Has anyone noticed this before?

SUNHAWK · Apr 27, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone noticed this before?

Then you'll make a great lawyer.

Consumer Law I hope.

thanks! Actually, I had planned on going into Patent Law because I have a biology and psychology degree (I planned on being a doctor until last year).

However, I actually don't plan on becoming a lawyer. I am pretty much just going to law school for fun. I trade stock as my day job and also run a internet company.

I guess I just want to be able to say "I'm an attorney."

And, just for the record, these debts aren't mine. I am actually, out of the goodness of my heart, helping my sister clear hers up. I have a lot of extra time because I work from home and since I really like law, I thought, what the heck.

She messed her credit up a long time ago and she really needs my help so I'm trying. Similar to how you spend so much time counseling all these people on this message board (out of the goodness of your heart)and boy, I know I, along with everyone else, sure appreciates it! The only thing I am afraid of is that, if we go to court, she is going to have to be the one to speak and she really isn't familar with all this stuff. I don't believe I can speak on her behalf. This is why I am hoping they will file the basis of lawsuit with the actual lawsuit so she doesn't have to talk much

So far, I got her credit score up from being 5% better than the rest of the population to 55%! All because of the info I learned on this board! Thank you everyone and thank you Butch!!!!

Butch · Apr 27, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone noticed this before?

Originally posted by SUNHAWK

Do you think I should send them one more intent to sue or move forward? They actually bought the debt so I can't include the last part.

Click to expand...

I didn't see any dates or time frames on your convo's. or letters. It sounds like we should wait a while to see what he comes up with.

He said he requested docs., so lets see what he gets.

It'll be inadequate, of course.

Things like how old the item is, the amount, and what state you're in all weigh in the resolution strategy, stuff I've tried to answer without.

So far you've demonstrated your willingness to be a never ending MAJOR pain in the butt. That's exactly how to do this.

Butch · Apr 27, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone noticed this before?

Here's a few extra items that will help, especially with the CRA's;

Originally posted by Butch

CUSHMAN, v. TRANS UNION CORPORATION 115 F.3d 220, *; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 13576, **

We hold that in order to fulfill its obligation [**16] under Â§ 1681i(a) "a credit reporting agency may be required, in certain circumstances, to verify the accuracy of its initial source of information." Henson, 29 F.3d at 287. We further hold that "whether the credit reporting agency has a duty to go beyond the original source will depend" on a number of factors. Id. One of these is "whether the consumer has alerted the reporting agency to the possibility that the source may be unreliable or the reporting agency itself knows or should know that the source is unreliable."

Click to expand...

Butch · Apr 27, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone noticed this before?

Originally posted by Butch

Richardson V. Fleet, Wq. et al;

"The Court declines to say that relying on creditors for accurate credit information constitutes [*12] a reasonable procedure as a matter of law where, as here, the credit reporting agency had reason to know of the dispute between the plaintiffs and Equifax. See Bryant v. TRW, 689 F.2d 72, 77 (6th Cir. 1982) (where agency knew of dispute between consumer and creditors, confirming consumer's credit information with creditors constituted unreasonable procedure); Barron v. Trans Union Corp., 82 F. Supp. 2d at 1295-96. A credit reporting agency is initially entitled to rely on information contained in the reports issued by credit grantors, because it would be unduly burdensome and inefficient to require an agency to look beyond the face of every credit report. However, once notified that a consumer disputes the information contained in such records, exclusive reliance on such information is neither reasonable or justified. See Henson v. CSC Credit Servs., 29 F.3d 280, 285 (7th Cir. 1994) (credit reporting agency entitled to rely on court dockets to correctly recite consumer's credit history absent notice that information is flawed); Gill v. Kostroff, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1161, Civ.A. 98-930- T17A, 2000 WL 141258, at *6 (M.D. Fla. 2000).

Thus, "[a] [*13] credit reporting agency that has been notified of potentially inaccurate information in a consumer's credit report is in a very different position than one who has no such notice." Henson, 29 F.3d at 286."

I'll keep lookin.

Click to expand...

Butch · Apr 27, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone noticed this before?

Originally posted by Butch

http://www.cfac.org/CaseLaw/Cases/Schendorf_v_UD_Registry.html

CASELAW ON MAXIMUM ACCURACY

FAYE A. SCHOENDORF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
U.D. REGISTRY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents -- Calif Court of Appeals -- Complete case at http://www.cfac.org/Attachments/Sch...D_Registry.htm.

UD Reg is a CRA of sorts. They declined to update the plaintiff's report because they said it was correct as reported. Plaintiff sent supporting documentation (letters from neighbors disputing the events described in the report), copy of cancelled check showing the landlord had settled and paid HER. UD's defense was basically "this is all in the public record -- we're sorry she doesn't like the public record, but we're just reporting it as it appears."

The court said, "On appeal UDR contends that it was not required to make any changes in plaintiff' s report because the information she provided was not a matter of public record. We conclude that plaintiff made a sufficient showing that UDR should have modified her report even if the additional information was not contained in court files or similar sources. Accordingly, we reverse.

I LOVE THIS PART!!!

"UDR overlooks its broader obligations under the statutes as a credit reporting agency. Both [the] CCRAA and FCRA require 'maximum possible' accuracy. (Civ. Code, ÂË? 1785.14, subd. (b); 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b).) This means that a report violates the statutes when it is misleading or incomplete, even if it is technically accurate. . . . 'Congress did not limit the Act's mandate to reasonable procedures to assure only technical accuracy; to the contrary, the Act requires reasonable procedures to assure "maximum accuracy."

The Act's self-stated purpose is "to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit . . . in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information." 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b). Certainly reports containing factually correct information that nonetheless mislead their readers are neither maximally accurate nor fair to the consumer who is the subject of the reports.'" (Cisneros v. U.D. Registry, Inc., supra, 39 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 579-580, italics added.)
Click to expand...

SUNHAWK · Apr 27, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Has anyone noticed this before?

Thank you Butch!!!!!

Just let Trans Union continue to verify this debt. You sent me enough case law to easily show they were in error.

Sounds like if they verify again, I should get them on their 15 U.S.C. Â§ 1681i violations.

Thanks again....I really appreciate your help!

Oh, and BTW, I have been disputing the debt with the CA since January so I'm still contemplating whether I should give them one more chance. I think their violations have gone on long enough.

Log in / Register

Forums

Has anyone noticed this before?

SUNHAWK Well-Known Member

Butch Well-Known Member

Butch Well-Known Member

Butch Well-Known Member

Butch Well-Known Member

SUNHAWK Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in / Register

Useful Searches

Has anyone noticed this before?

SUNHAWK Well-Known Member

Butch Well-Known Member

Butch Well-Known Member

Butch Well-Known Member

Butch Well-Known Member

SUNHAWK Well-Known Member

Share This Page