Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken No problem ... any time you want. Thanks in advance!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken I think that's great advice. I didn't realize I was sending a "bill of particulars" when I sent letters detailing violations to the CRAs along with my offer to settle the case for tradline deletions, but I suppose that's exactly what those letter were. Thanks for keeping us posted about your case! Doc
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken UPDATE: The opposing attorney is playing hard ball and is asking the court to award over $2,000 in attorney's fees to defend against this so-called frivolous action!!! Here is the Bill of Particulars that I filed: COMES NOW the Plaintiff and moves the Court for judgment against the Defendant for the following reasons: 1. Plaintiff observed from reviewing his Experian credit reports that Orchard Bank had reviewed the Plaintiff's credit history on September 27, 2001. 2. Plaintiff wrote to Orchard Bank at the address provided by the credit bureau and requested an explanation of the permissible purpose for obtaining the Plaintiff's consumer report on September 27, 2001. 3. Plaintiff received a letter from Household Credit Services Inc., an affiliate of Household Bank, stating the alleged purpose for the credit inquiry on September 27, 2001. 4. Plaintiff contends that the letter from Household Credit Services Inc. does not provide a valid permissible purpose for reviewing the Plaintiff's credit file on September 27, 2001. 5. Plaintiff understands that Orchard Bank was acquired in 2000 by Household Bank, that Orchard Bank is now a division of Household Bank, that Household Credit Services Inc. is an affiliate of Household Bank, and that Household Bank is a subsidiary of Household International Inc. 6. 15 U.S.C. 1681 provides for statutory damages of $1000 for obtaining a consumer report without having a valid permissible purpose. The review of the Plaintiff's credit history on September 27, 2001 without a valid permissible purpose constitutes a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1681. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff moves this Court for judgment against the Defendant in the amount of $1000 with interest from the 2nd day of December, 2003 plus $53 court costs. Here is the attorney's response: DEMURRER COMES NOW, Household International Inc., and demurs to the allegations in the Bill of Particulars filed by the Plaintiff. 1. According to Plaintiff's own statements, Household International did not take any of the actions alleged in the Bill. Rather, "Orchard Bank", a division of "Household Bank", is alleged to have reviewed Plaintiff's credit history without a valid purpose on September 27, 2001. 2. Household Bank is wholly owned by Household International, which is a publicly traded holding company. Plaintiff seems to be aware of this relationship, as the Bill states that Household bank is a subsidiary of Household International Inc. 3. Because it is a legally separate entity that is not even alleged to have committed the act complained of in the Bill, Household International demurs to the allegations in the Bill. WHEREFORE, Household International respectfully requests that this Court dismiss with prejudice the Warrant in Debt filed by the Plaintiff and that it grant Household International such additional and further relief as is appropriate and just. GROUNDS OF DEFENSE COMES NOW, Household International, and submits the following as its Grounds of Defense: 4. Household International admits allegations 2, 3, and 5 of the Bill. 5. Household International denies allegation 4 of the Bill. 6. Household International has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Bill, and accordingly denies these allegations. 7. Household International asserts that the allegations in paragraph 6 in the Bill draws a legal conclusion. Household International disagrees with this conclusion, and accordingly denies these allegations. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 8. In September 2001, Household Bank submitted specific credit criteria to Experian, a national credit reporting agency, requesting that Experian provide a list of names of consumers who meet the established credit criteria. 9. Experian included Plaintiff's name and address in the list that was responsive to Household Bank's request. 10. Consequently, as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Household Bank mailed a firm offer of credit to Plaintiff, a sample of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 11. At the conclusion of this process, Household Bank requested that Experian place the promotional inquiry in question on the credit record of each person who received such a firm offer of credit, including Plaintiff. This entire practice is specifically authorized by the FCRA. 12. This type of inquiry has no bearing on a consumer's credit rating, is for informational purposes only, and can only be seen by the consumer upon their review of their own credit report. 13. As noted in the Bill, in response to his request Plaintiff received a letter explaining this process. Nonetheless, Plaintiff chose to bring this action. REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 14. Household has incurred costs to defend itself in this action, which, as shown above, is without merit, frivolous, and filed in bad faith. Indeed, this Court may take judicial notice that Plaintiff has filed at least four other Warrants in Debt in this Court since March 2003 against various companies that provide consumer credit, all of which sought $1,000 in damages together with costs. Based on this history, Household International believes that Plaintiff may be filing these Warrants in Debt solely for the purpose of harassment and with the goal of obtaining a default judgment against a defendant that may decide not to incur the legal expenses necessary to oppose an action for what is a relatively small sum. 15. Both sections 1681n and 1681o of the FCRA provide for an award of reasonable attorney's fees "upon a finding by the court that an unsuccessful pleading, motion, or other paper filed in connection with an action under this section was filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment." 16. Household International is unable to calculate the total attorney's fees that it will incur in defending against this frivolous action: however, it expects them to be at least $2,000 and reserves the right to submit evidence of the same at a trial of this matter. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Household International prays that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Warrant in Debt with prejudice, and award reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Household International to defend itself in this matter. This high-powered attorney for Household International is out to get greenvan and remove over $2,000 from greenvan's checking account for filing a frivolous lawsuit...would anyone like to take my place in court next week?
