Hammer or velvet--- A quandary

OK here's the letter, with names changed to protect the victorious. You'll see that it borrows heavily from Bill Bauer's Knockout Letter and Doc's Nutcase letter with some improvisations of my own thrown in.

7/10/02
Catherine Steinhauer
Recovery Department
Chevron
PO Box 5010
Concord, CA 94524-5010
Re: Account Number xxxxxxxxxx

Dear Catherine:

It has come to my attention that Chevron has in place a derogatory remark on my credit bureau files
pursuant to my having paid you what you claimed that I owed you and Chevron.

When I paid you, I relied upon the belief that you would do the honorable thing and remove your nasty and derogatory comments from my credit bureau files which you not only failed to do but actually changed my listing to paid charge-off which is a far worse rating in the eyes of any potential future
creditors. In doing so, you obviously failed to realize that the Doctrine of Estoppel directly applies to this type of situation and is cause and more than sufficient grounds for my pending lawsuit against you for punitive damages in whatever amount a jury might deem appropriate for your violation of the estoppel doctrine of law.

Here is what the Doctrine of Estoppel is and how it applies to your violations of it. In order for the doctrine of estoppel to apply, the party of the first part (you, the collector) must make some statement or engage in some conduct upon which I have relied and acted upon which later proved to be to my detriment or prejudice.

In your communications with me you told me that you would update my credit reports as soon as I had paid the debt to you. Quite naturally, I assumed and relied upon your statement to that effect to mean that you would mark the account as "paid as agreed" or even quite possibly remove it entirely. Instead, the entry on my credit reports still reflects a status of 120 days past due (see attachment). Additionally, this account is reported as â??Payments Managed by Credit Counsel Service.â? This single erroneous entry has caused me to be denied credit as the attached documents attest. It is currently preventing me from obtaining favorable terms on a mortgage. I have asked for correction, both directly and through the Credit Reporting Agencies. Each time it has merely been re-verified. I should point out, though I have no doubt you are aware, that each of these instances constitutes a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and is separately actionable. Applicable sections of the FCRA violated by Chevron include (but is not limited to) Sections 605 (c)(1), 623 (a)(1)(A), 623 (a)(1)(B), 623 (a)(2), and 623 (a)(3), with multiple documented violations of each section.

I am quite confident that both you and a court of law will agree that my assumption was a perfectly
reasonable assumption for an average debtor to make. And so, based on that assumption I agreed to pay the debt and in fact did so in April 2001 whereupon you actually worsened my credit bureau scores and that was most definitely to my detriment and prejudice and provided me with grounds to sue you for the full amount paid plus attorney fees, court costs and whatever additional punitive damages a jury might award.

I have provably asked for your organization to correct the erroneous information in my credit reports, yet the false derogatory information still persists in my credit report on numerous occasions. Rest assured that I have kept ample records, consisting of (but not limited to) Certified Mail Return Receipts, phone logs, periodic copies of my credit reports showing the erroneous listing (the ONLY negative listing in Equifax and Experian reports), and letters of rejection for new lines of credit that directly attribute their refusal to extend credit to the presence of a currently past due on my Experian and Equifax credit reports.

These would constitute provable damages, would they not? I do think they would, particularly in light of Nelson v Chase Manhattan. Therefore, unless you move to cure your error and completely remove your derogatory tradelines from my public records, as well as those of my wife, The Lovely Mrs. Quixote, also listed on the account, within 15 days of your receipt of this letter and provide proof of your cooperation with my demand in the form of mailing, faxing, or e-mailing me a copy of your UDF which you transmitted to the credit bureaus demanding the removal I shall immediately move to file against you in a court of law with jury trial demanded.

I am quite well aware that you have a contractual agreement with the credit bureaus which covers this
problem and supposedly prevents you from compliance with my demands, but a contract which is in violation of the law is null and void and of no force and effect whatsoever and therefore cannot be
enforced either by you or upon you. Your so-called contract with the credit bureaus will not protect you for your willful violation of my rights which are protected by the Doctrine of Estoppel.

Your failure to cure and provide me with proof of your having cured the problem within 15 days after your provable receipt of this letter will be considered sufficient reason to refer this matter to the courts for their resolution.

While you may think that I have no right of private action due to the way FCRA is worded, let me hasten to assure you that such beliefs are quite ungrounded and false. That point has been vividly illustrated by the ruling of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Nelson v Chase Manhattan, March 3, 2002 in which the court pointed out that Section 1681s-2(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act creates a cause of action for a consumer against a furnisher of erroneous credit information. But my pending suit against you will not be about FDCPA nor FCRA but about how you have damaged me after I acted in good faith in dealing with you.

Thank you and I look forward to resolving this most expeditiously.

Sincerely,

Wile E Quixote

cc: Gregory Sheffer, esq and Cliff Chanler, esq
Federal Trade Commission
California Attorney General
Ohio Attorney General

Enclosure:
Equifax Screen Shot showing 120 day status
Juniper Denial of Credit
Direct Merchantâ??s Bank Denial of Credit
American Express Denial of Credit

 

Big Thanks to Doc and Bill B for laying the groundwork for that letter. A couple of my personal touches that may be lost on the reader are as follows:

- Documented all of the sections of the FCRA I intended to file suit on. I think that helps in creating the sense that I really do intend to act on this.

