Jackpot?!? Permissible purpose.

County small claims court

 

Re: Re: Jackpot?!? Permissible purpose.

Not exactly - there is no violation of law for REMOVING a trade line, even if it is accurate. Wahtever is in a CRA file must be accurate. There are no provisions in law for regulating the not reporting of trade lines, accurate or not.

 

Re: Re: Jackpot?!? Permissible purpose.

I am new to this compared to others, but I really agree with Jlynn. If you lay it all out on the line and they don't comply and continue to violate then IMHO it's willfull non compliance which you can get 1K for. Otherwise I think they can pull the negligent noncompliance string and only have to reimburse for actual damages, no punitive. I just sent an ITS letter to TU and laid it all out, 7 pages worth, 30+ violations. I'm hoping if it goes to court that they can't get out of willfull non compliance and will have to pay up. BTW- if I do have to sue, if they don't respond how I want, at 30+ violations (1K a peice) is way over smalls claims ct maximum. Where do I file? Or should I only file a claim for five violations at a time? Or is there a place I can 'go for the gusto?'
Steph

 

Re: Re: Jackpot?!? Permissible purpose.

Wow - Necessary - that must be one amazing letter to cite 30 violations - very nice! You sound like you're more versed in the legal side than many of us - would you mind removing any personal details and sharing the text behind the violations - or if not, possibly a rough outline of how you attach the CRA's actions to 30 violations? If you don't feel comfortbale posting publicly, could you send to rusten2@yahoo.com?

I have a very difficult time figuring out how to explain the connection between something the CRA has done, and an actionable tort - so this might be very handy in developing my own letters! I might also be able to lend some advice on how opinion letters (which I've studied pretty thoroughly) tie into your letter.

Thank you in advance,
-Rusten

 

Re: Re: Jackpot?!? Permissible purpose.

Here it is. It's long though.I just tried posting it and it told me it was too long to post, so I will divide it into two posts. This is my first ITS letter ever, so I honestly wouldn't be surprised if I am wrong on some of this stuff..... only time and a judge will tell opinions/suggestions welcome, welcome, welcome:

NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE LAWSUIT

To Whom It May Concern:

I sent you a letter yesterday CRRR. This letter covered my unhappiness with your company as well as to carbon copy a complaint that I filed with the FTC against your organization. I also indicated in that letter that I felt you were in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act(FCRA) in regards to your non-compliance of completing reinvestigation of my disputes within the allotted 30-day period stipulated by the FCRA. I informed you that if my reinvestigation findings were not reported to me within 15 days after receipt of that letter that I would seek civil remedies for that violation. Upon returning home and gathering my mail I received two more letters from your company. These letters have led me to believe that you are willfully failing to comply with additional regulations in the FCRA. Perhaps, even after many years in business, this is simply negligent non-compliance. I am writing this lengthy letter to you today to fully detail all violations of the FCRA that I feel you are willfully committing. If you do not correct these violations upon receipt of this letter, I can only determine that your non-compliance is not negligent, but is willful. Therefore, if you do not correct these violations within 15 days after receipt of this letter I will seek legal remedies pursuant to sec 616 of the FCRA: Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. 1681n], which states that â??(a) â?¦[a]ny person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of (1)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1000â?. In addition, this section of the FCRA allows me collect the appropriate court costs and reasonable attorney fees if so determined by the court.

First, and foremost, you failed to complete the initial reinvestigations of my disputes within 30 days. This is required by law, please refer to section 611 of the FCRA:
§ 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.

