory, extends the time this derogatory tradeline will be visible to 7 years after you finally pay it off, and does not even match your agreement with Subaru. Nothing in the law requires them to report anything, it only requires them to report accurately if they do report. Having no notation regarding either chargeoff/reposession or voluntary surrender would be more accurate than an erroneous and derogatory chargeoff notation. The above is my opinion, not legal advise.
ontrack you stated my case perfectly. jlynn interesting you should ask about the agreement. you should see the settlement agreement they faxed me. it's unconscienable. in essence, Exp wants me to waive any and all rights that i might have against them, not only in this particular matter, but in any future matter or matters. they specifically ask California consumers to waive a statute that would enable them to sue in the future, even with regard to a different issue. in short, for $90 (my costs of suit), Exp wants me to waive all my future legal rights as it regards them. needless to say, i'm not agreeing to this. it looks as if the trial will go forward.
They have got some nerve EXP. Trying to get you to sign some agreement that WORSENS your credit and requires you to waive all FUTURE CLAIMS against them. BTW, my suit is also in your state, but I have the greater misfortune of dealing with an outside legal firm retained to represent these weasles. I too find them to be insulting and arrogant in settlement negotiations. I have said before that I am thinking EXP has some nasty standard operating procedure for handling suits against, particularly those initiated by pro se's.
When statutes give you specific rights to sue, the courts and AGs tend to take a dim view of broad waivers of rights specifically provided by law. Regardless of your negotiation with EXP, you might forward a complaint to your AG along with a copy of their offer. Attorneys are not just advocates for their clients, but also considered "officers of the court" with responsibilities to the public. They appear to think you are very naive and can be bluffed, scared, or fooled into agreeing to a very one-sided agreement. The above is my opinion, not legal advise.
At this time I would noitify them taht negotiations have failed and the issues will be decided in Court.
Which part of 100% accurate or DELETE do they NOT understand! It is NOT YOUR PROBLEM if they don't have adequate software! I would tell them that their offer proves that they can not possibly comply with the FCRA which then requires them to delete the tradeline. Don't forget to send my $1000 check while you're at it! Geeeeeez!
On Thursday, 10/16 they refused to report the tradeline exactly as it should be. They even refused to talk to the OC to insert a Creditor's Statement in order to complete the accuracy of the TL (I mention this because they continued to try and get me to insert a Consumer Statement, rather than them questioning the accuracy with the OC). I told them I'd see them in court the next day (I made their rep fly up to northern Cal. that night.) This morning, 10/17, we had our hearing/trial. Their only defense was that their computer wouldn't accept certain verbiage like VOLUNTARY SURRENDER or SETTLED and therefore, could not reflect the current "to-date" balance of the account. The best they could do was relfect a balance as of 2001. They further claimed that since I was making payments to the OC's attorneys that the payment information was unavailable to the OC, thus unavailable to Experian. Obviously it was BS, and I wrapped up the case by pointing out to the Court that Experian's own evidence (which consisted of dispute forms generated by the OC) actually reflected the current balance of the account. The judge smurked, nodded and took the matter under "advisement". Knowing Exp, they'll appeal in hopes that I'll be intimidated in Superior Court.
