Here is the issue: I have been fighting with MBNA over a hard inquiry pulled in 4/02. There have been numerous letters back and forth with MBNA maintaining the whole time that they had a legal right to pull my credit because they "had to see what they were reporting." I know this is BS and does not comply with the FCRA permissible purpose statutes. I filed suit on Friday, July 5, in smalls claims court, for $5,000 based on the following: Violation #1 - Section 604 FCRA - lack of permissible purpose for pulling my credit. Violations#2 & #3 - Section 623 FCRA - knowingly reporting known errors after being alerted by me on 2 separate accounts. Violations #4 & #5 - Section 623 FCRA - not noting either of the two accounts as "in dispute" during this whole 3 month long process. I received a letter from a First Vice President @ MBNA on July 6th (MBNA did not know the suit was filed yet). They maintain the following: 1. They are reporting the 2 accts correctly as "in bk". I did not dispute this, there were other errors. MBNA completely discounted this because "they report the status of the accounts at the time they RECEIVED notification of the CH 13." Does this seem right to anyone? The CH 13 was filed 1/9/01. They continued to accrue interest / fees / report additional delinquency for another 3 months after that! Now the two accounts are reporting as "included in bk", the most owed amounts are wrong, the dates are wrong, and one of them says it was a CH 7 not a CH 13. The VP that responded to my letter says that none of that is important--it was the info they had when they were notified. Does it matter that MBNA reported a different, lower amount, to the trustee 2 months prior to the date they supposedly were notified? It seems it should matter! If they were reporting to a CH 13 trustee to get payment, weren't they, in fact, notified? 2. They will remove the 4/02 hard inquiry as a "goodwill gesture." What? Isn't it the fact they did it at all in question? Here is my question: What does this do to my lawsuit? The inquiry is now gone due to their goodwill gesture. The accounts are not 100% correct, but they are zeroed out and reporting as "included in bk." They have been reporting this way for over a year. Do I still have a case? Isn't the judge going to say "they deleted the inqury, what more do you want?" I need some expert guidance here. I'm confused! LisaMc
have u sent them info on why the 2 accounts are reported incorrect? if you got your deletion, then thats what u were fighting for.
Yes, I have sent them detailed examples of why the info is not 100% correct. They just say "it is zeroed out and reported as included in bk." Good enough in their opinion. Greedy as it may seem, my goal was not deletion of the inquiry. I could have gotten that deleted with Doc's Trick. I wanted the two accounts to be deleted. They flatly refused to delete them. Any ideas?
If you have documented proof of their inaccuracies and incorrect reporting I would continue on with the law suit. Also just because the creditor makes good now doesn't excuse them for their violations of the laws then. If you have proof of that continue on. I would fight this in court! If they call or contact you to settle I would probably settle for full deletion if nothing else of the accounts and get it in writing. If they want to continue on and fight you in court I would get some money from them and the deletion. In my state of PA small claims cannot issue an order to return property or order an OC, CA or CRA to delete an account. I have given up large sums of money from lawsuits to settle with just a deletion because I know if I fight in court and win I really have gained nothing more then money as the account will still be listed and the OC, CA or CRA still able to report such, I would add they would still have to report it accurately but if they did that a negative account would still be listed, which does no good. Check on the laws for small claims in your jurisdiction and make sure they are allowed to issue orders for deletions. In my case I would have had to file in federal court or the PA court of common pleas to accomplish this. This opens a whole new can of worms I know I'm not adequately ready to deal with. I wish you luck! Tac
Tac, I am in Texas. Small Claims can do nothing more than issue judgements for monetary compensation. That's it. So, even if this thing does go to court, and assuming I win, I would just walk away with $$ and no deletion. I want the deletion. That has always been the goal. I am assuming it will get back to the exact same issue as always "is it worth their time to fight this?" They make no indication in their latest correspondence that they even expect it to go any further. Of course they state "we consider this matter closed." The suit is already filed. My concern is if I have enough, now that they have agreed to delete the inquiry, to sue for. I just don't know if a small claims judge will see any harm in their actions once the inquiry is removed. If they correct their reporting to 100% accurate, I really don't gain anything either. When it comes to scoring, those small details I pointed out don't mean anything. As far as proving damages, the incorrect reporting won't hold up. The inquiry will be gone. The last set of violations dealt with not putting the accounts in dispute. They still haven't done that. I should also mention that this is my first lawsuit. I am scared to death over this whole thing. If my case is really borderline, I don't want to be held responsible for their legal fees/travel/etc. What would you do?
Lisa, I understand your concern. Do not be afraid, small claims at least where I live is very informal and the judge already knows you aren't an attorney. I find small claims judges to be fair in that you the little man is fighting the big corporation. They hold them to much higher requirements when they do business and the law does not look favorably when the willfully violate such. If you have them on the failure to notify them of dispute, you have nothing to worry about, work on that. I have based many lawsuits on just that one violation alone. However small it is a violation and when you alert them to it and they do not correct or ignore it them becomes willfull non-compliance. My experience has been that these companies a day or two before court will contact you anyway to settle. They do not want to go to court if they know they will lose. Keep fighting and do not give up or dismiss your lawsuit. Good Luck! Tac
Tac, Thanks so much for the words of advice and encouragement. I appreciate your input very much. Do you feel, based on the history of this issue that I gave, think it is worth going after? My only real point, after deletion of the inquiry is done, is the lack of putting something "in dispute." My goal all along has been deletion of the accounts. I asked for $$, they denied that flatly and also denied deletion. Should I just see this as the first steps in a negotiation? I can't see any reason whatsoever that they would want to litigate this. Should I send another letter stating that the suit has been filed, give them the case #, and ask for deletion in lieu of $$? Is it still to early to show my hand? Everyone, please forgive me, I realize that I am a nervous wreck with this. I will just have to go through the motions once, get my bearings, and be comfortable with the idea from now on! Bottom line....I do not want to be held liable for any expenses that they may incur to defend themselves. How likely is this to happen?