On August 15, 2003 I filed the following disputes with your company:

CBC National Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
NCO Financial Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
National Credit Systems Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
Midland Credit Mgmt Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
Capital One Bank Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
Swiss Colony Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
NCO Financial Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
United Compucred Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00

I know you received these disputes because I received a letter from you dated August 26, 2003 in regards to these disputes. This means that your reinvestigations on these accounts should have been concluded no later than September 26, 2003. The only two reinvestigations that you completed within this allotted time period and reported to me were Midland Credit Mgmt and Capital One Bank (results report dating September 18, 2003). By not concluding the remaining seven disputes you committed seven separate violations of the FCRA. Instead of reinvestigating the remaining disputes, as you are legally required to do, you sent me a letter dated September 17, 2003, where you blatantly lie about when you received the initial disputes. You claim in your letter that you did not receive the initial disputes until September 8, 2003, therefore, you should not be required to conclude investigation until October 8, 2003. You received the letters on, or before, August 26, 2003, that is evident in your letter regarding the disputes dated August 26, 2003. Which moves us on to the next type of violation.

 

Re: Re: Jackpot?!? Permissible purpose.

Part II

In your letter dated September 17, 2003, in addition to your blatant lie about not receiving the original disputes until September 8, 2003, you claim that I sent you additional information on September 15, 2003. You claim that this additional information allows you to extend your investigation by 15 days. First, the â??additional informationâ?? you received were two additional disputes I mailed September 10, 2003. These disputes were for:

Attention LLC Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
Credit Bureau Systems Acct: XXXX Past Due:XXX.00
(By the way, I am still awaiting results on the reinvestigations on these two disputes; your reinvestigation on these two disputes should be concluded no later than October 15, 2003, and I should have a results report from you no later than October 20, 2003.)

According to section 611 of the FCRA you are only entitled to an additional 15 days on the reinvestigation time period if you receive information from me that is relevant to that particular reinvestigation. As you can clearly see in the copies of the letters attached to this one, the letter that I sent you on September 10, 2003 has absolutely no bearing on the disputes I filed on August 15, 2003 (received by you on, or before, August 26, 2003). Please see below for FCRAâ??s regulations on this matter( section 611 (1) (B)):

(B) Extension of period to reinvestigate. Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A) may be extended for not more than 15 additional days if the consumer reporting agency receives information from the consumer during that 30-day period that is relevant to the reinvestigation.

Since you did not receive additional information that was relevant to the original disputes, you were in violation of the FCRA for each dispute you unlawfully tacked 15 days onto and did not conclude by September 26, 2003. This would total seven separate violations.

The third type of violation that I feel you made is in regards to inquiries made on my consumer report. On August 15, 2003, in addition to disputing the specific credit and collection accounts listed above, I sent you a letter disputing several inquiries that are noted on my credit report. To be specific I disputed the following five inquiries:
1. Geico Insurance 06/25/2003
2. Bristol West 11/08/2002
3. Bristol West 08/09/2002
4. MBNA 05/21/2002
5. GMAC Insurance 04/04/2003

You responded to me in a letter dated September 12, 2003 claiming that it is TransUnionâ??s policy to keep a record of all inquiries on a credit report for two years, and that inquiries can only be recorded on a credit report when an inquiry is, in fact, made. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and wrote you, for a second time, about this matter on September 23, 2003. I explained to you that I did not authorize these inquiries and that I was disputing them. The FCRA section 611 (a) (1) (A) grants me the right to dispute â??[â?¦] the completeness and accuracy any item of information contained in a consumerâ??s file at a consumer reporting agency[â?¦]â?. This section goes on to state that â??[â?¦] 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 customer.â? Seeing as inquires are items contained in my consumer file, and they can adversely affect my credit score, as well as my ability to obtain credit based on that score, I am granted the right to dispute this information with you. You are required by law to reinvestigate these disputed inquires and conclude your investigation with in 30 days.

