I've never done this lawsuit thing

Re: The end game

My sense of humor tends to lean towards the sarcastic side.

 

Re: The end game

I notice I'm not alone.

 

Re: The end game

I've been posting my scores for eight months now. I updated them yesterday because I had new information with which to update them with. The last update was August 6th, and the last one before that I think was in May.

I'm not looking for any press at all. If anything, I think I have probably already posted too much on this case; particularly the Offer For Settlement letter... Sort of like laying down all your cards in the middle of a game. This game doesn't end until October 4th. Win, lose, or draw, I'll post everything at that point, even if I have to retype some of the letters.

Never can be too paranoid.

 

Re: The end game

But at least now we have humor. A big improvement...

 

Re: The end game

Is that like the Unconditional-Oh-So-Demanding-I-Want-It-Right-The-Hell-Now tense?

 

Re: The end game

About every third person here posts their scores, so I don't see any reason why I shouldn't also.

That is still my position. I do however, recognize a number of other things have happened (letters passing back and forth having to do with the paid chargeoff) or could happen (who knows who is watching this?). I am just not at all sure that I should post every last piece of information prior to going to court. How does that stengthen my case? Admittedly, I'm not sure how it weakens it either, but, by reserving action, I don't have to try and undo something later that I wish I hadn't done? Capische?

No, because someone has been insisting that I post them, and so far, I have not been able to find the original Word docs, only the photocopies. Unless I find the Word docs, if I am to post them at all, it will be by retyping them; re-keying them to be more precise. Before I would do that, though, I will remind you again, I will seek Bill Bauer's consent to publish those letters that he drafted, which was just a couple of them.

Considering how easy it would be to manipulate the wording of anything I might Copy and Paste into a post here, I truly don't believe you will lend credence to anything I post here anyway. So, I'm back to my original question; Why should I? I'll challenge you again to suppose for just a moment that everything I have told you so far is true. If you were in my shoes, wouldn't you ask yourself, "Why should I?"

 

Re: The end game

Got an offer in the mail from Mavy's today. Basically they'll delete the inquiry and the derogatory tradeline in exhange for my dropping the suit. I'm drafting a letter based on Christine's letter (at Bayhouse), whose situation was really remarkably similar to mine. Basically, I'm gonna go for it. Press on with the lawsuit. Tell them to suck an egg. I've got them dead to rights and if they don't already know it, they soon will. As I've already mentioned in this thread, the deletions aren't that big a deal. A paid chargeoff that will fall off on it's own in nine months and one stupid inquiry.

Oh, and Greg, I have given it some thought. I'm not going to post their letter to me or any of the letters until this is all over. When I do post them, I will include CRR numbers.

I can't put my finger on exactly why I am hesitant to lay everything down beforehand, but, well, I am.

I was looking back through some old posts and saw that I took this same approach when I was Knocking on Chevron's door. When it was all over, I posted the letters. But not before then. Maybe I just like to stick to a pettern that's woreked before. Maybe I'm paranoid. Maybe both.

 

Re: The end game

Legal Assistant
Federated Department Stores, Inc.
7 West Seventh Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202-2471

September 3, 2002

Re: Quixote v. Macyâ??s West/FDSB
Case No. LESo20449

Dear Ms. H.:

You state in your August 28, 2002 letter that it is Federated Department Store's position that the FCRA permits a creditor to pull a consumer's credit report when any tradeline is disputed...

"In response to your allegation that various sections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act were violated, please be advised that the FACS Group, Inc. was actively engaged in researching your dispute regarding your Macyâ??s credit account........The credit report was requested in conjunction with researching your dispute on your credit account."

a) WHY does Macyâ??s/FDSB NOT know what it is reporting to the credit reporting agencies?

b) Why didn't Macyâ??s/FDSB ask me for my credit report?

You state "The "permissible purpose" may also be viewed as having arisen in connection with a business transaction that was â??initiated by you - the dispute with Macyâ??s/FDSB."

I refer again to the GreenBlatt FTC opinion letter. I gave you the internet URL,
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.htm , in my June 11, 2002 letter (sent Certified Return Receipt Requested), and apparently you didn't bother to read it. So here is another excerpt:

"1. Whether the requests for the consumer credit reports comply with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, §604, 15 U.S.C. §1681b?

No. Neither the dispute resolution conference, the imminent threat of civil litigation, nor the desire to craft a settlement offer provide the brokerage firm with a permissible purpose to obtain a brokerage client's consumer report under Section 604.

In the 1990 Commentary on the FCRA, the Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") stated that "[t]he possibility that a party may be involved in litigation involving a consumer does not provide a permissible purpose for that party to receive a consumer report on such consumer . . . because litigation is not a 'business transaction' involving the consumer." 16 C.F.R. § 600 App., 55 Fed. Reg. 18804, 18816 (May 4, 1990). This statement extends to all aspects of litigation, including the pre-litigation discussions and settlement preparations that you describe, and was not altered by the recent amendments to the statute."

If I, an untrained consumer, can find the written opinion of the government agency charged by Congress to write and enforce regulations surrounding the Fair Credit Reporting Act, with a simple search of the FTC website, it seems extremely implausible to me that a department full of highly trained legal specialists, who make their living in the very field regulated by the FCRA, were not aware of it. As of this reading, you have now been made aware of it by me on two separate occasions, and yet, thus far, have consciously chosen not to comply with the letter nor the legislative intent of the FCRA. I wonder how that will sit with a judge...

