must read..no more access to courts

BEWARE... due to amendments to the FCRA (FACTA) that will be implemented by the end of the year or so, we will no longer have our constitutional right of access to the courts! No, the states wonâ??t either! It seems that they have slipped that into what they tout as a stronger FCRA which affords us a free credit report every year and mandates that they must do more in depth investigations (yea, right) and â??allowsâ? us the right to dispute with the furnisher as opposed to just the craâ??s. Those of us that have been through all this before know that we have always gone above and beyond what we were mandated to do for protection under the FCRA and disputed with the furnisher anyway. It never did any good and still will not work!

But now it seems that because they have placed what they call â??stricter standardsâ? for investigating disputes on furnishers, We canâ??t hold either the furnisher or the craâ??s accountable through the courts! Yes, thatâ??s right, any inaction on their part is unenforceable by private actions brought by consumers and preempted from state regulation.
So, what recourse are we left with? If the Government is so concerned with Identity theft growing at such an alarming rate, why would they take away our right to stop the abuse and the detrimental effects it has when these corporations wonâ??t correct their errors. Basically, the free credit report yearly is just their way of saying to us, here, review and let us know if there are inaccuracies. It is doing their work and an unpaid employee!
It has never been a question of the â??monetary damagesâ? we loose through identity theft directly as the creditors pay for that but rather the more devestating effects of what it does to us having inaccurate information damaging our credit reputation and humiliating us everywhere we turn. Not to mention the anxiety and frustration we deal with trying to correct their errors. This new FACTA amendment barring us from access to the courts is unconstitutional and we should fight to overturn it. Most of you all know what I have been through trying to hold them accountable for inaccurate information which landed us in Federal Court ( if not just type in Denise Richardson credit reports into any browser and youâ??ll see). Now, I find myself once again in the agonizing clutches of being at their mercy yet again with inaccurate information ruining my credit. Here is the latest unbelievable condensed version of my latest nightmare.......

In June 2001, 4 years ago....I had an allergic reaction to an antibiotic. I went to the emergency room which covered my expenses through Blue Cross Blue Shield. I had just moved to Florida and wasnâ??t insured to make a doctorâ??s office visit then, but I was insured to go to the ER. A couple of months later, I received a notice from the hospital that Blue cross rejected the portion of the bill that covered the physician seeing me. I immediately called BC and found that the hospital had coded the bill wrong and had inadvertently billed it as a doctor office visit. We did a three way party call and while I was on the line BC explained this to the hospital and told them they would pay it if they re-submitted correctly and BC provided them a confirmation number to place on their new submission form. Several months later I received a call from a collection company for this same bill.

I again contacted BC. Their records indicated that the hospital never re-submitted and BC called them on the phone with me on the line. The collection company, IMBS, said not to worry that they had not and would not report this to the craâ??s. BC waived their normal policy of not paying due to the length of time it took them to submit the bill and gave them a confirmation number that it would be paid and said they would just send out the check.

They did send out the check and I received notice that they had. Once again believing all was well again....just last year, another call from yet another collection agency. This time they were called NCO. Again, I contacted BC and after much time and effort on both our parts got NCO to accept BCâ??s explanation and proof the check had been sent out directly to the physician that was on the bill they received. Again, assurances that this was not reported to the craâ??s. After doing some research BC found that the check they sent out had not been cashed. BC made numerous calls and even contacted the physician where the check was sent. Upon finding out the check was never cashed BC supervisor said they would stop payment on it and send out another check. They did so and it was finally cashed.

In 2003, out of the blue I got a call from a company called Gold Key saying they were the collection company trying to collect this $220.00 medical bill. Totally frustrated I went into the whole explanation and yet again got BC on the phone with us. During that conversation the woman at Gold Key was extremely rude to both BC and myself so BC said they would make calls and call me back. Stating â??Denise, I will make this my mission to get corrected after everything documented shows what we have been throughâ?. When they called me back the BC representative told me they had never dealt with such rude people and that they would not put her on with a supervisor or management but rather gave her a fax number. She faxed them a letter with proof that the check was cashed and that this should never have been in their hands to begin with.

Thinking this was all taken care of 4 years later, it has now just been placed on my credit report as delinquent collection of $220.. Past due. I immediately faxed 14 pages of documents to both the collection company and the cra to dispute this being on my credit in the first place. After disputing it I received my results of the first investigation..I read in horror as it stated they have verified it to be accurate!