One of the letters I received from you yesterday is in regards to this matter. In your letter dated October 2, 2003 you state that it if I believe that an inquiry was made on my credit report without permissible purpose, that I should contact the creditor directly. Once again, you failed to reinvestigate 5 disputed items, instead you have the audacity to tell me to investigate it on my own if I so desire. In this letter you told me to refer to the FCRA for more information regarding permissible purpose, so I did. The FCRA clearly states that you can only furnish reports in connection with credit or insurance transactions that are not initiated by the consumer only if one of two criteria is met: 1. The consumer authorizes the agency to provide such report to such person, or if the transaction consists of a firm offer of credit or insurance. ( sec 604 (c) (1) (A) and (B)). I did not authorize you, the agency, to provide reports to the above five creditors, nor did I receive a firm offer of credit or insurance from these creditors. I did not authorize the above inquires and do not see how you had permissible purpose to provide these creditors with my report. The FCRA goes on to state in section 607 (a) that â??[e]very consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to [â?¦]limit the furnishings of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 604.â? Apparently, since you are providing my report to unauthorized inquirers, you have not fulfilled your obligation to limit the furnishings of reports, as required by law for you to do. Your refusal to investigate these five items listed on my consumer reports constitutes another five separate violations of the FCRA. These violations are not only a violation of the FCRA, they also violate my right to privacy. You divulged personal, private information about me to unauthorized sources. One of the reasons the FCRA was implemented was because Congress felt there was â??a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumerâ??s right to privacyâ? (sec 602 (a) (4)). I feel that TransUnion has failed miserably in meeting this criteria.

The next type of violation I found that TransUnion committed is in reference to TransUnionâ??s need to provide identification of persons who received a copy of my consumer report. I received a letter from you dated October 1, 2003 stating that I could contact the creditors directly if I wished to dispute an inquiry by that lender(since you apparently were not going to comply with the federal laws requiring you to reinvestigate my dispute inquiries). You said I could contact them at the address and phone number you provided me with. Once again I find multiple violations. You have failed to provide me with the phone numbers of the following lenders that received my credit report: Bofa Char Retail-Bank of America, Geico Insurance, 224 Mortgage Support, Chase Manhattan Bank, MBNA America, and GMAC Insurance online. The FCRA clearly states in section 609 (a) (3) (A) that you are required to provide me with identification of each person that procured a consumer report. The FCRA goes on to clarify what they consider to be adequate identification (sec 609 (a) (3) (B)) â??An identification of a person under subparagraph (A) shall include (i) The name of the person or, if applicable, the trade name (written in full) under which such person conducts business; and (ii) upon request of the consumer, the address and telephone number of the person.â? Your failure to provide me with the required phone numbers results in another six violations of the FCRA.
On October 1, 2003 I received a letter from you in response to my request for procedural and verification documents in regards to the disputes I filed on August 15, 2003. You responded to me stating that you simply store information in your records as it is supplied to you by the creditors. You claim that when a dispute is filed that you merely have to record the current status of the information in your records and that you do not have to provide me with dispute verification responses from the creditor. I beg to differ. In accordance with the FCRA ( section 611 (a) (6) (B) (iii) ):
If requested by the consumer, a description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information shall be provided to the consumer, by the agency, including the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted in connection with such information and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available.
In addition, sub paragraph 7 of the same section stipulates that â??[a] consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description referred to in paragraph (6) (B) (iii) by no later than 15 days after receiving a request from the consumer for that description.â?
I am still awaiting a description of your procedure of how you determined the accuracy and completeness of the information that I disputed. Since you have only managed to complete two reinvestigations of the nine original disputes that I filed, this results in two violations of the FCRA.

 

Re: Re: Jackpot?!? Permissible purpose.

