/ 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 8 of 17
  1. Oct 2, 2002 #141
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    -----Original Message-----
    From: "Ellen R Dugan"<(edit)@FDS.com>
    To: "Quixote (edit)"<(edit)@go.com>
    Date: Wed Oct 02 12:34:43 PDT 2002
    Subject: Re: Your FCRA Complaint
    >
    >Dear Mr. Quixote (edit):
    >
    >Thank you for your most recent letter.
    >
    >I have been in meetings most of the day and do not have the time to comment in detail to your long letter. I would just like to make the following points:
    >
    >Socalled "promotional inquiries" are shown on a >person's credit record when a credit grantor has >requested a credit bureau to pre-screen large >numbers of potential customers so that a pre->approved offer for a credit card can be made. The >pertinent disclosures will be included in the >solicitation that is mailed with the pre-approved >offer. These types of inquiries are visible to other >credit grantors, but they disappear after a few >months. More importantly, we did not give you the >disclosures because you were not pre-screened and >no pre-approved offer was made to you.

    My dearest dense Ellen,

    Fave Butch growling dude says you are wet all over, I have to say you are plain drenched!

    Are you now saying, Ellen, your permissable purpose was promotional? Or are you verifying my position that you aren't understanding the difference between a hard and soft inquiry?

    Quixote -- have you opted-out by chance?

    You are saying not noting an inquiry in dispute is a violation or that they failed to mark the tradeline in dispute when you disputed, or both -- what was the first dispute, I missed that somewhere?

    I think, if you were corresponding with them prior to the inquiry, and if I'm remembering right you were, the tradeline itself should be marked as disputed as well.

    This is from one of your first posts:

    "So, by my count, I have them on six seperate violations of the FCRA. They have 1) placed an unauthorized "hard" inquiry onmy CR's (no permissible purpose), 2) verified that inquiry when disputed through the CRA, 3 &4) received formal notice of dispute (twice) and both time failed to note on my CR that the item is in dispute, 5 &6) Twice failed to correct the item when they had the chance and were requested to do so. "

    For heaven's sake, she doesn't get the marking it as disputed thing either!

    The TRADELINE Ellen, the TRADELINE!

    What section of the FCRA are you basing your claim that you have the right, in response to a dispute, to review my credit? Do you even know what you are basing that on?

    BTW Quixote, which CRA was the inquiry on? It was
    Experian, yes? Experian, if I am remembering right DOES indeed have the ability to mark inquiries as disputed.

    What is wrong with you, Ellen? Is there a switch somewhere that we can turn on?

    Sassy has blonde children and loves blonde jokes, but really, if you happen to be blonde you are taking blondeness to a whole new level! Heck, you are taking professional women to a whole new dimension! If you aren't blonde, head to the hair dye section next time you are at walmart; Sassy will donate the peroxide!
    >
    >As regards your claim that your account was paid >and that therefore we had no "permissible >purpose" to obtain your report, I see no other way >to deal with your allegation that we were incorrectly >reporting an account that you said you never had.

    Shit fire, Ellen -- you are dense!!!!!!! Did you read the sections of the FCRA I referenced, quoted and Sassy even color-coded?

    FDS has been in enough trouble with the FTC, I think I MUST submit to them your position on this matter -- It just doesn't make sense and I cannot fathom where you could be gleaning this permission from.

    Again Ellen, you are subject to the FCRA, I am not. There are no provisions for you to police the reporting. When notified by the CRA of a dispute you are required to reinvestigate based ON YOUR RECORDS.

    How can you maintain any information is accurate when you have not consulted your records. Do you not know what you are reporting? You are required to know what you are reporting! You are required to maintain the information that the reporting is based on so it can be verified. If it can't be verified, it cannot be reported.

    A dispute does not create or re-create a business relationship.
    § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

    (a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

    3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of     any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer.

    b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.

    (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall
    (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;

    (B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i];

    (C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and

    (D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis.
    They violated this part too, Quixote, failing to report the results to all other CRA's to which...
     
