I've never done this lawsuit thing

sassyinaz · Sep 28, 2002

Re: The end game

Originally posted by Quixote
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. H. 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 liar, liar -- are not REQUIRED to report anythingto 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 a paid charge off is no better for your score than an unpaid charge off -- christine has a letter about this specifically to creditors at bayhouse.com -- send them a copy ;-)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.LOL LOL -- they don't get to pull at closed account to see how it is reporting. They should KNOW how they are reporting based on their records or alternatively, should have requested a copy of your report from you or sought specific permission to pull a copy

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. ditto from above. You don't get to pull a report on a closed account based on a previous relationship. That would make disputing tradelines a punishment if you get a pulled report inquiry zing for each dispute[/blue]. 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. that isn't how it works. If we determine something is inaccurate we've the lawful right to dispute it. The creditors that CHOOSE to report must report it accurately and don't get to police the CRA's via your report to see how the information ends up. You decide who's error it is, not the creditor. [/blue]

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 there's the key, ONE TIME GIVEN it isn't perpetual permissiongiven permission to us to obtain your credit report and been informed that we would report your payment history to the bureauswhether they report or not is up to them, that reporting occurs isn't permissible purpose. Because of this existing relationship the relationship ended when the account was closedwith 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.you had permission to do no such thing. Quixote exercising his right to dispute information he believes is inaccurate doesn't give you a permissable purpose because you had a previous relationship and need to check up on the CRA's. If you don't know what you have reported based on records that you are required to keep to continue reporting (making the tradeline verifiable) you needed to seek additional permission or ask for a copy from Quixote

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
Click to expand...

sassyinaz · Sep 28, 2002

Re: The end game

Sorry Quixote,

That blue font within the black is funky!

Sassy

KHM · Sep 28, 2002

Re: The end game

Quixote-
I would like to point out Ms. Ellen's OWN words

you had at one time given permission to us to obtain your credit report
Click to expand...

. Yep she said ONE TIME, not again years after the account had been closed. Not again when the account was disputed, ONE TIME. Also, if they stil had an existing relationship with you they would have been able to pull an AR, but they dont have a relationship with you therefore no AR.
I say she's bluffing, I'd go thru with it just so crap like this doesn't happen to others, plus you've already filed.

GEORGE · Sep 28, 2002

Re: The end game

TAKE IT AND RUN...(INQUIRY AND TRADE LINE REMOVAL)

keepmine · Sep 28, 2002

Re: The end game

I agree with George. By twice denying you ever had an acount you've created your own crediblity issue. I doubt you get much sympathy from a judge. Plus, they've offered to give you what you requested. I think they're being pretty reasonable.

breeze · Sep 28, 2002

Re: The end game

I think they're wrong, but I would take it, if it includes an agreement never to report this tradeline again (if you don't watch out, they'll put it back on).

GEORGE · Sep 28, 2002

Re: The end game

Originally posted by breeze
I think they're wrong, but I would take it, if it includes an agreement never to report this tradeline again (if you don't watch out, they'll put it back on).
Click to expand...

NOT EVER RE-INSERT IT...and NEVER do another inquiry for any reason...(GET IT IN WRITING)

herauntsis · Sep 28, 2002

Re: The point

Originally posted by Quixote

I agree with you that the law is flawed. Given that the law says that the CRA's can simply ask the OC, "Zis OK?", and when the OC responds, "Zats OK", the CRA can legally report back that , "Zats OK." I don't see where I have any grounds under the current law to sue the CRA. I do see lots of opportunity for going after the OC, the "Furnisher" in FCRA language, for knowingly "furnishing" faulty info.

EggZachry.
Click to expand...

Here are your grounds for suing the CRA:

Â§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. Â§ 1681b]

(c) Furnishing reports in connection with credit or insurance transactions that are not initiated by the consumer.

(1) In general. A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report relating to any consumer pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (C) of subsection (a)(3) in connection with any credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by the consumer only if

(A) the consumer authorizes the agency to provide such report to such person; or

(B) (i) the transaction consists of a firm offer of credit or insurance;

(ii) the consumer reporting agency has complied with subsection (e); and

(iii) there is not in effect an election by the consumer, made in accordance with subsection (e), to have the consumer's name and address excluded from lists of names provided by the agency pursuant to this paragraph. . .

(3) Information regarding inquiries. Except as provided in section 609(a)(5) [Â§ 1681g], a consumer reporting agency shall not furnish to any person a record of inquiries in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by a consumer.

This was obviously not a "credit or insurance transaction" initiated by you, you did not authorize it, and the transaction did not consist of "a firm offer of credit or insurance," therefore, the CRA was in violation by furnishing your report to Macy's in the first place.

