I'm trying to make a case with an attorney for a credit card that was paid after charge-off. History: Tried to plead nicely to have removed based on fact that it was paid. No results. Noticed that Tradeline was incorrect. The date it was reported is three months before the date it was opened, an obvious error, that I disputed with CRA only to have it verified as being correct. Sent letter stating that accout was reported incorrectly and should be listed as paid charge-off. Currently shows as closed/charge-off $85 past due on Experian and as a paid charge-off on Transunion. It was deleted from Equifax without question. Company refuses to acknowledge anything is wrong with the way they reported it for over a year. I don't have a lot of time to follow up on it so the issue is dropped for a while. In August I sent a letter requesting removal based on the fact the tradeline was reported incorrectly. I sent copies of Experian showing tradline for them to review. They pulled two soft inquiries on my report on 9/3. I sent them a follow-up stating that they had no right to pull my report and that they were breaking the law. They pulled another in response to that on 9/15. 10/9 - I get a call from their attorney. He states that I have no justification to extort money from his client based on the fact they had permissible purpose to view my credit report. In addition he states that they did not actually pull the entire report, just the account in question. However all Experian tells me on the phone is that a soft inquiry was made and a report was given. I looked over the Gowen-Isaac letter from the FTC Staff Opinion page on the internet. I think it applies to me. This account is over 5 years old or more. It's scheduled to fall off in another year. Since the account had a definite open date and was closed sometime ago, I believe the account would be a closed-end contract. If this is the case and I am reading the Gowen-Isaac letter right, the original creditor must still obtain written permission from me to review the tradeline because the account was closed and they had no further business relationship with me. My dispute has been the account is being reported incorrectly. The attorney said I needed to relook at 604, however, I cannot find anything wrong with my original findings. My reasoning: The staff opinion states that the intent of the congress was to limit the review of reports on close-end accounts. Since the account status, terms and reporting has not changed in over 5 years, and the account is paid, I believe the Creditor had no permissible purpose to review the tradeline or obtain a copy of my report. In addition, because I sent them a copy, they didn't even need to make an inquiry. Instead of using mine, they made three inquiries - albeit soft ones. I'm going to continue on with my settlement offer with them, which is to delete the tradeline and inquiries and send a check for $1500 ($500 per inquiry). I know it's $1000 per inquiry in Federal, I'm trying to be fair. However under California law, if an inquiry is not permissible the fine jumps to $5000 per inquiry or violation. I'm willing to settle for the $1500 or even just plain deletion, but it's taking a lot of time and they refuse to budge. Here's my question: Am I correct in stating the account is closed-end because it had a definite start and stop date? Am I correct that they had no permissible purpose because the business relationship ended over 5 years ago when it was paid? Is there enough to hold their feet to the fire with the date screw up? In addition to that, they state the balance is $0 but on my experian report it's listed as NA, which by Experian's key means that it's not available because the creditor has not updated the report in sometime or that they don't know. The report is listed as Account Closed/Charge-off $85 past due. Monthly payment is $0. Balance is NA. Quick response is appreciated. I need this removed and if I'm right on this, I need to get it settled one way or another.
Am I correct in stating the account is closed-end because it had a definite start and stop date? Am I correct that they had no permissible purpose because the business relationship ended over 5 years ago when it was paid? darkdoj ================= yes THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
WAVINGGGGGGG to you dark!!!!!!!! If you paid it, the relationship is over. The only one that needs to review section 604 again is the attorney you've been talking to, I say!!!!!! Sassy
Did you get the email I sent you in response to your request? I never got a response. Finally something pays off big for me. This one could be huge. $5k per violation under California Law and $1k per violation under Federal Law. I wonder if I can sue under Federal and then sue under state law? Anyone know the answer?
oh wow, dark, no I didn't get it. I thought you weren't able to find out, shoot!!!!!!! Can you try again, pretty please with sugar on top? Persistence always pays off, good on you for paying attention. Sassy
BTW, I don't think you can sue under federal law and then again under state, you can claim the violations under both though. Res Judicata: RES JUDICATA - Lat. "the thing has been decided" The principle that a final judgement of a competent court is conclusive upon the parties in any subsequent litigation involving the same cause of action. The general rule is that a plaintiff who has prosecuted one action against a defendant and obtained a valid final judgment is barred by res judicata from prosecuting another action against the same defendant where (a) the claim in the second action is one which is based on the same factual transaction that was at issue in the first; (b) the plaintiff seeks a remedy additional or alternative to the one sought earlier; and (c) the claim is of such a nature as could have been joined in the first action. Underlying this standard is the need to strike a delicate balance between the interests of the defendant and of the courts in bringing litigation to a close and the interest of the plaintiff in the vindication of a just claim. Sassy
Re: Re: Guru's Only Please It's going to take me a couple of days, I'm currently in Washington.. working on a interesting project (you may or may not hear about it on the news), and it's at home. If you resend your request (I'll check my home email via the web), I can look it up again for you or I can just go down to that persons office and see if I can't get them to call you.. either way.. we'll get it taken care of for you.
Re: Re: Guru's Only Please I remember Res Judicata, ahh yes.. all comming back to me now. However I can do multiple complaints one for state and one for Federal, since Federal law has already determined that the inquiries were non-permissible. I don't remember if California's law provides definition of what permissible purpose actually is or not, I'll have to go look at that again. However this is a scare tactic and I'm not falling for it. They've been BSing me forever. It's time to resolve it one way or another. BTW they are good at telling the future: Reported Since: 09/1997 Date Opened: 11/1997 They reported it before I opened the account! Remarkable, these people should play the lottery.
