I can't believe what they're trying to pull! Just got my most recent investigation results. They reinserted an old charged off installment loan from 1993- with a new DOLA of 1998! This was included in my BK in 1996- they are reporting it now as an unpaid chargeoff- at least before when they deleted it because it had hit 7 years it wasn't showing a balance. AND My judgment from 1997 that was vacated and dismissed- I had included a copy of the judge's orders from the court- VERIFIED. WTH? This is it- I've been documenting all their violations up until this point- so far I have them on: Not completing their investigation within 30 days Not sending the investigation results to me Reinsertion of items with no notice Reaging old accounts Refusal to investigate (student loans that are being reported as duplicates) Refusing to investigate my BK from 1996 that currently is being reported as I filed with -0- assets and -0- liabilities Not providing me with the procedures I requested within 15 days (I rec'd a form letter- telling me to find the creditor's contact info on an old copy of my report and to contact them directly) Deleting 90% of my credit file every other month and then reinserting everything. Not showing items as being in dispute when I requested an investigation I'll send them an ITS tomorrow- I sincerely doubt they'll respond to it. Does anyone have a fax number for them? I've decided that district court is where I want to go with this- my state limits me to $1500 in small claims court. Wish me luck!
In The Courts â?? August 2002 TransUnion Ordered to Pay $5.3 Million for Credit Report Inaccuracies A Portland federal jury ruled on July 29, 2002 that Chicago-based credit agency TransUnion violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when it repeatedly failed to correct errors in Judy Thomas' credit report. The company had reported bad debts of another woman, Judith Upton, as Thomas' for six years, even though Thomas repeatedly asked TransUnion to fix the errors. After a six-day trial, the jury ordered the company to pay $300,000 to Thomas for harm to her reputation and health. More significantly, the jury ordered TransUnion to pay $5 million in punitive damages, making it the largest verdict in FCRA's history. Consumer attorneys say the victory is not likely to stand without a fight. However, they say the $5.3 million verdict signals a growing sentiment among juries and the public that the nation's "big three" credit bureaus need to pay more attention to accuracy than efficiency. Consumer attorneys say credit bureaus would rather settle than fix systemic problems within their procedures for tracking the credit histories of nearly every U.S. adult. "The message is continuing to be sent to these people at the national credit reporting agencies that people are tired of this," said David Szwak, an attorney who has tried cases against credit reporting agencies for nearly a decade. "They simply have chosen to not fix the problem," Szwak said. "People pay their bills, yet they can't use their good name and reputation because of inaccuracies caused by the credit reporting agencies." TransUnion spokesman Clark Walter said the company had not decided whether to appeal the U.S. District Court verdict. "TransUnion is very disappointed in the verdict," said Walter. Source: "Victory Against Credit Agency a 'Wake-Up Call,'" Brent Hunsberger, The Oregonian, 08/01/02 http://www.privacyexchange.org/news/archives/itc/courts0208.html
