my journey is done..I GIVE UP

It would make sense that "they get sued 50 times a month and never lose a case in court" since they are so often WRONG and KNOW IT that they settle before it ever gets to court - Can't lose if you don't have to go!

 

Christi


Believe it or not you have her where you want her. From the tone of her letter this is personal. Thus she probably has not crossed her t's or dotted her i's.


I just went through the same crap with Asset Acceptance. They lied about filing for a judgement and to boot they just bought my debt. it is amazing how fast they tone changes when you know your rights.

I am telling you, she is really hoping you don't follow through. Worse case you lose, best case you WIN but you will never win if you quit.


my 2-fiddy

 

Welcome Back!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I am glad that you have not given up. I know that this is not an easy journey.... but it is going to be so sweet when you win this battle. I really admire you for sticking with it,,, you really had me worried there for a while.

 

Glad to see you're feeling better
Ok. just to recap. I reread the FCRA over lunch today with you in mind.

Have you requested procedural descriptions for the last disputes from Equifax? If so, did they give them to you?

Have you disputed the Collection agency inquiries? Do so. they'll deny it and you have grounds for suing Equifax based on that (I can send you more info on this offline)

If Equifax won't dispute inquiries, then send a letter requesting to put a consumer statement NEXT TO THE INQUIRIES that you dispute them. Their system, I believe, can't do that and it could constitute a FCRA violation.

When you disputed with the collection agency, did they note your account?

Have you put a consumer statement attached to the accounts in question? if not, do it now.

Did you pull any Equifax copies of reports during the dispute periods? If so, were your accounts noted as "in dispute"?

Equifax knows this may be a fraud issue. Have they put a fraud warning on your account? they're supposed to.

By the way, Equifax still has a responsibility as to the content of its subscriber submissions. If a consumer says fraud, and Equifax doesn't listen... well, can you say Wenger vs. Tu?

§ 602. Congressional findings and statement of purpose [15 U.S.C. § 1681](a) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting. The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system.

(2) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers.

(3) Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers.

(4) There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer's right to privacy.

I dare say that the email you got may show that your local bureau is NOT unbiased towards you and is acting in malicious manner. And if so, under

(e) Limitation of liability. Except as provided in sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] of this title, no consumer may bring any action or proceeding in the nature of defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence with respect to the reporting of information against any consumer reporting agency, any user of information, or any person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency, based on information disclosed pursuant to section 609, 610, or 615 [§§ 1681g, 1681h, or 1681m] of this title or based on information disclosed by a user of a consumer report to or for a consumer against whom the user has taken adverse action, based in whole or in part on the report, except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure such consumer.

Meaning: you can always sue them under 1681n and 1681o for willful and/or negligent noncompliance.. but if can substantiate that "except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure such consumer" then you CAN go after them for defamation, negligent enablement of identity fraud etc.

Again, Wenger vs. TU. Identity fraud issues carry better punitives against the CRAs. She got 200k for her troubles.

 

Equifax has to consider your info

as per:

§ 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]
(a) Reinvestigations of disputed information.

(4) Consideration of consumer information. In conducting any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) with respect to disputed information in the file of any consumer, the consumer reporting agency shall review and consider all relevant information submitted by the consumer in the period described in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such disputed information.


they can't just say subscriber says it so, so it stays and we have no liability... that's utter and complete nonsense.

 

Re: Equifax has to consider your info

Can you tell I'm ticked off at how they're treating you. I really will help you any way I can...

 

Sounds like Miss Texas is already starting to quiver, keep going Christi!!!!


I am glad you decided to fight for your sanity!!



Marie's points should be well heeded, excellent post as usual, Marie!


Go get em!!!!!



Cypri

 

A few points:

1) MARIE is the woman. I keep a folder in my credit folder (ok, on a Macintosh we call them "folders" rather than subdirectories) whose name is "Marie's Tips" -- seems like I'm always cutting and pasting text snippets whenever she posts.