Bump Whyspers, LKH, Lizardking, Doc, Mindcrime, Breeze, anyone else have any advice or guidance on this?
Lizardking, thanks so much for the info. I hope this situation really goes as smoothly as you think! The VP only deleted the inquiry in question as a "goodwill measure on the part of MBNA." He flatly & specifically refused to delete the two negative accounts. He also specifically refused any compensation in this matter (this did not surprise me--why part with money when you don't have to?). Why, in your opinion, are they holding on so tightly to the continued reporting of the 2 negative accounts? It will cost them nothing to delete them, why the insistance to hold on & continue to report? Is it simply that the letter was from the VP was written prior to the actual filing date; therefore, he really didn't believe/know that I would actually file a suit? My goal has always been deletion of these 2 accounts & 1 inquiry--money would just be gravy. Thanks again for your input! I promise not to be such a Nervous Nellie on lawsuit #2. This first one, however, is giving me an ulcer!
Lisa, I also beleive from exerpience involving suits that they will again contact you and now want to find out what your needs are and how they can settle. They have everything to lose by not responding or showing up in court. If they know they are going to lose they will do everything they can to stay out of the courtroom. Be polite but firm in what you want from them. If they send you any agreement or settlement contract always have your lawyer look over it. Reading all the legal mumbo jumbo can be confusing and you may be giving up your rights and not know it, then your stuck! Keep this lawsuit going and if they do not contact you be prepared to read and prove your argument before the judge. Good Luck! Tac
Tac, if they want to settle this for deletion of the 2 accounts, I am a happy happy camper. If they want to proceed with the suit, I am concerned. I can't establish damages! Maybe I don't need to. MBNA 1. Pulled my credit without authorization 2. Continued to report 2 accts without 100% accuracy well after it was pointed out to them. 3. Never marked the accounts as in dispute with the CRAs. MBNA has, throughout their correspondence, maintainted a facade of complete nonchalance to this matter. I say "I will file suit on 6/10." They reply with a letter on 7/6, sent by snail mail, that says basically "what's your problem?". They maintain that they have done ZERO wrong. Of course, that is the bluff they would need to get in isn't it? If they said "oh you are right, we did screw that up." Everyone would file suit against them. Hopefully, they just haven't had enough time to adjust to a new phase of all of this--the lawsuit phase. Up until now it has all been me screaming and them ignoring it. Maybe now they will be more willing to adjust their attitude. I can not, in any sense, see why they would go through with this. What would it get them? I believe it was Psychdoc that said in another thread "a lawsuit is the simple cost of getting superior customer service."
Another twist in this mess.... I just got a copy of my EQ credit report. MBNA has pulled 4 soft inquiries on me in the last 9 days. These are all "AM", account maintenance, inquiries. Why would they be doing this? They are all noted as "audit." Even though these supposedly carry no negative effect on scoring, are they considered in any lawsuit battles? My file is blocked for promotional purposes. I didn't authorize them to pull anything about me. Furthermore, I don't have an account with them anymore!
Hi Lisa, WAVING to you! Seems like Christine at Bayhouse had posted several specific links to FTC letters on permissable purpose that she used with her Wells Fargo case. I'm sorry I'm out of gas or I'd hunt it up for you tonight. My daughter has allstar games all this week, just home and after 1a!!! LOL, from the proud mama, but we're in first place! I'll look tomorrow evening though if you don't already have them. Summons Marie too, she's done her homework on this! Maybe someone can give you more specific direction, I'm not sure you need damages on violations in this case. I think it's mindcrime that has posted on the differences in section requirements in the past. You were damaged, your lowered score deprives you of credit opportunity, seems like lizardking sued using that. Additionally, your privacy was violated! Summons Marie, she'll give you plenty to read on privacy. That's the whole point of requiring a permissable purpose. You've the right to finanacial privacy and the nature of the identifying information in your reports. Blowing off the permissable part is damaging -- what's the price of privacy? There's statuatory penalties just for violating -- I know those on this board can help you document that seeing what they are reporting isn't a permissable purpose. Maybe that VP needs some good reading material ;-) or the attorneys need some to pass on to him. You're getting great advice in this thread, I love following it. Sassy
Hi Sassy! So glad you posted. This thing is making me nuts. Add Chase and the mortgage debaucle and it makes for a crazy mommy! I like the privacy angle. It is pretty hard to prove that I was damaged due to loss of credit opportunity when I haven't applied for anything and I am in the middle of a CH 13! I have read, re-read, and re-read some more in the FCRA in these sections. It just doesn't seem clear to me. Section 623 specifically states that knowingly reporting errors DOES NOT fall under section 616 & 617. What does this mean? Does it mean that the damages described in these sections can not be applied to Section 623 offenses? Does it mean that section 623 stands alone? If that is the case, there are no damages outlined. It does refer to Section 621, Administrative Enforcement. This section says that the STATE may bring charges and describes what the remedies are specifically noting Section 623. Maybe I am just being dense here, but it is not clear to me.