Furthermore the CRA is not allowed to report the inquiry to anyone but you (that is the section 609 exception that is mentioned), so if it is on your credit report as a hard inquiry, that is another violation.

Also, see Cushman v Trans Union (my favorite case cite). The court ruled that when an item is disputed, the CRAs do have to go beyond, "Zis ok? Yes? Zats ok."

I am particularly interested in how this would play out in court, so I am afraid I can't be objective about whether you should take their offer.

Quixote · Sep 28, 2002

Re: The end game

Further food for thought:

That tradeline will fall off on its' own within the next seven months. So, it's not hurting my scores much, if at all, and therefore is not much of a carrot to dangle.

You may well have a point about my credibility having been hurt by twice denying the account. Greg asked me to post it all early on and, for my own reasons, I was hesitant to do so. I'll send an e-mail to Bill Bauer and see if he minds my posting some of the letters I got from him when I was utilizing his service. If he's Ok with it, I'll post them. My feeling is that, given all the scattered bits of info I've left laying around (particularly in this thread), anybody who wants to could find out pretty much anything they wanted to about me or this case. I've been looking over very carefully the letters I sent out last year to Macy's and I don't see anywhere that I have explicitly denied the accounts. In each case, using Bbauers' wording, I am asking them to provide "proof of the alleged debt", which they never did, and then, because they never did, invoking the El Stoppo thing. There's only those two letters and then the inquiry showed up.

KHM · Sep 28, 2002

Re: The end game

Originally posted by Quixote
Further food for thought:

That tradeline will fall off on its' own within the next seven months. So, it's not hurting my scores much, if at all, and therefore is not much of a carrot to dangle.

You may well have a point about my credibility having been hurt by twice denying the account. Greg asked me to post it all early on and, for my own reasons, I was hesitant to do so. I'll send an e-mail to Bill Bauer and see if he minds my posting some of the letters I got from him when I was utilizing his service. If he's Ok with it, I'll post them. My feeling is that, given all the scattered bits of info I've left laying around (particularly in this thread), anybody who wants to could find out pretty much anything they wanted to about me or this case. I've been looking over very carefully the letters I sent out last year to Macy's and I don't see anywhere that I have explicitly denied the accounts. In each case, using Bbauers' wording, I am asking them to provide "proof of the alleged debt", which they never did, and then, because they never did, invoking the El Stoppo thing. There's only those two letters and then the inquiry showed up.
Click to expand...

Even if you DID deny the accounts, I would think as long as it wasn't your first dispute with the CRA's then you'd be ok. All *I* would say is I gave the real reason the first time and for some reason they didn't fix their errors, so I didn't know what else to say. PLUS a LOT of the times when I've spoken with CRA's CSR's they will say "well I'll just dispute it as not yours"

sassyinaz · Sep 28, 2002

Re: The end game

Quixote,

I've been reading through this thread from the beginning, big thread ;-) , since I posted the merged blue font mush.

I've not noticed anywhere that you have admitted or denied it is yours or not yours. You can dispute any darn thing that is not accurate or complete or verifiable. It doesn't matter even if you did deny them. You aren't subject to the reporting requirements, THEY are.

I don't know why keepmine thinks your credibility has been damaged, I don't think it has been.

They are just wrong on the inquiries and their letter confirms it, you can throw their own words back at them. They are operating from a base of assumptions that are bogus and in fact, appear to me to imply that the reporting itself creates an ongoing relationship for as long as the reporting continues.

The FTC has previously filed a complaint against them for FDCPA violations as has the State of Tennessee. Surely they don't want any more microscoping of their business. I can't figure them out, you'd think that since then they would have made an effort to "get it" but they obviously don't.

What happened to your violations for failure to mark the tradeline as disputed?

Sassy

Quixote · Sep 28, 2002

Re: The end game

Originally posted by sassyinaz
What happened to your violations for failure to mark the tradeline as disputed?

Sassy
Click to expand...

That's listed in the suit. Count # 5, if memory serves.

sassyinaz · Sep 28, 2002

Re: The end game

They aren't arguing that failure to note the dispute is a violation or do they think you forgot or hope you haven't noticed?