2) Cyprigirl, you're right of course. Equifax Information Systems (EIS) would be the "correct" one to sue, however the really really correct one for her to sue would be her local Equifax affiliate. I'm suggesting that she sues neither one and goes for the parent company regardless. Two reasons: a) no matter what their friendly counsel said, corporate parents are ultimately responsible for what happens (PepsiCo tried to pull that bullsh## a few years ago when someone sued them directly instead of their KFC subsidiary -- guess what... PepsiCo was responsible as well), and b) EIS gets more lawsuits, so they may have more internally developed bureaucracy and may not be as amenable as my Equifax, Inc. guy was to simply disposing of the case as quickly as possible. In any event, either one would be better than fooling around with the local affiliate's pettiness -- so ultimately we're on the same page of course as usual, lol.

3) Greg -- the Smokies beckon. Well, I'm wondering if an internal soft inquiry really constitutes anything damaging since nobody "sees" it but me and them. It seems that one would need to demonstrate damages in order to prevail in front of most small claims judges. On the other hand, there is something called "statutory damages" but I'm about to start talking way out of my league, so I'll defer to the legally wise among us. Great question though, Greg. Wouldn't that be an interesting lawsuit.

Doc

 

1. Well, she sure won't be able to pass the buck.
2. If she's even allowed to respond without counsel, she probably won't know the law as well as a lawyer, nor court procedure. If you can quote law paragraph and subsection while she's drooling all over her portfolio, you'll mop the floor with her.
3. If she does't show up at court for any reason, she'll hardly have an excuse. Get there early, yourself.
4. If the judge has seen these kinds of complaints before, he might just be sick of the witch by now. You'll be the fresh face. Be polite.
5. If she's as much of a witch as you say, maybe she'll really tick the judge off.

 

Christi

I found this somewhere and copied part of it. I'm not sure about the cites or the legal part of it (I'm not a lawyer) but I copied it because I liked the sound of it and added a bit to help it fit your circumstance. If you feel comfortable using any of it, please feel free. Atlanta might listen.



Please now be aware that I will file a lawsuit against Equifax if the erroneous and fraudulent items appearing on my credit report arenâ??t deleted by February 28, 2002.

The lawsuit will be an action for actual, statutory, and punitive damages, costs, and attorney's fees brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq. (Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act) and Texas Law. I will contend that Equifax has violated such laws by repeatedly and willfully issuing false consumer credit reports concerning me resulting in the denial of credit to me, actual damage and damage to my reputation, and causing the me humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Equifax has a duty in the preparation of my report to prevent inaccurate or misleading information from being inserted. Bryant v. TRW,
Inc. 689 F. 2d 72, 77 (6th Cir. 1982); Stevenson v. TRW, Inc., 987 F. 2d 288, 219-92 (5th Cir. 1993); Swoager v. Credit Bureau of Greater St. Petersburg, 608 F. Supp. 972, 976 (M.D. Fla. 1985).

Equifax also has the duly to properly reinvestigate and either update or delete inaccurate information after I notified Equifax. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681i, the obligation to perform these tasks is ``squarely'' on the credit reporting agencies. Stevenson, supra. I have repeatedly notified Equifax about the wrongful inclusion of information in my file that is erroneous or fraudulent. Despite these repeated notifications, Equifax has continued to report the inaccurate and misleading information.

I find it outrageous that, even after your own representative emailed me today with information confirming fraud on an account, the erroneous information remains in my file!


ok, I ran out of steam here. Anyway, I can't be certain of the cites but I liked the sound of it I think I copied it off of an appeal. Just a thought. I'd highlight "falls squarely on the credit reporting agencies"...

 

Doc... I have the same folder...lol! I told her she needs to be a lawyer. I swear I would be her first client.

I'm telling you.. Christi....listen to Marie.. she has helped me and I am learning a lot from this post b/c I am going after TU ASAP!

I have all the faith that you can do this Chrisiti!

 

You guys are crazy :_)

I'm just throwing out ideas and stuff I've collected on my computer.

 

Re: You guys are crazy :_)

Well... here's where a lawyer might help
I don't know who would be best to sue. The local lady seems to have somewhat of a personal issue here... I've never dealt with a local bureau...

