I sued both MBNA and Experian regarding the way my MBNA account was reporting. I sued in small claims court. MBNA filed a motion to transfer to the regular docket. We were in court today regarding that motion. A couple of things went down... 1) MBNA and I reached an agreement to delete the tradeline from all reports. As such, the motion to transfer was withdrawn. The case is to be reassigned to the small claims calendar. 2) Experian (in the form of Carla Blair) refused to settle. Up until July the MBNA tradeline was showing. When she shows up at court it is mysteriously gone.....MBNA didn't delete and Experian claimed not to either. She refused to settle for cash and said Experian has no liability. Might I add that the woman is just evil - with a bad attitude and rude to boot. Interestingly I saw a copy of what they sent MBNA to verify and it DID NOT include prior account history it just said "current account, was 60 days late". No mention of how many times it was 30, 60 or whatever..... Okay so I need some help. Since I got what I wanted, which was deletion of the tradeline, should I just back off now? Or, do I go at it with Experian? I've got a paper trail a mile long on them. Also, I'd rather settle but it doesn't look like Ms. Blair is even beginning to go there. So should I approach their General Counsel's office regarding the possibility of settlement since consumer affairs is being steadfast? HELP!!!
Mel I just argued a small claims case against Experian (awaiting court's decision). We were near settlement when they refused to correct the TL completely. Be awfully careful about settling with Experian. Their settlement agreement is heavily weighted in their favor. You'll need to make revisions to it so that you're not giving up your future rights to sue them should they violate in the future. But the way their settlement agreements are worded, you'd do just that. As to damages; they'll try and tell you "we don't pay _____ as damages" as if that's some kind of law or something. Don't be intimidated. If you demanded $1000, stick to it. The Court might adjust it downward somewhat. Just don't let Experian do it for you. I'm sure my fellow C'Netters are sick of me ranting about Exp, but the mere mention of them gets my blood boiling.
1*You'll need to make revisions to it so that you're not giving up your future rights to sue them should they violate in the future. 2*But the way their settlement agreements are worded, you'd do just that. kickman ============== 2*This won't work because the FTC is worded in such a way that one can't sign away their rights under it. Such a clause in a settlement agreement is contrary to law & therefore unenforceable in a court of law,
In theory you're right. I have, however, heard of an instance where a CRA attempted to have a case dismissed under a lame theory of (I think) estoppel, arguing that the plaintiff agreed not to sue the CRA again. The pro se plaintiff really didn't know how to reply to that defense and the lazy (and no doubt business-friendly) temporary judge dismissed the case. A little tweaking of the settlement agreement would have at least nullified that defense. But again, I agree with your premise.
Go Mel. Can't help much tho unless we see the complaint. One thing I might ask, when you disputed with Ex. did you send them any documentation to prove your point? ???
My issue with Experian in a nutshell is this. I am alleging the following: 1) They didn't consider my documentation (a letter from MBNA showing the accurate payment history) and simply verified the account as reported. I faxed and sent via certified mail this letter and both times the information came back verified. 2) The reason the information came back verified is that Experian did not provide MBNA with the account history to verify. I was late once 90 days. Experian was reporting multiple lates. What they sent to MBNA to verify as a result of the consumer dispute was a form that said the account was reporting "current, was 90 days". MBNA of course would have verified this as I was late 90 days one time. However, since they weren't shown the other multiple lates they had no way of confirming/denying it. My issue is with Experian for not providing MBNA with the information that was the basis of my dispute. I have the copy of the information that was sent to MBNA to verify (courtesy of MBNA) to show how the miscommunication arose. I dunno, since the tradeline was deleted I am starting to feel as if I should just not look a gift horse in the mouth and call it a day.
, heard of an instance where a CRA attempted to have a case dismissed under a lame theory of (I think) estoppel, arguing that the plaintiff agreed not to sue the CRA again. The pro se plaintiff really didn't know how to reply to that defense ================= Here is one reply Hey by the way - did you know there is absolutely NO WAY for you to lose the rights you have in FCRA & FDCPA? Even if you signed a document that says you waive them, you don't waive them. You CAN'T. I just can't remember the case where I saw that. Butch THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