Re: Re: Guru's Only Please Hi Dark, You mentioned earlier that it's reported with a balance of $85. I assume this is mistaken, and that you're quite sure it's paid off and closed? If there's a balance they may have a collection purpose. If you're sure, it would make no difference whether it's closed or open. The conclusion of a relationship is just that, it's over. Whether it happened 5 years ago or yesterday is also irrelevent. Whether soft or hard is irrelevent and they cannot pull only one TL, (as far as I know). They either get a report or the "header" for marketing purposes. Just wanna make sure we're not missin anything here. Sounds like you got em pretty good.
Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please They themselves have proven the account was paid. I have a letter from the Executive Office to prove it. In the letter she clearly states that it was paid by me and the date when it was paid. They don't dispute that it was paid. They simply state that they had permissible purpose to review the account in question. Experian told me the same thing that you mentioned. Either they pulled a report or they didn't. If an inquiry was made, a report was pulled. There is no collection purpose. I have one other question in relation to another account along the same lines: If a company charges off an account (mind you 5+ years ago too), and sells that account, do they have a permissible purpose to review or obtain a copy of my report as well? Doesn't the relationship between us end when they sold the account? I have another person standing next to me that this has happened to. I would think that once it's either paid or sold off to someone else the original creditor cannot review the report.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please Hey Butch, Any luck with checking into this one? I'm still awaiting a response from the Attorney, I guess he doesn't feel the need to call me back and there's no reason I should call him and waste money talking mute points to him.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please Update: Sent attorney fax on 10/12, didn't get a response on Monday so I sent two more faxes enclosing the Greeblatt and Watkins letters to him. Contact him a few minutes ago to find out if I have his correct fax number and if he recieved the letters. "Hi, my name is Darkdoj and I'm calling in reference to the faxes I sent your to your office in regards to XYZ Company". "What faxes are you referring to Mr. Doj?" "Specifically the fax I sent on 10/12 and the two that were sent to your office this afternoon". "Yes I am in receipt of those faxes, Mr. Doj. I also sent you a letter today in the mail". He didn't sound very nice this time. I take it he feels that he lost. I'll tell the name of the company when I get the letter / or if I'm forced to sue them. You WILL love who it is.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please Just so I know, who on this board is considered a "guru"? I had some helpful information for this person, but they only wanted the guru's to respond.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please dark, That update reads like a cliffhanger ;-) be sure to post back what it is please!!!!!!!! And, she completed service already, so no worries, we figured it out the hard way, LOL (what else is new, eh)? You may enjoy the summary though: http://www.creditsuit.org/blog/archives/000121.html jrjr, No gurus from my slice of the world in the cheap seats, I like dark and that was what attracted me to the thread, not the title -- post your piece!!!!!!! Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please Sassy, I'm confused. Your link seems to address something unrelated. I can't find anything to demonstrate that the relationship ENDS with the OC, once the OC sells the debt, even though it's unpaid. My position would be that it does, but can't find anything definitive. Do you know where we need to look? Or am I missin something? ???
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please Butch, You are tooooooooo easy LOL Dark refers above to an email that I didn't get, and asked me to re-send the information. I don't need to resend the information because we already figured it out, I just thought he would enjoy the summary of Christine's interactions with DOJ in trying to figure out how to effectuate service of process. Dark found the information he needs, in the FTC opinion letters that he sent. I thought that was a done deal. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please Butch, I called the FTC. They still pointed me back to the Isaac-Gowen letter. However, I still cannot find definitive proof that an OC has no rights when sold. I guess that's left up to the contract with the collection agency. However, what may be of importance (and the reason I brought it up in my thread) was that this is the same company I'm dealing with. Their letter to him says that the balance on his account is $0 and that they no longer service the account and to contact the collection agency. It specifically says they sold the account. Seems to me like the CA owns the debt now permanently. Contractual relationship has to transfer from OC to CA, especially if it's sold and not assigned. In the case of selling it, I would figure it's just like selling my car: If I sell you my car, I can't come back and get it later. Once we agree on a price and I transfer title to you, it's yours. Unless of course I give you your money back and we agree to reverse the deal. So unless they magically buy it back, there's nothing they can do. On my case: Yes, it's a cliff hanger for all of us. I'm proceeding Friday 9:30AM unless I recieve my check, apology letter and deletion notice before 8:00AM, when their deadline to settle ends. I'm sure the attorney will spout off some BS. Interesting attorney though, too bad in California Small claims he cannot represent their company :> I'd love to chew him a new one in court.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guru's Only Please Butch, I called the FTC. They still pointed me back to the Isaac-Gowen letter. However, I still cannot find definitive proof that an OC has no rights when sold. I guess that's left up to the contract with the collection agency. However, what may be of importance (and the reason I brought it up in my thread) was that this is the same company I'm dealing with. Their letter to him says that the balance on his account is $0 and that they no longer service the account and to contact the collection agency. It specifically says they sold the account. Seems to me like the CA owns the debt now permanently. Contractual relationship has to transfer from OC to CA, especially if it's sold and not assigned. In the case of selling it, I would figure it's just like selling my car: If I sell you my car, I can't come back and get it later. Once we agree on a price and I transfer title to you, it's yours. Unless of course I give you your money back and we agree to reverse the deal. So unless they magically buy it back, there's nothing they can do. On my case: Yes, it's a cliff hanger for all of us. I'm proceeding Friday 9:30AM unless I recieve my check, apology letter and deletion notice before 8:00AM, when their deadline to settle ends. I'm sure the attorney will spout off some BS. Interesting attorney though, too bad in California Small claims he cannot represent their company :> I'd love to chew him a new one in court.