  2. Oct 2, 2002 #142
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    Yeah. Who could possibly make this stuff up?
     
  3. Oct 2, 2002 #143
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    (grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Ellen, 2 pages again, I'm holding you personally responsible!)

    Follow along now, Ellen, this is the important part that you aren't getting your brain around:

    You see (B) above, yes?

    Don't you think if reviewing what was presently being reported on my consumer report was relevant to the investigation you are required to complete that the CRA themselves would forward this information to you?

    Uh huh, I know it's difficult to follow but it is a plain language statute!

    ...review all relevant information provided by the CRA...

    My report wasn't provided by the CRA. Can you guess why, Ellen?

    No., No., this isn't a trick question.

    It wasn't provided to you because it is NOT RELEVANT.

    Revelant -- adjective: relating to or bearing upon the matter at hand.

    Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaa, there it is! I can almost see that twinkle of recognition in your eyes now, Ellen! I can, I swear it!

    This, of course, resulted in an "inquiry." You now
    >seem to want us to report the "inquiry" as "disputed." There is no
    >physical way to do so.

    (insert heavy sigh) Ellen, babe, c'monnnnnnnn,

    YOU are required upon notice of dispute to report that dispute to the CRA.

    IF the CRA is incapable of marking a tradeline or inquiry as disputed, my issue would be with them and not you.

    However, you can't say that there is no physical way to do so because you didn't do what YOU were required to do, yes, REQUIRED!

    A credit report is a report on people's payment
    >histories with their various creditors. If a credit report is wrong, it
    >may be disputed by the customer. But an inquiry is not a report on a
    >person's credit history. The inquiry cannot be disputed, with a notation
    >to that effect, on the report. You can complain about it, which you did,
    >and we can delete it, which we offered, but you can't "dispute" it.

    OHHHHHHHHH, silly me, it is the legal provisions allowing me to dispute ANY PIECE OF INFORMATION reported that is inaccurate.

    Any information reported is subject to dispute.

    § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]
    (a) Reinvestigations of disputed information.


    (1) Reinvestigation required.

    (A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of     any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer.

    You are wrong, Ellen, a credit report is not a report on people's payment histories with their various creditors. The FCRA took care of you having to decide what is and what isn't a report, looky what is freely available on line, the DEFINITION, oh yeah, the definition of consumer report itself!!!!!

    Imagine that, Ellen, someone had the foresight to decide this argument already, it is part of the law.

    § 603. Definitions; rules of construction [15 U.S.C. § 1681a]

    (d) Consumer report.

    (1) In general. The term "consumer report" means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for...
    >
    >Regarding your comments about FACS, FACS is the service company for FDS
    >Bank. As servicer, FACS has the right to obtain reports on FDS Bank's
    >behalf. It is not considered a "third party."

    2+1 = what, 2 Ellen? you can't do math either!!!!!!!
    >
    >I could go on if I had the time, but I do not think I can convince you
    >that we did nothing improper or illegal. It is unfortunate that we can't
    >settle this in a reasonable manner.

    I agree Ellen, it is unfortunate that the law and common sense don't seem to be something you are capable of understanding. I could go on as well if I had the time but Sassy is starting to wonder about me beating my head against this brick wall that you are.

    My previous settlement offer is good until xx/xx/xx.

    Or Quixote, take the $500 bucks, these people are plain ignorant -- they won't even get it when a judge tells them they are wrong.

    If it's principle you are willing to go forward on; I'm flying with ya -- otherwise take what you want, the deletions, and take Mrs. Quixote out to a really great dinner on the idiots.

    KHM is right, they wouldn't understand smoke signals!
    >Very truly yours,
    >
    >Ellen Dugan

    Quixote
    As of 9/9/2002, EX (FICO): 709, TU (FICO): 697, EQ (FICO): 748

    What Would Scooby Do?
     
  4. Oct 2, 2002 #144
    G. Fisher

    G. Fisher Banned

  5. Oct 2, 2002 #145
    KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    Ellen-
    Tell me how can I get a job like yours? You may have a degree but you apparently don't know how to use it.