Greenvan, IMHO since in their original letter, they led you to believe by their stupid answer, that you had a case for no PP, you started the suit in good faith. I think the attorney is blowing smoke to get you to drop it. But you really need to get something in writing from Experian.
This part is scary though: REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 14. Household has incurred costs to defend itself in this action, which, as shown above, is without merit, frivolous, and filed in bad faith. Indeed, this Court may take judicial notice that Plaintiff has filed at least four other Warrants in Debt in this Court since March 2003 against various companies that provide consumer credit, all of which sought $1,000 in damages together with costs. Based on this history, Household International believes that Plaintiff may be filing these Warrants in Debt solely for the purpose of harassment and with the goal of obtaining a default judgment against a defendant that may decide not to incur the legal expenses necessary to oppose an action for what is a relatively small sum.
jlynn, I agree that I started this suit in good faith based on their original letter to me and am not really worried about having to pay THEIR attorney's fees. One lawsuit against Household International filed in good faith hardly rises to the level of harassment! I am not dropping the case, and I am hanging my hat on their original letter in which they stated in writing that they had performed an account review. My position is that this company has no credibility: they tell me one thing before being sued, then tell me something else after I sue them. What will be their new story tomorrow? I tried to get something in writing from Experian but they wouldn't cooperate. I wrote a letter to Experian asking them to provide the PP category (AR, PRM, etc.) for all the "soft" inquiries on my CR. They sent me the standard kiss-off letter. I intend to present this to the judge with the argument that both Experian and Household refused to tell me the PP for this inquiry. How can I know the PP or prove that they did not have PP when both the CRA and the creditor refuse to reveal that information? The only way I can find out is to ask...which I did, and was told by Household that it was an AR.
This doesn't scare me either. First, my past actions in the Court against other companies have absolutely no bearing on this case and are totally irrelevant. Second, all of my past cases were filed in good faith against companies who had violated the FCRA. These cases happened to all be PP inquiry cases in which the statutory violation was $1000, therefore making them all $1000 cases. In each case I sent the company involved an offer to settle prior to the trial, which they all refused. Their failure to appear in court is simply an acknowledgment that they had no viable defense to my complaint. His charge of "harassment" is again groundless. The reason I filed the Warrants in Debt was to collect the $1000 that each of these companies owed me for breaking the law, invading my privacy, and violating the FCRA.