Part III (final I promise)

The final type of violation that I feel TransUnion has committed is in regards to properly noting disputed items on a consumerâ??s report. I received a copy of your results findings on two reinvestigations (Midland Credit Mgt and Capital One Bank) dated September 18, 2003. At this time the following nine disputes were still be investigated:

CBC National Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
NCO Financial Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
National Credit Systems Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
Swiss Colony Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
NCO Financial Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
Attention LLC Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
United Compucred Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
Attention LLC Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
Credit Bureau Systems Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00

According to the FCRA mandated procedure for disputes are as follows:

§ 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]
(c) Notification of consumer dispute in subsequent consumer reports. Whenever a statement of a dispute is filed, unless there is reasonable grounds to believe that it is frivolous or irrelevant, the consumer reporting agency shall, in any subsequent consumer report containing the information in question, clearly note that it is disputed by the consumer and provide either the consumer's statement or a clear and accurate codification or summary thereof.
You will notice on the copy of my results report that you do not specify that any of the above nine accounts were in the process of being disputed by the consumer. Obviously you had not concluded your reinvestigations on these accounts at that time. This is a total of nine separate violations, one for each of the nine separate disputes not properly marked as disputes on my consumer report.

To summarize, I believe that you have committed over thirty (30) violations of the FCRA in regards to my consumer report and disputes that I have filed. I would prefer to deal with this out of court. However, as I stated in previous letters to you, I do not feel that it is my responsibility to spend hours of my time writing letters to your company to police your actions. It is your responsibility to report credit information accurately and fairly according to section 602 of the FCRA. If you wish to resolve this matter outside of court, this will be your last opportunity to do so. I expect the following action from you:

1. Delete the following trade lines with in five days of receipt of this letter:
CBC National Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
NCO Financial Acct: XXXX Past Due:XXX.00
National Credit Sys Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
Swiss Colony Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
NCO Financial Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
Attention LLC Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00
United Compucred Acct: XXXX Past Due: XXX.00

2. Conclude the two reinvestigations filed on September 10, 2003 and report your findings to me no later than October 20, 2003.
3. Immediately delete the five inquiries I disputed and that you refused to investigate.
4. Provide me with the phone numbers of the lenders who received my credit report within five days of receipt of this letter.
5. Immediately provide me with procedural documentation on how you verified the information I disputed, including: procedure used, name, address, and phone number (if phone number is available).
6. Immediately list the accounts that are being disputed as such.
7. Provide me with an updated/corrected copy of my credit report with in five days of receipt of this letter.

I have offered you more opportunities than required by law to correct these mistakes and violations. This will be my last good-will offer. Please realize that if these aforementioned seven expectations are not completed with in 15 days after receiving this letter I will be filing a lawsuit for multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Since I have now fully explained each and every violation that I feel you have committed, if the above mentioned violations are not immediately corrected, your non-compliance with the FCRA is not negligent, it is willful, and is therefore entitles me to seek civil liability against your company pursuant to section 616 (a). I will be seeking civil liability in the amount of 1000.00 per violation, in addition to attorney fees and court filing costs.

In addition, I will file formal complaints against TransUnion with the FTC, the South Carolina State Attorney General, the Pennsylvania State Attorney General, and the Better Business Bureau. I would prefer to not have to travel down these avenues, as it adds undue stress on me, and it quite frankly, unnecessary if you will correct your violations and abide by the FCRA. Thank you and I look forward to resolving this matter as quickly as possible.


Sincerely,



Stephanie XXXX
XXX-XX-XXXX DOB 03/11/XX

Encl:
9 letters of dispute dated 8/15/03
Letter of inquiry dispute dated 8/15/03
Letter from TransUnion dated 8/26/03 in response to 8/15/03 disputes
Letter from S. XXXX dated 8/30/03 in response to 8/26/03 letter from TU
Letter of dispute dated 9/10/03
Letter from TU dated 9/12/03 regarding TU not responsible for investigating inquiries
Letter from TU dated 9/17/03 regarding 15 day extension and 9/08/03 receipt of orig
Disputes
Investigation results dated 9/18/03
Letter from S. XXXX dated 9/23/03 in response to TUâ??s 9/17/03 letter
Letter from S. XXXX dated 9/23/03 in response to TUâ??s 9/12/03 letter
Letter from TU dated 10/01/03 regarding TU not providing procedural documentation
Letter from TU dated 10/01/03 regarding lender contact information
Letter from TU dated 10/02/03 regarding TU not responsible for investigating inquiries
Letter from S. XXXX dated 10/06/03 in regards to violations and FTC complaint
***************************

Whew

 

Hi all,

I've been arguing with a creditor about an account that was paid in 1999. Zero balance, nothing owed, but it's listed as a paid collection.