    I on the other hand don't have any type of degree, but at least I can realize what Quixote is saying.

    It's NOT rocket science.
     
  6. Oct 2, 2002 #146
    keepmine

    keepmine Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    Not good form Greg. Somewhere in this long thread Quixote said he didn't want to lay all of his cards down just yet. If he had a desire to inform his opponent of this thread prior to the trial, you should have let him do so.
     
  7. Oct 2, 2002 #147
    mark

    mark Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    greg, did you send this thread information to the folks he is battling with?
     
  8. Oct 2, 2002 #148
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    whoaaaaaaaa Greg,

    You asked for documentation, he provided it. He asks for help you send it the attorney representing who he filed against. Knowing he's both a court date and settlement pending.

    That's rude WITH an agenda.

    Shame on you!

    Sassy
     
  9. Oct 2, 2002 #149
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    Niiiiiiiice, Greg.

    I've known all along that there was at least a chance, if not a likelihood that Macy's might well be watching. It certainly would not be unprecendented.

    Getting feedback and advice where I choose to get it is my right, just as it is my right to either utilize or reject that advice.

    Ms. Dugan has not requested any form of confidentiality on any of her letters. If she did, I would honor it.

    I wonder how many people who see this thread are going to be reluctant to interact with you in any other threads. Information monger that you are, it seems self damaging.

    Who peed in your corn flakes, man?
     
  10. Oct 2, 2002 #150
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    Nodding Quixote,

    Starting right here!

    Sassy
     
  11. Oct 2, 2002 #151
    LKH

    LKH Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    Well I will say it, and I'm not stuttering, Greg, if you indeed did send that to her after demanding Quixote post his info, then you are 100% complete ass. What in the world is wrong with you? I can guarantee you that no one here will ever respond to your posts and requests again.
     
  12. Oct 2, 2002 #152
    boywonder

    boywonder Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    Wow--that is rude, Greg! I think Ellen should serve as a display to parents not to let your children chew on lead-based paints. The brain damage is permanent. This lady still HAS NO PERMISSIBLE PURPOSE for Macy's hard inquiry. This is so open and shut. Macy's is getting off CHEAP if you settle for 1K. You are saving them a lot of money as opposed to filing in Federal court and retaining the services of a lawyer.
     
  13. Oct 2, 2002 #153
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    No sense stopping now...


    -----Original Message-----
    From: "Quixote (edit)"<(edit)@go.com>
    To: "Ellen R Dugan"<(edit)@FDS.com>
    Date: Wed Oct 02 20:53:37 PDT 2002
    Subject: Re: Your FCRA Complaint