Hey GV. Preposterous !!!!! In Bill #1 1. Plaintiff observed from reviewing his Experian credit reports that Orchard Bank had reviewed the Plaintiff's credit history on September 27, 2001. Orchard pulls CR on 9/27/01, records and archives the pull in their system of records. In Bill #5 5. Plaintiff understands that Orchard Bank was acquired in 2000 by Household Bank, that Orchard Bank is now a division of Household Bank, that Household Credit Services Inc. is an affiliate of Household Bank, and that Household Bank is a subsidiary of Household International Inc. Def. admits (in answer #4) that your understanding of the corporate hierarchy, as you stated in # 5 is correct. Which means Household International is the holding company for ALL of these companies, including Orchard. How is it possible then, that as in Def. Grounds for Defense #6 6. Household International has insufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Bill, and accordingly denies these allegations. Cutting out all the middle men, Household Bank and Household Credit Services, the bottom line is that Household International owns (acquired) Orchard in 2000. Yet they are without sufficient knowledge as to your #1? How could a consumer possibly get to the bottom of this [your honor] if the new owner of Orchard Bank, (Household Int.) is incapable of examining their own records so as to gain sufficient knowledge? Your assertion that you lack sufficient knowledge is preposterous! Imagine your oponent on the witness stand: In light of the afformentioned [DOCUMENTED] facts, one of the following 4 scenarios's MUST be the case You are horribly incompetent and cannot find the records You are too lazy to look You were stupid enough to acquire Orchard only, WITHOUT all their records, or You're a big fat liar Which answer is correct? Being a liar, stupid or incompetent doesn't leave much wriggle room Moreover, why the hell does your Exp. CR say Orchard, when Orchard was acquired in 2000? 1 year PRIOR to the pull! Either Household did the pull and inserted the name Orchard, in violation of the FCRA, or Orchard did the pull and even though you own Orchard you are still without sufficient knowledge, or you're a big fat liar, which is it? Developing: .
Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken Isn't that obvious from the following: From "Bill of Particulars": [color=0066FF]1. Plaintiff observed from reviewing his Experian credit reports that Orchard Bank had reviewed the Plaintiff's credit history on September 27, 2001.[/color] From "AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE": [color=0066FF]8. In September 2001, Household Bank submitted specific credit criteria to Experian, a national credit reporting agency, requesting that Experian provide a list of names of consumers who meet the established credit criteria.[/color] Just curious ...
Bump Even though the FTC comment refers to FDCPA, I don't believe it too much of a stretch to expand the comment to all of consumer protection law, which includes the FCRA. Voluntary compliance with consumer protection law is acheived with a 2 Pronged Approach: Consumer and Industry Education: The First Prong of the FDCPA Program Enforcement: The Second Prong of the FDCPA Program Every consumer who learns which debt collection tactics are illegal and asserts their FDCPA self-help rights assists the Commission in policing the collection industry. Every debt collector who hears or reads about FDCPA compliance issues is that much more likely to comply with the Act without the need for a Commission investigation. Thus, both consumer education and industry education encourage voluntary compliance by debt collectors and conserve the Commission's enforcement resources. NONcompliance by both Debt Collectors and Original Creditors is so rampant that even the FTC has requested help from the general public. Statistics constantly demonstrate that as many as HALF of the CR's may contain errors. As evidence that the public is relied upon to encourage compliance, Congress inserted our private right of action in these issues. As in the instant case, they even developed a statutory fine of $1,000, no questions asked, should a plaintiff prevail. The government DEPENDS on guy's like GV to help, precisely through the avenue of litigation, to encourage these perpetual law breakers to follow the law. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to this, or any other court that if one out of perhaps a million consumers, like Greenvan, takes the time to gain the knowledge to turn to the courts when his rights are violated, he may indeed file numerous suits, and thus answer the FTC's call for help. Moreover, it may be interesting to note that even though 4 previous suits have been filed by this plaintiff, all 4 were victorious. developing: .
Re: Re: Bump GV's opponent "lacks sufficient knowledge" alright. The nitwit doesn't even know the difference between a "PRM" and a "soft" inq. If it's a PRM then there has been no violation. BUT, in his letter to GV he states clearly, "an account review". An AR is soft but it does reveal ALL the info. in ones file. So without a PP it's a violation. He even seems to think that since a soft is a soft (meaning nobody else but GV can see it) this somehow should absolve them from liability. Preposterous. In either case, whether a PRM or a soft, GV should not be held to have filed a frivolous case for harassment. In the case of the former a violation DOES exist. In the case of the latter, even tho a violation doesn't exist, GV was led to believe there WAS a violation because the D1psh1t told him it was an ar. GV should have sued BOTH EXP and the OC, and then agree to drop whichever party co-operated in supplying the necessary affidavits. Which probably would have been EXP. As it stands now he can't get answers from EXP. He could however subpoena them I think. Teehee. .
