Gurus Come Back!

Ladies and Gents:

If you have something to add or say in regards to this, weather you feel your a guru or not.. please post it.

Here's the response from the lawyer on my non-pp complaint, I'll only quote the relevant portions. I need arguments supporting my claim and legal cases to cite. I've got a lot of work to do but I could use anyone's help.

WARNING: THIS MAY BE A LONG LETTER.

Dear Mr. Darkdoj:

We have your correspondence of October 11, 2003, in which you contend that First Premier Bank improperly obtained your credit bureau report. As I explained to you in our telephone conversation of October 9, 2003, 15 USC 1681b(f) provides that a person should not use or obtain a consumer report for any purpose unless the consumer report is obtained for a purpose for which the consumer report is authorized to be furnished under 15 USC 1681b. 15 USC 1681a(d) defines the term "consumer report". 15 USC 1681a(d)(2) provides that the term "consumer report" does not include any report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report. First Premier Bank merely obtained a copy of information it had previously reported to the credit reporting agencies that related solely to the experiences between you and First Premier Bank. First Premier Bank does not believe that such information constitues a consumer report under 15 USC 1681a.

Irrespective of weather such information constitutes a consumer report, First Premier Bank had a permissible purpose to use the information in regard to the review or collection of an account under your name and otherwise had a legitimate business purpose to obtain the information in that you had contacted First Premier Bank and alleged that the bank had previously improperly reported information to the credit reporting agencies.

You have threatened to commence legal action against First Premier Bank based upon your allegation that the Bank improperly obtained your credit report. Please note that 15 USC 1681n provides that upon a finding by the court that an unsuccessful pleading filed in connection with an action under 15 USC 1681 was filed in bad faith or for the purposes of harassment, the court shall award to the prevailing party attorney fees resonable in relation to the work expended in responding to the pleading. 15 USC 1681o(b) contains a similar provision. First Premier Bank believes that it has correctly reported information to the credit reporting agencies and has advised you of such determination on numerous occasions. Your repeated attempts to coerce First Premier Bank into altering the information being reported by the Bank to the credit reporting agencies may be considered bad faith and harassment under the above referenced statutes.

You also contend that account number 123456 is being improperly reported. You have indicated by letter and telephone coversation that you recieved a letter from an outside collection agency stating this acount would be deleted from your credit bureau upon reciept of payment of the balance in full. First Premier Bank has never recieved such letter.

I forwarded your last corespondence regarding information supplied to you by Experian regarding this account and asked XYZ Person to further review the manner in which this account is currently being reported to Experian. The bank has been reporting this account to Experian as having a Zero Balance but to satisfy your latest request the Bank has again reported this account to Experian as a charged-off account with a balance of zero.

After you have had an opportunity to review this correspondence, please feel free to contact me to further discuss this matter.

Sincerely,

Attorney for Bank

 

This is a paid charge-off. According to First Premier it was paid on September 8, 1998. They show it on my Transunion report as having been paid off on 8/1999 and on my Experian report as having been paid off on 9/1999.

The Experian report shows that the account was opened two months after it was first reported. It still currently shows as such. The balance does not show ZERO, as he states in his letter.

I have them on 623, Duty of Furnishers. It's a blatant lie that I could've opened an account and they knew I was going to open it.. two months in advance so they reported it two months ago.

I sent a copy of the Isaac-Gowen letter. He doesn't even make reference to it. Instead he quotes 15 USC 1681b(f), 1681a(d)(2), 1681b(3)(A) and 1681a(d) as reasons why they could review the accounts or my credit report.

Any help is appreciated. I'm still looking into this matter and going to reference it to my attorney, but any help will save on legal fees.

 

By the way, I no longer have the letter from the CA stating they would have it deleted. The fax machine ate it when I was trying to fax it to the lawyer. Stupid me didn't make copies of a piece of paper that was 6 years old.

 

I'm going to call him on Monday and ask him to produce a copy of the supposed information they obtained from Experian. I already spoke with Experian once, but I'm going to half to cut my way through their front line people to someone who will send me proper documentation on exactly WHAT was reviewed.

I plan on pursing it.. what's the worst that can happen? Besides if I can prove NON-PP.. I've got'em. The arguement I'm trying to make is that I disputed the information for over 2 years.. and they never once pulled a review or a report. After I threaten to give them one last chance and show them copies of what's wrong.. they pull three..

I got a really good one if I can establish that they pulled a report to protect themselves from a law suit. Regardless I've got them on negligence. I need to find out if I can actually sue under 623 and win. The last portion (d) says that it's only enforceable by government and law enforcement.

I do work for them, but this is a personal matter. However I've filed a case with the FTC and California attorney general. In addition, since the reporting is blatantly wrong, I've got wilful negligence. They knew they reported it wrong and did so in an attempt to harm me. They even reaged the damn thing.

With all this going on my head really hurts, I've had a head ache for about a week now. Between all the stuff going on at work, the DHS transitions and this... geez.. it's a wonder I get that 3 hours of sleep a night.

 

Oh, you are probably going to see my name in lights.. I'm in this for the long run.. vengence is a problem I just can't shake and when I'm right.. I'm right..

I did good by them. The balance was high and I paid it off. Actually this whole things seems to be about $30. The CA got a $25 fee to collect. There was a late charge of $25. That leaves a balance of $35 owed to them.

Sheesh. They send it to CA on 7/1998, they called, I paid on 9/1998.. sounds like they REALLY worked hard and suffered a great loss here all this for a $35 balance I didn't realize was owed. (mind you I did pay the other $1500 directly to them.. which I though was the balance..).

 

Re: Re: Gurus Come Back!

I don't think there going to back down. However there sunk as Butch kindly pointed out.

I'm faxing off ONE final request to settle this damn thing. I want the judge to see that HEY.. I did try and not waste the courts time.

I just can't believe they let themselves get so sunk. The attorney barely scrapped the surface on my complaint regarding Duty of Furnishers..

The only thing they did was state the charge-off date as the date they first reported the account AND update the account to show paid..it still doesn't show a zero balance..

I'm gearing up.. so do me a favor.. if you see something that might..in any way.. be helpful.. then post it. I want to try and get the legal fees down. I have free access to Westlaw..and dammit.. I intend to use it.

 

Re: Re: Re: Gurus Come Back!

Tried that one already.. no dice.. no removal.. They still contest they are reporting it correct. I ask.. for those of you viewing.. do you think it's reported correctly? By the way.. Butch.. I'm in California..

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Gurus Come Back!

That makes me feel much better :> Unofficially I have three budding (lawschool) lawyers working on solutions to these things. I also have a seasoned attorney. However I'm looking to hire one who specializes in consumer credit stuff. Let me know if you guys know anyone.

I'm now wifeless, homeless, moneyless.. and my hair line is starting to go back.. just a little.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Gurus Come Back!

I have two more dispute chances.. since they updated the account with more bogus information, it reset my dispute count.

I've already disputed it at least 4-5X now.

Thanks for the extra info sassy.. could kiss ya.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Gurus Come Back!

Okay..

I went to look at my report this morning.. and low and behold.. what do I find.. a missing tradeline.

It looks like it's been deleted. I guess it's the whole issue is lame at this point.

When they updated the account, I got a chance to redispute it. I disputed Wednesday.. It was there last night.. but it's gone today.

Today, I feel like all the oxygen used to fight.. was wasted on their part.

(Darkdoj rushes off into the wilderness, mumbling something about stupid people and stupid lawyers..)

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Gurus Come Back!

You know, I'm happy.. but what a waste..they refuse to delete it.. and then end up doing just that..

I guess persistence does really pay off.