/ Register

I've never done this lawsuit thing

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by Quixote, Aug 6, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 3 of 17
  1. Aug 15, 2002 #41
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    I honestly don't know. I have no account with them. I have not applied for an account with them. I had an account with them that went to collections and was paid off six years ago. It is my one and only derogatory listing at this point (shows on TU). I have been sending them a series of letters (variations on the nutcase theme) since late last year, and so, I suppose that could be what triggered it. But, of course, as the Greenblatt letter makes clear, the threat or even the reality of legal action is not a Permissible Purpose.
     
  2. Aug 15, 2002 #42
    G. Fisher

    G. Fisher Banned

    Empathetic Anonymous Creditors:

    I called a creditor to find out why the account history in my credit file didn't reflect the true history. I did so to IMPROVE my lot.

    However, in their "investigation," the creditor made to my file not one, but TWO inquiries-- within two days-- of the type that is seen by lenders and other users of credit reports. I understand those affect my FICO score negatively-- an ultimate irony. Indeed, the last time I saw my score, excessive inquiries was one of the four reasons the score was not higher.

    This is the same company who properly made "Account Review" inquiries before the incident. I explained this, in writing, to them very thoroughly, and even included quotes from the credit reporting agency found on my report about the inquiry types. The company's "Executive Response Team" representative wrote back, but failed to address the issue, writing pretty about everything but the issue. Wait till they see how ridiculous their dodge will look when it goes public.

    But, perhaps they don't even understand what I was talking about-- an even-more troubling situation.

    What's going on? What are the mechanics involved that would keep that creditor from making an "Account Review" inquiry (as opposed to the other type) when I called?
     
  3. Aug 15, 2002 #43
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Not to sound too smart-alecky, but, uhh.. What's your point?
     
  4. Aug 15, 2002 #44
    G. Fisher

    G. Fisher Banned

    The point

    The point is that users of reports don't know how to use the system properly, and what you experienced (illegal HARD inquiry-- you wouldn't have such a strong case if it didn't affect the score) happened to another (me)(albeit in a different circumstance), and, I'll bet, many others.

    But, if you're suggesting that that's too broad for this thread, then I have a question that your answering may help in your specific case.

    You said, "So, by my count, I have them on six seperate violations of the FCRA. They have 1) placed an unauthorized "hard" inquiry on my CR's (no permissible purpose)... "

    So, when you get to court, how will you explain how this whole thing came about (you disputed a legitimate entry with something called a "nutcase" letter)?

    If you dance with the devil, you may get burned.
     
  5. Aug 15, 2002 #45
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The point

    I don't have to explain anything. They have to explain why they placed an inquiry on my CR without my knowledge or consent where there was no existing or pending business relationship. The whole story in court begins on January 24th, 2002, the day they put an illegal inquiry on my CR's.

    My whole point in poking at this particular fire was to, hopefully, make the original paid charge off go away via deletion. Failing that, let the circumstances evolve whereby they commit an illegal act, which they have. That now gives me the leverage I lacked. No-one forced them to commit an illegal act. They took that on themselves. All they had to do was remove the dang inquiry, and I lose all my leverage. I think they're out of their minds.

    I don't see where I have anything to lose or get 'burned' by this.
     
  6. Aug 15, 2002 #46
    LisaMc

    LisaMc Well-Known Member

    Re: The point

    I have the exact same situation:

    I sent a modified verification letter to an OC. They pulled my file, unauthorized, to "see what we were reporting, and we find it to be correct." I filed suit. They requested a jury. Who knows where this will go ultimately.

    Like Quixote said, whatever caused them to undertake an illlegal act is really not the issue. The fact that they did it is at issue. In my case, just because they deleted the inquiry AFTER I filed suit doesn't make everything okay. SOmeone else wrote in another thread "it is like robbing a bank, thinking you are going to be caught, and giving the money back before they arrest you. It doesn't mean there wasn't a crime."
     
  7. Aug 15, 2002 #47
    G. Fisher

    G. Fisher Banned

    Re: The point

    You set them up, and you admit it. What are you going to tell the judge when she asks how this whole thing came about?

    HER: You seem to know the law very well. What was your dispute?