Re: Re: Bump Butch, I was talking about my post on the previous page ... It was in between your two posts, so you might have missed it ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken Yes, Greenvan, it does seem like they are playing hardball with you. Play hardball back. 1) I don't think Exp will give you anything in writing...BUT...I would write EXP via CCCR and insist EXP investigate the non-pp with Household as it is a violation of your PRIVACY and EXP has an obligation to protect it per the FCRA. Send them a copy of the letter admitting it was an AR inquiry, in which you have no accounts with Household. 2) After you win in small claims, forward the case over to EXP and tell them you EXPECT EXP to hold Household accountable for wrongfully certifying they had a permissible purpose for accessing your credit report: Section 616 FCRA(b) Civil liability for knowing noncompliance. Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or $1,000, whichever is greater. You win in small claims, EXP should honor the decision and fine Household $1k, otherwise, it would appear EXP is supporting creditors and CA's in non-pp inquiries. Now the suit might cost Household double in damages. CRA's don't take non-pp's seriously, as do neither some creditors. THAT IS WHY you have filed so many non-pp's, some creditors are accustomed to violating your privacy, while the CRA's are often complacent in letting them. But it wasn't ok with congress and all the consumers they represent when they enacted the FCRA, in which one of the intentions was to protect your privacy. If the law isn't enforced, then creditors will continue snooping into our private files (for who knows what reason) that are supposed to be protected. When the lawyer pushes the issue of your previous suits, I would just say something like: "When creditors such as Household start obeying the law and respecting my privacy by not browsing through my personal and confidential information, illegally, I'll stop filing complaints."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken Oh and BTW greenvan, my dh applied for an ORCHARD bank card that he received over a year ago. But on his Evil Exp reports, the inquiries were done by Household, not Orchard. Household still does inquiries on my dh's report from time to time, even though his cc says ORCHARD bank. Orchard bank has never been listed as an inquiry and the account reports under Household, but the CC clearly says Orchard.
I am not a lawyer, but I have been in regular civil court, so given the caveat that this advice is free and probably worth what you paid for it. 1. READ AND UNDERSTAND your local court rules. Depending on the state and the competency of the other side's attorney , it may be easy to have the case transferred to the Federal court. 2. Once you are in regular civil court, you are held to the same standard as an attorney in the matter of scheduling the case. You are expected to cooperate with the other side regarding continuance requests. In my court, before scheduling law and motion hearings you have to contact the other side to confirm the court date. 3. It appears that Household has raised a bunch of affirmative defenses which may or not have merit. However, all - ( or in 98% of the time as one can file an amended ) - affirmative answers need to be ASSERTED when the answer is filed. In one case , I have raised 22 affirmative defenses. 4. Bill of Particulars is just a fancy word for a statement of the account.
Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken That's a very good point Butch! I stated that Orchard Bank reviewed my credit history on 9-27-01. Household International should know whether that is true or not and be able to either admit or deny it. The fact that they can't shows they are incompetent, lazy, don't have the records, or are lying.
Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken That's a very good question. I also have another inquiry from Orchard dated May 2003. This tells me that Household is still pulling inquiries under the Orchard name (just to confuse us, I suppose). This might even be illegal and could be grounds for further litigation.
Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken I think you are making a good argument. It's obvious from reading the grounds of defense that Household performed all of these actions, yet the name on the inquiry is Orchard Bank. Now the question is, can Household Bank legally pull credit reports under the name of Orchard Bank, which is simply a division of Household Bank? FCRA 609 states the following: (3)(A) Identification of each person (including each end-user identified under section 607(e)(1) [§ 1681e]) that procured a consumer report (i) for employment purposes, during the 2-year period preceding the date on which the request is made; or (ii) for any other purpose, during the 1-year period preceding the date on which the request is made. (B) An identification of a person under subparagraph (A) shall include (i) the name of the person or, if applicable, the trade name (written in full) under which such person conducts business; and (ii) upon request of the consumer, the address and telephone number of the person. What is the trade name under which Household conducts business? Is it Orchard Bank? I suppose they could argue that their credit inquiries are done solely to solicit business for their Orchard Bank brand name credit cards...but then they would have to prove that none of the credit information was used by Household Bank since they were not listed as being an end-user. Interesting...I'll have to sleep on this one.