This morning, I was bumped up to the CS reps supervisor since I was running into a brick wall with her - she didn't have any records of the collection since their files were purged, but refused to remove the notation.

Anyway - first thing the supervisor says when she gets on the phone... "I just pulled your credit report and we're not listed on there". *BANG* right???

She pulled Experian - shows as a hard dated today. I told her that it was listed on the TU report - not experian.

Anyway, I have them on a permissable purpose violation, no?

Is there a precrafter letter out there for this sort of violation from an OC (not CA).

Thanks!



I know it's been a while since this post, but I ws wondering how all of this turned out for you?

 

Absolutely you have them.

The only problem is that it seems CA's don't care any more about the law than they do ethics, people's rights, etc.

For me, it's not until I send over a draft of the complaint to the company's Registered Agent, that I can tell you I have a high success rate.

Sorry I do not have a template letter for you. I tend to stay away from letters that aren't directly related to the unique circumstances because I only do this for a few friends I know who have been unfairly ruined as a result of errors without any legitimacy.

Take care and good luck with the quest!

 

Regardless of what the law says, you only have the rights you are willing to defend.

 

Let me hijack for a moment. Have an account with an OC - they have pulled my credit 10 times in the last year. This is an auto loan. i wrote to them asking to prove PP citing the FTC's Isaac-McGowen (PP doesn't apply to AR for closed end accounts). I recently got reply - 7 of which were because i was varying degrees of delinquent; the other three were results of my initiating disputes with CRA's for inaccurate info.

Note - all of these are hard inquiries. 7 are for account review, 3 are because i disputed with CRA.

i believe i have a case, but since i am not good at legalese i would like some opinions.

 

Account review usually doesn't show to others.

On the pulls due to late payments, they could argue there was a collection purpose.

Do the 3 pulls in response to your CRA disputes show as being visible to others? Were they in fact reporting incorrectly, and did they fix it? (With 3 pulls, it doesn't look like they fixed it very fast.)

Although the late payments muddle the issue, you might argue that their inquiries were done with malice, in retribution for your disputes of incorrect information, to poison your reports. What effect did all of the inquiries have on your FICO scores? Can you determine this separately from any reports of late payments? Were your late payments less than 30 days late, or more, where they would normally show?

 

i will try to answer as detailed (and vaguely) as possible.

two of the three inquiries that were due to disputes initiated by me are soft. the other was done by their credit card dept (which i don't have). I was just going over the info they sent again and they specifically state that this must have been done because i applied for a CC w/them (not true).

Now, obviously they ARE capable of pulling soft inquiries which leaves me wondering WHY they pulled seven hards. During this timeframe the account ranged from 30-90 days late (won't go into specific detail), however, as Isaac-McGowan states - account review pertains to credit in which the terms can be changed; closed end account terms cannot be changed, therefore, account review for closed end accounts does not qualify for permissable purposes. One key thing to note is that several days after one of the inquiries, I rec'd marketing materials outlining information that could have only been known from pulling my report. It hadn't occured to me before that time but i have recd other materials around the same time as the other inquiries (damn i only managed to save one marketing packet!).

Also, other than PG reports I do not have concrete evidence of adverse action and since then i have gotten most of the inquiries off due to "bumpage".

I would not be raising such a stink over this but it bothers me that 8 hard inquiries were incurred for what i have in writing were for "account review" while they are perfectly capable of pulling soft inquiries as evidenced by the credit bureau disputes.

does that explain a little better or did i make it worse? LOL!