    YOU: I was temporarily insane, I was a NUTCASE, your honor. I couldn't help myself; I knew my dispute was frivolous. But they still hurt me! Waaaah.

    HER: Dismissed.

    But, if you get away with it (fat chance), write a book and start a web site and initiate a cottage industry for that kind of malarkey. You'll be famous and will make us all rich. All we have to do is send a bunch of letters with wacky claims...

    If you aren't getting enough action, there are enough real problems with their disclosures to complain about. Why don't you try some of them, instead of your scam? Let me know if you want some suggestions. You're one of the message board's standouts; I thought you were smarter than this.
     
  8. Aug 15, 2002 #48
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: The point

    Cmon Greg,

    Now you're just being silly. You know good and well that the underlying situation has nothing to do with FDCPA violations. It's in the form of a "Statutory Tort" and completes when the CA brakes the law.

    *********** END OF STORY!

    Besides Quix has enough savvy not to go into court and call his corrospondence a "NutCase" letter.

    I expect more from you.
     
  9. Aug 15, 2002 #49
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: The point

    Greg,

    Quixote is indeed one of this board's standouts and remains one, says me.

    Scam!!!!!!!!!!!! Where's the scam? there's no scam.

    It is as legitimate to request verification of a correctly reported negative tradeline as it is an incorrect one.

    CRA's are required to delete information that is not verified within 30 days -- that provision doesn't have a darn thing to do with accurate or inaccurate, it's a matter of record-keeping.

    If they don't know what they are reporting, they aren't allowed to view your report to find out.

    They CHOOSE to report, they are not required to report, as such, they must maintain the records and follow the rules.

    Scam, humphhhhhhhhhhhh.

    I'm still swooooooooooooooning, Quixote, you standout, you!

    Sassy
     
  10. Aug 16, 2002 #50
    G. Fisher

    G. Fisher Banned

    Re: The point

    Quixote, there is wild speculation about the content of your letters (but, then again, this is The Internet-- not known for its credibility-- isn't it?). What'ya say you post them here?

    WWJD?
     
  11. Aug 16, 2002 #51
    lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    Re: The point

    ======================
    Quixote says they have no experience with lawsuits.
    I do have experience with then both as a plaintiff and as a defendant yet Quixote
    states my experience is worthless.
    Pretty outstanding isn't it?
     
  12. Aug 16, 2002 #52
    MandyB

    MandyB Well-Known Member

    Re: The point

    Quixote, I really admire your gumption in filing this lawsuit and I want to say that I hope that it works out. It sounds like you've done your homework and that should certainly help you prevail. I don't quite understand the controversy in this thread. From my reading, Macy's caused an improper hard inq to be placed on your rpt. You tried through the normal channels to get this removed. Unfortunately, they were stubborn. Now you have filed suit which is your right. If you are able to get them to clear up the TU problem in the process so much the better. At this point its almost a courtesy based upon what they have put you through w/ the inq. Afterall, all they had to do is recode it to PRM unless you have a block on your rpt and in that case they could have just removed it. What incentive do these people have to leave a potentially damaging mark on your rpt for 2 long yrs? Don't know myself but a lot of these creditors won't budge w/o strong proding. I wish you all the best in this endeavor.
     
  13. Aug 16, 2002 #53
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The point

    Greg,

    Ultimately, every letter I sent to them was some variation on letters you've seen here and at Bill Bauer's site. I'll see if I can find the older ones and post them, but there really is no secret.

    Bottom line is, I had asked them for validation (I know, I know- but I was shaking the tree to see what came out), and in fact, they provided decent documentation of the account late last year. Frankly, I had dropped the subject and had pretty much given up on getting the Macy's tradeline off of my CR's. I really had no leverage, and they didn't seem to be scaring at all. That's the dirty little secret about Nutcase-type letters; if the other guy knows their stuff, it's meaningless. So, as I said, I had dropped the subject late last year (Dec. 6, 2001 was the date on the last letter I sent them).

    Then, out of the blue, this year, an inquiry shows up on my Experian report (January 24th). I disputed through the CRA and it came back verified. I tried to dispute agin, but Experian rejected it out of hand. I called Macy's; they said; "Gee that's too bad. Go pound sand." I called again and spoke to a supervisor. All I was asking was that they remove the inquiry that they had no right to place on my CR's in the first place. The supervisor pointed me to a specific pile of sand that I was invited to go pound.