I contacted BC, and Gold Key and after three hours of dealing with them and BC going above and beyond faxing them all the information they wanted they assured me they would take care of it and report it to the cra as error. Of course, not trusting them I re-disputed with the CRA and re-faxed all the pertinent information to where they requested and yesterday, I finally got the results of their SECOND so called investigation back....â?verified as accurate with the creditorâ?. Their was not even a mention that it was paid nor was their any information placed on my credit report that this is in dispute! So much for in depth investigations or taking the consumers authentic documents as proof!

With FACTA taking our access to the courts away...where do we turn? Where do we innocent, exhausted consumers turn to for accountability? When do I get to stop doing the craâ??s work for them? My once perfect credit appears to be gone thorugh no fault of my own. I fought so hard to keep my perfect credit and to have them destroy it yet again leaves me re-living all the horrors of my first nightmare with them. The sleepless nights, the anxiety, fear and frustration level is right back where I was the first time around. I fear for all consumers once this new FACTA is implemented. Given that the FCRA preempts state regulation of these obligations and eliminates the right of consumersâ?? to enforce them, violators have little to fear from flouting them and consumers will have no recourse to hold them accountable. I believe that this is unconstitutional and urge you all to write your representatives and express your fears and outrage!

 

Also, please feel free to email me your letters and I will forward to the appropriate representatives for you! I would like to gather as many oppositions to this act as possible! deniserichardson1@netzero.com

 

I forgot to mention...how did Ifind out it was on my credit report??? I opened a credit card statement that had an interest rate of 2.99% and I noticed it had suddenly gone to 27.99%....when I called them to see why, as I was in shock, they told me it was due to their credit review of my credit report! I knew I had excellent credit and immediately called to get a copy of my report! they lowered my rate for 4 months while I dispute this but we all know that 4 months may just not be intheir time frame to effectively fix their error!!

 

In my case, BCBS has come to my aid in helping me get through this but even with their assistance it's not getting me anywhere...yet!

 

http://www.consumerlaw.org/initiatives/facta/nclc_analysis.shtml

here is a link to an analysis of the FCRA amendments (FACTA) at consumer law's site.

Our complaints, disputes and whether or not they have adhered to the consumer protection laws will never be public information. Without the fear of a lawsuit brought on by their negligence, what will force them to take effective measures to ensure that our disputes will be handled.

Access to the courts has always been our most effective means of holding companies accountable for their actions and forcing them to adhere to state and Federal consumer protection laws. By taking away this important right, they are ensuring that they do not have to fear consumers holding them responsible and it basically places them above any so-called consumer protection laws.

 

I wish that were the case...but it isn't. I spoke with many consumer attorneys all of whom tell me our only prayer is the FTC in holding them accountable. And we all know what good that does. Nearly every "imporovement" they gave us...they took away specifically in each instance, our right to private action. See http://www. consumerlaw.org/initiatives/facta/nclc_analysis.shtml

here is just some of the analysis:

Limitations on Liability
FACTA further limits the ability of consumers to enforce their rights under the FCRA by expanding limits on liability for violations of the FCRA in three ways: by adding new responsibilities to sections that are covered by the FCRAâ??s pre-existing qualified immunity provision, by adding new responsibilities to sections covered by a pre-existing limitation of liability provision, and by adding new limitation of liability provisions. Finally, FACTA not only limits the right of consumers to enforce the FCRA, but also puts new restraints on the rights of states to bring actions to enforce many of the obligations imposed on furnishers.

Expansion of the preexisting qualified immunity provision. The prior version of the FCRA explicitly provided that consumers could not enforce the provisions of § 623(a), which requires furnishers to provide accurate information to agencies, through the liability provisions of the FCRA, § 616 (willful noncompliance) and § 617 (negligent noncompliance).21 The FCRA additionally limited liability for violations of the FCRA with a qualified immunity provision that allowed consumers to bring one of the following state law claims only if the consumer showed that the information was furnished with â??malice or willful intent to injureâ?:

(1) A claim â??in the nature of defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence,â?
(2) Brought against any agency, user, or furnisher;
(3) Based in whole or in part on a consumer report; and
(4) Based on any of the following:

(a) Disclosures made pursuant to § 609 [Disclosures to consumers];
(b) Disclosures made pursuant to § 610 [Conditions and form of disclosure to consumers];
(c) Disclosures made pursuant to § 615 [Requirements on users of consumer reports]; or
(d) Disclosures by a user of a consumer report to or for a consumer against whom the user has taken adverse action, where the disclosure is based on the report.22