Sassy

Quixote · Oct 1, 2002

Re: The end game

-----Original Message-----
From: "Quixote (edit)"<Quixote (edit)@go.com>
To: "Ellen R Dugan"<(edit)@FDS.com>
Date: Tue Oct 01 10:57:42 PDT 2002
Subject: Re: Your FCRA Complaint

>Ms. Dugan:
>
>Assuming your arguments were correct, and I'm not at all convinced that they are, that still does not explain the fact that not once have you notified Experian that the Inquiry in question is disputed by me, the consumer. That alone is a violation of the FCRA. Additionally, though I can agree that I ONCE gave Macy's permission to review my credit; I submit that the key word is ONCE. Given that there exists NO BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP between myself and Macy's, nor did there on January 24th, 2002, I find your argument that you may damage my credit score by pulling my credit report, thus reducing my FICO credit score and making it appear as though I am seeking credit from Macy's, any time you want for the rest of my life because we once-upon-a-time had a business relationship to be so much hogwash. I suspect the Small Claims Court will also. I suppose we'll just have to see.
>
>I remain open to a serious settlement offer acknowledging the illegality of Macy's actions and accepting the proscribed penalty.
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Quixote (edit)
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Ellen R Dugan"<(edit).com>
>To: "Quixote (edit)"<Quixote (edit)@go.com>
>Date: Fri Sep 27 12:22:02 PDT 2002
>Subject: Your FCRA Complaint
>
>>Dear Mr. Quixote (edit),
>>
>>attached please find a response to your letter to Ms. Hawkins (Federated
>>Department Stores) of September 3, 2002.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Ellen R. Dugan
>>
(See attached file: Quixote (edit) letter.doc)

Quixote · Oct 1, 2002

Re: The end game

From: Ellen R Dugan <edit@FDS.com> add to address book Filter this address

Date: Tue Oct 1 2002, 4:35 PM PDT show headers

To: Quixote (edit) <edit@go.com>

Subject: Re: Your FCRA Complaint

Dear Mr. Quixote (edit):

Thank you for your note. I am sorry you are still disagreeing with me, but
let me give this one more try:

An "inquiry" cannot be reported as "disputed." It is something that we did
in response to one of your challenges. You may not agree with it, but you
cannot dispute it as an inaccurate report. Further, you are still
maintaining that we had no permissible purpose to obtain a report. Credit
information is reported for seven years, in many cases long after an
account is closed or has become inactive. We do have the continued right
to check how an account is reported if the customer disputes the accuracy
of the report.

As regards your claim before the small claims court and your request, I
will never acknowledge any illegal act on our part in your situation simply
because no illegal act occurred. The FCRA is a very complicated statute
and your claim is based on an incorrect understanding of the requirements
of the statute. However, I am still willing, in order to avoid the cost
and inconvenience of sending someone from our nearest offices to defend us,
to remove the inquiry and any reference to your account and pay you $500 to
settle this dispute, in exchange for your dismissing the complaint. This
offer is open till 5 pm Eastern time, October 2, 2002.

Very truly yours,

Ellen Dugan

Quixote · Oct 1, 2002

Re: The end game

They're cracking. There's a thousand holes in their argument. Due to time constraints, any help with finding the specific shortcuts, case cites, Opinion Letters (name and Link) would be immensely appreciated.

Heh, heh, heh.

sassyinaz · Oct 1, 2002

Re: The end game

Quixote,

BWWWWWaaaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHA

That makes my day, ty!

Sassy

herauntsis · Oct 1, 2002

Re: The end game

Say, Quixote, are you going to sue CRAs as well for their violations?

Butch · Oct 1, 2002

Re: The end game

Originally posted by Quixote

An "inquiry" cannot be reported as "disputed." It is something that we did
in response to one of your challenges.
Click to expand...

BOOOM, Gotcha again!

LOL

Quixote · Oct 1, 2002

Re: The end game

Originally posted by Butch

BOOOM, Gotcha again!

LOL
Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is supposed to be this much fun...

Log in / Register

Forums

I've never done this lawsuit thing

sassyinaz Well-Known Member

sassyinaz Well-Known Member

KHM Well-Known Member

GEORGE Well-Known Member

keepmine Well-Known Member

breeze Well-Known Member

GEORGE Well-Known Member

herauntsis Well-Known Member

Quixote Well-Known Member

KHM Well-Known Member

sassyinaz Well-Known Member

Quixote Well-Known Member

sassyinaz Well-Known Member

Quixote Well-Known Member

Quixote Well-Known Member

Quixote Well-Known Member

sassyinaz Well-Known Member

herauntsis Well-Known Member

Butch Well-Known Member

Quixote Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in / Register

Useful Searches

I've never done this lawsuit thing

sassyinaz Well-Known Member

sassyinaz Well-Known Member

KHM Well-Known Member

GEORGE Well-Known Member

keepmine Well-Known Member

breeze Well-Known Member

GEORGE Well-Known Member

herauntsis Well-Known Member

Quixote Well-Known Member

KHM Well-Known Member

sassyinaz Well-Known Member

Quixote Well-Known Member

sassyinaz Well-Known Member

Quixote Well-Known Member

Quixote Well-Known Member

Quixote Well-Known Member

sassyinaz Well-Known Member

herauntsis Well-Known Member

Butch Well-Known Member

Quixote Well-Known Member

Share This Page