    At that point, I decided to get serious. They broke the law; not me. I notified them in writing that I disputed the inquiry and asked them politely to remove the inquiry. Twice. They have thus far ignored this request. They have not complied with the law inasmuch as they have a statutory obligation to notify the CRA that this item is in dispute, and to correct information that they know to be incorrect.

    Out in front of my house is a three way stop that is roundly ignored by motorists in the area, even though it is clearly marked. This bugs me because I have a daughter who plays in the neighborhood with friends. Not out on the street, but still... There's a school bus stop about a hundred feet away. People drive through this Stop at anwhere from 5- 45 mph (no kidding). This, in an upscale residential area. It's dangerous. The Stop sign in one direction is on my property and there are oleanders near it. I go out every so often to trim them back so that the Stop sign remains unobstructed from view. On top of that, I have given permission to the local police to sit on our property to monitor the intersection. The police will sit out in full view in the middle of my driveway, sometimes on a motorcycle, sometimes in a cruiser. Fifteen, maybe twenty feet off the street, but right out in the open. People still go right through the Stop sign without so much as slowing down. They'll write fifteen tickets in an hour. I have gotten phone calls from the homeowners association asking if I have given the police my permission. They have gotten a number of angry phone calls from other home owners in the association who have gotten tickets in front of my house. Apparently, it's my fault that these people are getting tickets. You know what? I don't give a damn. Nobody's been killed at this intersection. People are actually starting to slow down (very few actually stop- but hey, it's an improvement) One block away, there was a fatal accident less than a year ago.

    I don't see where trying to blame me for Macy's putting an unathorized inquiry on my CR makes any more sense than trying to blame me for getting a ticket in front of my house. All you gotta do is comply with the law and my actions have no effect on you.
     
  14. Aug 16, 2002 #54
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The point

    If you actually offered a suggestion, I'd love to read it. Thus far, you only spout, and spout, and spout.
     
  15. Aug 16, 2002 #55
    LisaMc

    LisaMc Well-Known Member

    Re: The point

    Quixote, I absolutely agree with you on this one....

    If you had known in the very beginning how this would all play out, it would have, indeed, been a "set up;" however, you didn't know what they would do! How could you have set them up?

    This has striking similarities to my suit--They reported incorrectly, I notified them, they ignored me, I disputed, they verified, I notified them. This circle went around and around for months. Finally, I asked for verification of what they were reporting. Fishing? Maybe. I knew that the reporting was incorrect. I also KNEW that they could not substantiate their claim. It never dawned on me, not even once, that they would pull my credit "to see what we are reporting." I asked them to remove the inquiry (after pointing out that they had no PP). They refused and said "pound sand." I wrote 3 letters asking them, politely to remove their inquiry, they said "pound this specific pile of sand" (I love that!). I told them I would file suit if they did not remove the inquiry. THey ignored me. I filed the suit. Guess what? They deleted the inquiry as "an act of goodwill." What goodwill? You guys broke the law! You only found this small pocket of good in your heart as soon as I named you as a defendant! This is crap, and I sick of being s*it on by these jerks. Maybe I will get crucified in court, but by God they are going to have to come and endure the whole process right along beside me!

    Quixote, you have taken the high road here. Just do what you need to do. The fact that anyone wants to make this an issue of morality or conscience is not applicable. I applaud your effort, and I hope you beat them at their own game. Please keep us informed.

    Good luck,
    Lisa
     
  16. Aug 16, 2002 #56
    lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    Re: The point

    If paying the penality for breaking the law is an act of good will we sure have a lot of crooks and other law breakers doing acts of goodwill by going to to jail don't we?

     
  17. Aug 16, 2002 #57
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The point

    Thanks Lisa.

    I gave it a little more thought, and, if, as Greg suggests, I might have to answer the question of "what instigated this?", I simply asked that they (Macy's) produce proof of the accusation on my CR or delete and if they declined to do either, I would reserve my legal rights. Their response (if it was their response- I don't know that these two events are related) of pulling my CR is not a Permissible Purpose, regardless of whether there was or is impending legal action. I'll bring a copy of the FCRA and the Greenblatt letter along with me with the appropriate sections hi-lited, or better yet, I'll let the attorney do it if it gets to court.