FACTA did not amend that provision; however, by expanding the sections referred to in the provision FACTA provided qualified immunity for disclosures that violate the following new provisions:

§ 609(a)(1)(A), requiring agencies to withhold the last 5 digits of a consumerâ??s SSN from the disclosure of the consumerâ??s file if the consumer so requests.
The amendment to § 609(c) that requires agencies to provide certain information with their disclosure of a file to a consumer, including the FTCâ??s summary of consumersâ?? rights to obtain and dispute information in consumer reports and to obtain and dispute credit scores.
§ 609(d), requiring agencies to provide consumers who believe they are or may be the victim of identity theft with an FTC-issued summary of their right to use the FCRAâ??s new procedures for remedying the fraud.
§ 609(e), allowing identity theft victims to obtain business transaction information from businesses that have done business with the thief.
§ 609(f), requiring agencies to disclose credit scores and certain related information.
§ 609(g), requiring mortgage lenders to disclose credit scores to loan applicants and to provide them with a designated notice.
§ 615(d)2), requiring that users making credit or insurance solicitations present the required prescreening notice in a format, size, type, and manner to be established by the FTC.
§ 615(h), requiring creditors to issue risk-based pricing notices.
New incorporations into the existing limitation of liability provision for furnishers. The following new furnisher responsibilities which were added to § 623(a), are protected from enforcement by consumers pursuant to the limitation of liability provision in § 623(c):

§ 623(a)(6), requiring furnishers to have procedures for responding to identity theft notifications from agencies and prohibiting furnishers from re-submitting fraudulent information.
§ 623(a)(7), requiring financial institutions to notify customers that they are furnishing negative information to agencies about that customer.
§ 623(a)(8), allowing consumers to dispute information directly with a furnisher and requiring furnishers to reinvestigate a dispute when it meets certain conditions, to complete the investigation within the designated time, and to notify each agency to whom the furnisher furnished the information if the furnisher finds that it was inaccurate.
§ 623(a)(9), requiring persons in the business of providing medical services, products, or devices and who furnish information to agencies to notify the agencies of their status as medical information furnishers.
New limitation of liability provisions of the FCRA. FACTA also added the following limitations on liability for new responsibilities under the FCRA.

§ 609(e)(6), providing that identity theft victims may not enforce their new rights to business transaction information from businesses that have done business with the thief.23
§ 615(h)(8), providing that consumers may not enforce the new obligations of users to provide risk-based pricing notices.24
§ 623(c)(2), providing that consumers may not enforce the obligation of the federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration, and the FTC to establish accuracy and integrity guidelines for furnishers and to prescribe regulations requiring furnishers to establish reasonable policies and procedures for implementing those guidelines.25
§ 623(c)(3), providing that consumers may not enforce the obligation of agencies to issue red flag guidelines and regulations.26
New restraints on statesâ?? actions. FACTA amends the FCRAâ??s administrative enforcement section27 to provide that in the case of a violation of furnishersâ?? obligations to provide accurate information28 or to comply with to-be-issued guidelines to protect the accuracy and integrity of consumer information,29 or of financial institutionsâ?? obligations to comply with the to-be-issued red flag guidelines for detecting identity theft, a state may not simply bring an action for damages on behalf of its residents.30 Rather, the state must first obtain an injunction against the violator that prohibits the violator from violating the FCRA, and then the state may only seek damages for violations that occur after the injunction. Given that the FCRA preempts state regulation of these obligations and eliminates the right of consumersâ?? to enforce them, violators have little to fear from flouting them.

 

they want us all to see this as "improvements" but if you read it nearly every single so-called improvment they gave us...they took away OUR rights to hold them accountable. Yes, they can say the furnishers now have a strong duty to investigate as the cra's were suppose to as well. It didn't work when we could hold them acccountable, it won't work now. We will now only have a right to complain, dispute over and over and then when the FTC gets enough complaints "they" can act and they can be fined, which is like a slap on the wrist as it was prior to the FCRA itself. How many complaints do you think it will take before the FTC steps in.

 

http://uspirg.org/uspirgnewsroom.asp?id2=13650&id3=USPIRGnewsroom&

link to US PIRG report showing 1 in 4 reports wreak havoc in consumers lives.