Summary:

A dispute, litigation, or the threat thereof, is NOT a permissible purpose to run my credit. If it is true that Macyâ??s/FDSB has NO records of what they report to credit reporting agencies, well, looks like that should be another law suit, possibly by the FTC. I would have certainly supplied you with a copy of my report had you requested it, just like I supplied you with all the info on the January 2002 credit dispute.

Macyâ??s/ FDSB had NO permissible purpose to run my credit and to subsequently lower my credit scores.

I was denied credit based on my Experian credit report and I suffered damages. Macyâ??s/FDSB not only violated the FCRA, but failed to remove the inquiry to mitigate damages.

As I am extremely busy, I am once again offering to settle this matter on the following terms:

UNLESS, by the end of FIVE Business Days from the provable receipt of this letter,

1) Macyâ??s/FDSB removes ALL inquiries from my credit reports.
2) Macyâ??s/FDSB removes ALL other tradelines from my credit reports.
3) Macyâ??s/FDSB wires $2,500 into my checking account at Union Bank.; Instructions Follow:

Union Bank of California, Routing number 122000496 - UBOC phone: 1-800-238-4486 For Further Credit (FFC) to: Account Number: xxxxxxxxx; Quixote & The Lovely Mrs. Quixote {Our Address}, Temecula, CA 92591. If your institution requests Union Bankâ??s address, it is UBOC, Temecula Branch # 242, 26407 Ynez Rd., Temecula, CA 92591-4654

THEN, you may consider this settlement offer withdrawn. I will immediately consult with an attorney who specializes in Consumer Advocacy with an emphasis on Fair Credit Reporting Act cases. We will jointly determine whether it would be more appropriate to move this action to state court where, under California Civil Code Sections 1785.30- 1785.35, the penalties are more severe; $5000 per instance, rather than the $1000 per violation imposed under the FCRA, and without the $5000 total penalty limit imposed by the Small Claims jurisdiction. Additionally, we will discuss whether there have not been additional violations committed by Macyâ??s/FDSB by not only pulling my credit without a permissible purpose, but by your own admission, revealing the contents of my credit file to a third party, FACS, Inc.

I found it interesting, by the way, that you claim FACS was investigating my claims of FCRA violations. The inquiry happened on January 24, 2002; my letter outlining the violations of the FCRA was dated June 11, 2002. FACS, Inc. must be prescient.

When I check my account on on the morning of the sixth day after you have received this letter and don't see your deposit, I'll start incurring legal fees. I don't have time for your legal games, that's for lawyers. It's nearly midnight and I'm tired.

Apparently Federated Department Stores, Inc/ Macyâ??s/FDSB pulls credit reports on everyone who disputes their screwed up credit reporting. Macyâ??s/FDSB has shown absolutely no remorse. It looks like Macyâ??s/FDSB will only comply with the FCRA if ordered by the court or a regulatory agency. I strongly suspect this is no longer a small claims case.

Should you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me via fax to {my e-Fax #} or e-mail to {my e-mail} .


Sincerely,



Quixote

Cc: David Szwak, Esq.
Louis G. Bruno, Esq.

MORE TO COME

 

Re: The end game

September 27, 2002


Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail

Mr. Quixote
Quixote's Address
Temecula, CA 92591

Re: Quixote v. Macyâ??s West/FDSB

Dear Mr. Quixote:

Your letter of September 3, 2002 to Ms. Hawkins was referred to me for response.

You initially complained that we improperly reported derogatory information on your credit report. Specifically, you asserted that we were estopped from reporting your account as a â??paid charge off.â? You believed that since you had paid your charged off account, we would remove any derogatory report.

As you know, we are required to accurately report our customersâ?? payment history. Prior to your payment we reported the account as having been â??charged off.â? This is far worse than the current and accurate report of a â??paid charge off,â? because it indicates that you paid your debt, albeit late. I am sorry that you were under the impression that once you paid your debt, any derogatory reference would be removed.

When you disputed our report with the credit bureaus, we verified that the report was accurate, which it was. Thus, no violation of the FCRA occurred at that time.

In October and December of 2001, you disputed that you ever had a Macyâ??s account, even though you had paid the account in full on March 10, 2001. When researching this claim, a credit report was obtained to see how the bureau was reporting your account. Credit bureaus do not always accurately report the information transmitted to them, because of file matching or other problems, so we had to check to be sure.


You are now asserting that we had no right to obtain a credit report, based on your reading of the FTCâ??s Greenblatt letter. Please note that the Greenblatt opinion is not applicable to the facts of this case. In Greenblatt, the brokerage house had no authority given by their client, nor any other permissible purpose to obtain a report. Also, the brokerage house was not reporting their clientsâ?? financial behavior to a credit bureau. By contrast, you had at one time given permission to us to obtain your credit report and been informed that we would report your payment history to the bureaus. Because of this existing relationship with you and the bureaus to which we reported and because of your complaint, we had a permissible purpose to review how your account was shown at the bureau.

After a thorough review of our records and your correspondence, I have concluded that compensation is not warranted. However, we are still willing to delete the January 24 inquiry and the Macyâ??s tradeline from your report, in exchange for you dismissing your claim.

Please contact me via e-mail at someone@somewhere.com or by phone so we can resolve this issue prior to the October 4 hearing date of your small claims case.

Very truly yours,

Someone

 

Re: The end game

SO, what do you guys think of their arguments re the Greenblatt letter? Think they've got a point? Think maybe I should accept the deletions, declare victory and go home, a la Greg Fisher' Bird-In-The-Hand thesis? I haven't decided yet...