    Again, all they had to do was delete and this whole thing goes away six months ago.

    It's like blaming the girl in the slinky dress for the... well you know the rest of that story... And, uhh, for the record, I have never worn a slinky dress.;)

    BTW, Greg, I actually appreciate your grilling me. It's making me think this whole through more thoroughly than I otherwise might have. I still think I'm right, but now I know better why.

    Tom
     
  18. Aug 16, 2002 #58
    G. Fisher

    G. Fisher Banned

    Re: The point

    The letters. Surely they'll make a court appearance. Why not copy and paste them here?

    What is your response to the court when they ask if you made a dispute with the credit reporting agency?

    Consider that and think about a telemarketing case I watched over a two-year period. The plaintiff turned down a $4000 settlement because of the gag order, went to court, represented himself, and won!

    The award: $1.

    (Rice V. Chevy Chase Bank - http://www.paralegal-concierge.com/LegalCrier/consumerlaw.html)

    WWJD (What Would Judy Do)? Judge Judy.
     
  19. Aug 16, 2002 #59
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The point

    Greg, I'm not trying to avoid your question. I have changed jobs, and therefore laptops, twice since late last year. I have paper copies of the letter, but I'm still looking for electronic versions. Additionally, I have work to do in between posting ;), and I'm still trying to get the mortgage stuff straight for our first home purchase (exercising the lease option on the home we're in now). I'm just a little bit harried.

    The letters themselves are very much what you've seen posted here a numbe rof times. Nothing special. I guess what I'm starting to wonder is, why do you care so much about the specific wording. it seems like your trying to keep me from exercising my rights. It seems like you're of the opinion that Macy's should be able to put as many inquiries on my credit reports as they want, whenever they want and I should just shut up about it.

    If I were having this conversation with someone whose opinions I hadn't already come to respect over the last year, I would suspect I was being baited by a troll for Macy's. I'm certain that's not the case here, but I honestly don't get what your point, or maybe more accurately, your agenda, is. Why do you seem to want so badly for me to drop my case?

    Presume for a moment that I'm telling the truth which I am); just a bunch of generic huffing and puffing letters; modified validation and estoppel letters is about all they are. No legal actions taken, nor specifically threatened, until this month. The question I would like to ask you is, What did I do that justifies their breaking the law six different ways?

    BTW, I'm sure you've seen it before, but here's a more applicable example of a pro se litigant in my exact situation.

    BTW again; I think that Judy would want to know who broke the law. Not I sez the Quixote.
     
  20. Aug 16, 2002 #60
    G. Fisher

    G. Fisher Banned

    Re: The point

    While you search for the letters, I would ask if your mortgage quest is affected by your credit report. That's a new twist to the story.

    "The question I would like to ask you is, What did I do that justifies their breaking the law six different ways?"

    That's a loaded question-- I have no evidence of any illegality (another point we should discuss: This board is littered with rantings, but little proof of the claims, yet everybody so incredulous-- do they just like to bitch and never reach a resolution (web space is free, scanners are cheap)?). But assuming I have evidence, six is pushing it. And, you have to prove willful non-compliance. They'll kill you with their claim of negligence. Perhaps-- no, likely-- you're just dealing with boneheads. Now you're left with only damages and costs.

    So, I'm cynical and defeatist because the law is flawed. There should be stautory awards-- given whether the inaccuracy is willful, or not. That way there doesn't have to be this silly, overly-dramatic, costly court procedure, or the threat of it.

    What are your damages?

    There is so much wrong with credit reporting, in general. TransUnion's consumer disclosure they sent to me indicates a blatant nose-thumbing of a basis tenet: Full disclosure to the consumer (see Case 2, creditaccuracy.com). And a guy with your brains is wasting his time on a case with a dubious history. It's depressing. You're not even going after the bureaus (whose lousy quality control is responsible, too-- if not more so).

    How much credence should I give one whose name is synonymous with the lack of acceptance of reality, his fatal flaw?
     
Page 3 of 17
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page