- The cc'd attorneys are big time Class Action Lawyers based about three blocks from Chevron's Headqurters. I'm guessing that Chevron has heard of them. They can certainly be found in a quick web search. I hope they don't send me a bill.

- Applied for several lines of credit knowing full well I'd be turned down flat. I wanted the evidence. (BTW, I disputed the inquiries the same day I applied and these are all gone.)

-Maintained the desired overall "Frothing at the mouth, I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more, Someone's gonna pay for this, I think I'm going postal" tone of prior iterations of the Nutcase and Knockout letters. Makes it seem as if I'm going to be a thorn in their backside for the indefinite future.

- You might have noticed that I cc'd the California Attorney General. Makes sense since Chevron is based in California and so am I. You might wonder, however, why I also notified the Attorney General in Ohio. The sad truth is that I copied and pasted most of this from a similar letter I sent to Macy's (in Ohio) and I forgot to edit that out. Who knows? It might have helped. Maybe I should have added Kansas too. Why? Why Not?

- Lastly, and I think most importantly, I mentioned Nelson v Chase Manhattan several times. I don't know who Nelson is, but if you ever meet him (or her), give him (or her) a big wet kiss from Quixote. That case is the best thing that's ever happened to us collectively. In my observation, the people we are fighting with are very aware of it (I know for a fact Cap1 is keenly aware of it- but that's another story). They don't want that case cited against them in court. They don't want the same thing to happen to them.

There's no way to know what part or parts played the biggest role in this. I suspect that the real edge is the sheer volume (in both senses of the word) of ranting and specific threats of action. But, who knows? I could've just gotten lucky.

 

For the first time, in Nelson v Chase Manhattan the courts (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals- which covers the Western US) have held the furnishers of credit related information legally responsible for the information which they have provided. In the case of Nelson he was denied a mortgage due to an erroneous entry on his credit reports. He had tried all the obvious things; called and wrote the OC direct, disputed with the CRA, all to no avail. Sound familiar? We hear stories like that all the time around here. In his case, the courts found that Chase was liable for Nelson's having been turned down for a mortgage based on their false information. SCHWING!!

Happened to me too. Chevron cetainly could have reported a paid chargeoff accurately against me, and I would have little recourse. The thing is, it wasn't completely accurate. It said Paid Charge off and was otherwise correct on Experian. But, on Equifax, it said Paid Charge Off- 120 Days Past Due. Over the last year I have disputed it several times with no success. I sent all sorts of validation letters, estoppel letters, etc. As an OC, they could rightly have ignored them. They didn't. They sent me back a complete history of the account, including a copy of my original application with signature. They gave me no quarter at all. Upon learning of Nelson, I went about applying for credit cards that would most likely pull Equifax, knowing there was no way they would approve me with a current 120 day late account on there. That gave me provable damages and set the stage for the letter I posted above, invoking Nelson v Chase Manhattan. I am firmly convinced that the Nelson component of the letter is the most critical piece. I know for sure it was critical in my Verbal Nutcase Discussion with Cap1 (see other thread-link above).

Did you read Catch-22 in high school? It's still my favorite book. I've probably read it seven or eight times and it keeps getting funnier every time I read it. The cynicism reaches you on different levels as you get older, I think. In case you missed it, at one point in the book (and only one point), the author gives the actual definition of Catch-22. It goes like this: They can do whatever you can't stop them from doing.

Up until now, anybody with any innacurate piece of information on their credit reports that the creditor didn't feel like fixing was caught in a classic Catch-22. The furnishers (They) could do it because we could not stop them from doing it.

Now, thanks to Nelson, we can.

 

Besides, 443 words divided by 63 minutes from your post to mine equals 7.03 words per minute. As a confirmed two-fingered typist, that sound about right. ;^)

 

I can't find in any other format than pdf, but, for the record, here's the link in case anybody needs it. As far as I'm concerned the more people who read that, the better. It's a shame that it only has the force of law in the 9th District, but I suspect that any other court would take it in advisement, particularly since the reasoning is so airtight.

BTW, thanks for the offer of help. Barring unforeseen events, Chevron is Over. I got another signed letter today confirming what I have already seen. Those tradelines are history. All that's left now is Macy's. Despite my best efforts, I may end up in court with them. What the hell, I'm unemployed for the moment. I could use the money.

 

They offered me deletion of the inquiry and the paid charge off in exchange for dropping the suit. I sent out my reply today; telling them to pound sand, and offering once again to drop the suit in exchange for the deletions plus $2500. Should be fun...

 

It takes more than asking a good question to get 30 lashes . Sorry I missed it the first time. (Disclosure: I am not a lawyer, so take my opinion as only that, my opinion).

It seems to me that if you can show that you were denied for credit because of a specific negative on your credit report, that on the face of it (I think lawyers call it prima facia-"first face") it's clear that you've been damaged. The law doesn't need to address the specifics of your damage. Imagine if the law had to specify every eventuality. There's not enough ink in the word to print that all out.

The other possibilities you mentioned; not applying out of fear, etc. I would guess would be harder to prove. When I was going after Chevron, I applied for cards I knew would check the CR's that the Chevron derog was showing on. I wanted the concrete evidence. I believe it helped.

Look up Nelson v Chase Manhattan both here at CN and by running a Google search. Read the actual text of the decision. There's a link in one of my earlier posts in this thread. Mr. Nelson was "damaged' when he was denied a mortgage because of an innacurate derogatory listing on his CR that Chase had refused to correct. He fixed their little red wagon but good.