    >Ms. Dugan,
    >
    >I appreciate your sincere effort to find common ground.
    >
    >When I look at the Inquiry in question on my Experian credit report, either online or in hard copy, not a lot of detail is given, merely the innocuous â??Permissible Purposeâ? statement and the date, January 24, 2002. I called Mr. Rick Haas of Experianâ??s Special Consumer Services Division today. I was curious to see if more detail could be obtained by asking Experian what their more detailed in-house records show. His answer was most interesting. According to Mr. Haas, when a subscribing company, such as Macyâ??s, makes an inquiry, the subscribing company must choose a very specific numeric Classification Code for that inquiry. For the inquiry in question, Macyâ??s chose to classify it as a â??Code 31". According to Mr. Haasâ?? copy of Experian's manual, â??Code 31" translates as â??Purpose of Granting or Denying Creditâ?. Not exactly what Macy's has been arguing all along. You can call Mr. Haas yourself. His number is 800-322-3162.
    >
    >Since I already had Mr. Haas on the phone, I told him about our disagreement and asked if what you said was true; that there is no way to put an inquiry in dispute. He said there are actually a variety of ways, the easiest of which is for the subscribing company to simply submit, in writing, a statement that a particular inquiry should not be made visible to anyone other than the consumer and Experian, as there was no Permissible Purpose for a â??Hard Inquiryâ?. This would preserve the factual record of the inquiry without unduly affecting the credit of any individual. It seems to me that someone on your staff could have made that call along time ago, Ms. Dugan, and avoided all of this unpleasantness.
    >
    >After describing my situation to Mr. Haas, I asked him if there was anything he could do to help rectify this situation. He suggested that he could mark the inquiry as possibly having a fraudulant purpose; ie, no Permissible Purpose, and that Macyâ??s would have thirty days to either verify that the inquiry was in fact resulting from a Permissible Purpose or Macyâ??s could ignore it, and after thirty days it will drop off of my credit report. I asked him to proceed, and so that is where it stands. This presents Macyâ??s with an interesting choice, in my view. If you ignore the request for verification and allow the inquiry to be removed, it will be taken by me as a silent admission that the inquiry was fraudulant in the first place. If Macyâ??s answers the verification request by re-stating that there was indeed a Permissible Purpose, then Macyâ??s has provided me with yet another violation to cite in state court, at $5000 per infraction, when this reaches the next stage, as well as an expert whose sworn affidavit in this matter would be extremely supportive of my case.
    >
    >I have provided you with direct quotes from the FCRA, detailing exactly what is, and what is not, a Permissible Purpose, and followed up with excerpts from three different Opinion Letters from the Federal Trade Commission legal staff, the very people charged by Congress with regulating and enforcing all aspects of the FCRA, which further detailed that in situations very similar to the situation at hand, that no Permissible Purpose exists, because no business relationship exists. Considering all that, I honestly find it absolutely mystifying that you can still be in denial.
    >
    >Macyâ??s/ FDSB is standing squarely on the wrong side of the Fair Credit Reporting Act here, Ms. Dugan. The only question is what it takes to rectify it.
    >
    >Best Regards,
    >
    >Quixote (edit)
     
  14. Oct 2, 2002 #154
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    wowOwowwwwwwwww Quixote,

    THAT is gold!

    Sassy
     
  15. Oct 2, 2002 #155
    humblemarc

    humblemarc Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    Very Nice! You have done your homework! "How about we settle for $2,000 now?"

    humblemarc
     
  16. Oct 2, 2002 #156
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    Thanks for saying what I'm too tired to say.

    I wrestled with whether to post this saga as it happens for quite some time. What finally compelled me to go ahead and post everything (except the two letters Bill Bauer had a hand in- he has asked me not to) is the thought that this may well end up in some sort of settlement (even at this late date I wouldn't be shocked if we settle) and I may well sign some sort of confidentiality agreement at that time. If I did, I would be precluded from making any more statements, or posting any more about this case. But they would have a hard time making me 'un-say' all I've already said, and 'un-post' all that I've already posted. I've learned so darn much here from other people's experience, and many a time shamelessly stolen their ideas, letters, even a few jokes, and applied them to my own situation. I thought it would be a shame if this ended up going all the way and nobody else had the chance to learn from it; either positively or negatively (where did I go wrong, or what was the key to victory). So, if I suddenly go silent on this subject, you will know why. 'Nuf said.
     
  17. Oct 2, 2002 #157
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    Edit: BTW, Quixote I'm smiling that you honored your gut and glad you held out posting this until AFTER Greg posted himself into a corner!

    What a lesson for all of us in gut honoring, thank you!

    And a few 5 or 6 pages back that is just what you said while Greg was drilling you and demanding evidence -- that your gut told you so...
     
  18. Oct 2, 2002 #158
    LKH

    LKH Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    No problem Quixote. Someone had to say it. It's too bad, but I don't what has gotten into him. Good luck the rest of the way, although I doubt you'll need it.
     
  19. Oct 2, 2002 #159
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    Step up to the plate and answer this question.

    :(

    (Of course, what else could be said now but - No I didn't)
     
  20. Oct 2, 2002 #160
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: The Invitation

    fave Butch growling dude:

    Is that (quote) not the answer? or are we asking if he really REALLY sent it?

    The more I think about this, the madder I get, this is beyond my shame on you and beyond ass.

    You know what this is, this is CA-ish!

    Sassy
     
Page 8 of 17
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page