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 ========================= ================= All this shows is how bad they are at routinely breaking the laws on a regular and consistent bases.
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. =================== If the sum wasn't so small perhaps there wouldn't be as many warrants in debt filed as the defendants may think twice before violating the law if the penalties were greater.
Re: Re: Re: Bump I'll keep this in mind for the future. In my mind, Experian is also liable for refusing to tell me whether the inquiry was AR or PRM. Equifax and Trans Union reveal that information, but Experian refuses to tell even though it knows the answer. I'd call that a conscious act of not revealing to the consumer all of the information that exists in his credit file, which of course would be an FCRA violation!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken That's an interesting thought. IF I win this case (which is a mighty big IF), I wonder if I could then force Household to also pay Experian $1000? Probably not. It could be a good negotiating tool though: either pay me the $1000, or I'll take you to court and you'll wind up owing me a thousand and Experian a thousand! Besides, I'd hate to see Experian get $1000...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken GV, What made you decide to sue HH rather than track down Orchard and sue them? WooHoo! I like that. .
Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken One of their assertions is that you're suing the wrong company. They Dumured. ??? Also what court is this in? I gathered you are above small claims. If it is SC, do you have appeal rights? ??? .
Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken I don't think it matters if Household Bank can legally pull credit reports under the name of Orchard Bank. If they cannot pull under another name - this is another violation, but they cannot claim "insufficient knowledge" once they have admitted the action of reviewing your report. Also ... From "Bill of Particulars": [color=0066FF]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. 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.[/color] From GROUNDS OF DEFENSE: [color=0066FF]4. Household International admits allegations 2, 3, and 5 of the Bill. [/color] So, there is no direct relationship between Orchard Bank (to whom you wrote the letter) and Household Credit Services Inc. (who responded to your letter) - they both have relationship with Household Bank. Since Household International answers in court on behalf of Household Bank (which owns all Orchard Bank records), it's their job to have absolutely sufficient knowledge of their actions. Also ... From DEMURRER: [color=0066FF]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. 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.[/color] Then how come Household International is even involved in a lawsuit against Household Bank and answers on their behalf? As for Experian ... [color=0066FF]FCRA § 609. Disclosures to consumers (a) Information on file; sources; report recipients. [/color]Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request[color=0066FF], and subject to section 610(a)(1) [§ 1681h], [/color]clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer[color=0066FF]: (1) [/color]All information in the consumer's file at the time of the request[color=0066FF], except that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to disclose to a consumer any information concerning credit scores or any other risk scores or predictors relating to the consumer. [/color] [color=0066FF]FCRA § 603. Definitions (g) The term "[/color]file[color=0066FF]," when used in connection with information on any consumer, [/color]means all of the information on that consumer recorded and retained by a consumer reporting agency regardless of how the information is stored[color=0066FF]. [/color] And that's another $1,000 or even more ... The worst case scenario: you have suffered actual damages (paying the attorney's fees) because of their denial to give you all information on your file, thus forcing you to go to court for the wrong reason ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken Oh no no greenvan. I would LOVE to see EXP or for that matter any CRA enforce this law. While I wouldn't like to see EXP pocket $1k, in the long run, it could cost them a lot more by continuing to ignore consumer disputes of creditors/ca's wrongfully accessing our private information. They hold our personal information and sell it out like a commodity through their business relationships with their clients. If the CRA's had actual knowledge of their clients (the creditors) rummaging through our reports for NO good reason and continue to do nothing about it, except of course continue to sell that information out, that would be a problem. As the gatekeepers of this information, they must protect it and take some kind of action against creditors who have a history of wrongfully certifying they have a PP to review our information, even if they are lucrative clients. Ever hear of a CRA enforcing this penalty? That is the last thing they would want to do, or for that matter even investigate a consumer dispute based on a non-pp. They don't want to find out and have to act against a creditor/ca for non-pp's, these are their CLIENTS who generate large amounts of revenues for the CRA's. Enforcing this penalty would only discourage other creditors/ca's from wrongfully accesing our reports, which in turn would cost the CRA's money.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken The inquiry on my CR was made in the name of "Orchard Bank" in Beaverton, Oregon. There was no listing for "Orchard Bank" on the Oregon Secretary of State Corporation Division website, plus I had already learned that Orchard had been acquired by Household. It was also unclear as to who had responded to my original letter to Orchard: there was no return address provided, yet there were mentions of The GM Card, Household, Household Credit Services, and Household Credit Services(II). Given this web of deceit, I didn't want to risk suing the wrong entity and end up losing on a technicality. Therefore, I sued the parent of them all: Household International, Inc.
Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken Actually, they demurred. Demurrer - This is a motion put to a trial judge after the plaintiff has completed his or her case, in which the defendant, while not objecting to the facts presented, and rather than responding by a full defense, asks the court to reject the petition right then and there because of a lack of basis in law or insufficiency of the evidence. This motion has been been abolished in many states and, instead, any such arguments are to be made while presenting a regular defense to the petition. www.lawinfo.com/lawdictionary/dict-d.htm Demurrers are still allowed in my state, although I believe that judges are reluctant to dismiss a case simply based on a demurrer. I successfully beat one in the past by filing a "Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss" that explained why I felt the points raised in the demurrer were groundless. I will attempt the same in this case. This case is being heard in the General District Court (state court). It is not small claims. Both SC and GCD cases have appeal rights to Civil Court. If I lose, I have the right to appeal the case to Civil Court which then gives me the right to both discovery and a trial by jury.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken Hopefully your worst case scenario won't come true... However, I agree that Experian has violated the FCRA by witholding this information from me. One lawsuit at a time.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken You are right, of course. Even though they might get some chump change now, it would cost them dearly in the future due to lost subscriber revenues. However, don't forget that if the CRAs have actual knowledge (before providing the CR) that their clients are obtaining credit information without having a valid permissible purpose, or are using that information for a different purpose other than the one that was certified, then they have violated the FCRA and can be sued for that as well! It might take some serious discovery to prove that, but it could well be worth the effort in the end. (HINT: There could be a federal suit pending which I'm not at liberty to discuss just yet.) If you know of any way that a consumer can force the CRA to penalize the creditor and collect on the $1000 violation that is owed to the CRA as provided by the FCRA, I would love to hear it.
Maybe you can file a claim as Next Friend of Experian. IMHO its not much of a stretch that their of unsound mind. 8)~~
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken No, I don't know of a sure-fire way to get the CRA's to enforce this. If you push the issue with a CRA, particularly the one who gave Orchard access, in my experience, they will fight you on this and quickly come to Orchard's defense. They DON'T want to know of non-pp's and admit they happen. But if a suit was filed against a CRA regarding the refusal to investigate, you could always ask the CRA to investigate the inquiry and hold the creditor accountable per the FCRA as part of the settlement. It seems like a good deal for the CRA, settle with you for the $1k violation of refusing to investigate and charge $1k to the creditor who did the non-pp. But, I **know** EXP will not do that, they will defend the creditor. They do not want to establish a record of knowing of creditor/ca abuse on non-pp's. In any case greenvan, best of luck on your upcoming case.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken Here is an even simpler way to attack them on the lack of knowledge. When you sent a letter to the name that appeared on your credit report, and the address provided for that name by the credit reporting agency. That company wasn't the company to respond, the plaintiff was, therefore since they had sufficient knowledge to answer your correspondence, then ergo they should have a sufficient knowledge to answer your law suit...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken Which entity did you sue, i.e., Houshold Bank, Household International, Household Credit Services, Orchard Bank, all the above? Also, are you able to amend your Bill of Particulars? I ask because, although you alleged the facts (that they peeked at your report w/o PP), I didn't see the actual statute that makes it illegal and places liability on them. Only saw the statute that provides for damages. It's certainly ticky tack, and we all know that it's not legal, but a judge who's inclined to dump your case will not want to do you any favors by interpreting the facts and the applicable statutes for you. Just my $0.02.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken I sued Household International as the parent company of them all. I haven't figured out how to sue multiple defendants yet and apply the "et al" so as to cover all the bases. Don't know if I can amend the Bill or not. Good point: I should have said "does not provide a valid permissible purpose as defined under FCRA section 604..." I was trying to keep the Bill as general as possible so as not to educate the attorney. I intend to bring this up during the trial by stating that an account review is not a permissible purpose under FCRA 604 when the consumer does not have an account for the creditor to review. Since the attorney did not raise this issue in his grounds of defense, I don't think it will present a problem. BTW, the opposing attorney called me tonight at work, ostensibly to see if I was going to dismiss the case. I said no. I just now faxed him a seven-page "Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss" for him to chew on. I mentioned that I would be willing to settle this case for $500, and he will present the offer to his client in Oregon/California tonight. I doubt that they will settle, so I'm preparing for the trial that will take place tomorrow morning.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ HAS SPOKEN!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HELP...the OC's attorney has spoken We wish you luck and are all ears ...
