Found this link on Greg's creditaccuracy site. It looks like you'd best have actual damages before you sue for FCRA violations...
The reversal of Cousin vs TransUnion is interesting too... Seems like there is not much reason for CRA's to worry about consumers' rights. That was depressing. I need to find some where the outcome was good for the consumer...
Hey, I just finished reading the first post about the link on Greg's site. Now I'm off to read the info on the second post. ;-) Good Info............
No offense Jambe, But after reading this case, i don't see how this case would deter the average Creditnetter from filing in small claims court for the usual 1,000 dollars per violations up to the state limit (esp. if they are more worried about the deletion). This guy was suing for a lot more than that in a district court, and had he been a little smarter, he could have found a million things to do or apply for, that would have given him a case with "actual damages." (i.e. using his credit to purchase something with a better yield, etc.). The court expressly says that the "bounty" awards are instituted by Congress for Federal Laws to, at least in a small part, act as "actual damages" regardless if there are damages or not. Erego, the $1,000 per violation. But that's just my reading of it. Plus just like my interpretation of the law, every judge has their own interpretation as well. And a well-prepared Creditnetter with several existing case laws on their side will generally win in small claims court, if not before. When you start trying to set up a trust fund for your grandkids with a lawsuit, the outcome is always up in the air. humblemarc
That is why I have several denial letters and I can show proof of the higher intrest rates I am paying from the time the furnisher supplied the inaccurate information of my credit report to present. If at the very least the furnisher's information contributed to the higher intrest rate I am now paying on current loans. Say the difference between a car loan of 20 percent intrest to a fair rate of 8 percent intrest that you obtain in writing from your local bank. Do the math you have easily damages over $1000.00 just on this one loan. As another precaution I also go to a good friend and ask him for a loan. He reviews my credit report and says...."You know what TAC? I'd loan you the money if it weren't for this collection here." I then make a nice denial letter and have him sign it. Can't say that isn't damaging! How about applying for a mortgage and getting turned down or paying a higher intrest rate?? Isn't that damaging. I can easily show the judge my cancelled rent checks for $725.00 a month due the actions the defendant has contributed to my denial or higher intrest. On another note I believe that anyone I take to court I can easily show Willful misconduct rather then negligent conduct. This is because I can show the numerous letters and phone calls pointing out the violations of the laws and their failure to correct such when notified. If that isn't willful conduct I don't know what is?? Can you say Punitive Damages?? The rules for small claims are much easier as well, no discovery and no legal mumbo jumbo. It is intended to be a court for your average layman. And at the very least if I don't win for any damages, and don't get me wrong I'm not talking about filing a frivilous lawsuit but a good lawsuit w/o damages, I have brought their sorry asses into court to answer for their actions. Thats if it gets that far! Tac
None taken. It was in reading the court's reasoning where I had the issues. I have no doubt that other judges have differing opinions, just as the dissenter in that case, for instance. It makes no sense though to go off half-cocked when you attempt to sue a CRA. You already knew that ) In any event, it makes sense to be aware of both winning and losing cases, just so you know what works and what doesn't...
Tac, I sure can say that. Ubfortunately, it matters not what I can say, or what I feel I am entitled to, but rather what the judge (or jury) awards. It's great that we hear about CreditNetters winning much of the time. We shouldn't automatically assume we will win though, and should be prepared in case we lose. Anyway, that case at first reading bothered me, and I posted as much. I certainly wasn't trying to invoke fear into anyone who was thinking of filing a suit. Quite the contrary, I am considering it myself even. This is just another bit of knowledge to use...
Jambe, I applaud you for reading case law. That's where you really will get a dose of reality. Regardless of what the law actually says, it's case law that determines how these judges will make their determinations and it's case law that will help you most in formulating a case. You did stumble upon an unfortunate case but like Mark said the Plantiff didn't do that good of a job on his case. Therein lies the lesson. Keep reading, there are a million of em.