You could sue them both... I think I'd hit the deep pockets of Equifax first and if you're feeling playful include the local bureau into it. Since you're talking with them I'd guess you'd almost have to include them in the lawsuit. Hmmm. both? I think I would hit them both.

You know, I thought of this later. You could send part of the nasty letter above with a notice of demand and combine the 2... if you're going to wait 31 days anyway, it gets the idea of a demand letter out of the way (even though you really don't have to send a demand letter before suing... but most attys seem to prefer to do that route).

You remember, the demand letter just spells out that they owe you xx for actual damages, xxx fcra violations, and xxx costs and filing fees.

You've been turned down for credit, right ??? I hope so.

 

Re: You guys are crazy :_)

gotcha. apply somewhere and get denied. You HAVE to have actual damages if you're going to sue them. HAVE to. 2 denials would be better I would ask for 1k per denial in actual damages. Don't offer to settle.

Then I'd just send the demand letter to the local bureau. Give both companies 31 days after receipt and then file. I'll give you some more info later on filing.

If she's still contacting you this much you've got them. Here's my non-atty thoughts on the demand letter to the local bureau:

ok, so lets put this all together:

sweet christi
tx

date

Re: Notice of intent to file lawsuit

local nutcase bureau
tx


NOTICE OF DEMAND

Dear Sirs:

I hereby demand $xxx for damages. I expect to have payment in hand no later than February 28, 2002. I also demand the immediate and permanent deletion of the following items from my credit report:

Tradeline
Tradeline
Inq
Inq

Please now be aware that I will file a lawsuit against Equifax and xxxs cummy bureau if the erroneous items appearing on my credit report arenâ??t deleted by February 28, 2002.

The lawsuit will be an action for actual, statutory, and punitive damages, costs, and attorney's fees brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq. (Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act) and Texas Law. I will contend that Equifax and xxx scummy bureau have violated such laws by repeatedly and willfully issuing false consumer credit reports concerning me resulting in the denial of credit to me, actual damage and damage to my reputation, and causing the me humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Equifax and xxx scummy credit bureau have a duty in the preparation of my report to prevent inaccurate or misleading information from being inserted. Bryant v. TRW, Inc. 689 F. 2d 72, 77 (6th Cir. 1982); Stevenson v. TRW, Inc., 987 F. 2d 288, 219-92 (5th Cir. 1993); Swoager v. Credit Bureau of Greater St. Petersburg, 608 F. Supp. 972, 976 (M.D. Fla. 1985).

Equifax and xxx scummy credit bureau also have the duly to properly reinvestigate and either update or delete inaccurate information after notification. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681i, the obligation to perform these tasks is ``squarely'' on the credit reporting agencies. Stevenson, supra.

I have repeatedly notified Equifax and xxx scummy bureau about the wrongful inclusion of information in my file that is erroneous or fraudulent. Despite these repeated notifications, Equifax and xxx scummy bureau have continued to report the inaccurate and misleading information.

I find it outrageous that, even after xxx scummy bureau representative emailed me today with information confirming fraud on an account, the erroneous information still remains in my file!

Time is of the essence. I look forward to a speedy resolution of this matter. However, in the event we cannot come to a resolution, I will seek damages in excess of the amounts indicated herein including pre-judgment interest, statutory and punitive damages, additional costs, and attorneyâ??s fees.


Sincerely,

Christi

Cc: Texas Atty General
FTC


ANY other thoughts out there? a lot of you have also filed and won

 

Re: You guys are crazy :_)

I had considered suing the local bureau Choicedata in addition to Equifax, but I eventually ruled that out based upon this line of thought:

1) The national CRA is less fazed by lawsuits. They get them, and they handle them. Taking a page from Lizardking, I aimed to give them a way out quickly because my goal was simply to delete negative tradelines. I wanted to get those deletions in the most expedient way possible.

2) The local bureau likely sees far less lawsuits. Since they are "local," they are probably indeed fazed by them. The local exec I mentioned is probably far more likely to take the lawsuit personally than are the national guys. For that reason, the local yokels are more likely to "fight this case" than simply delete tradelines.

3) I even thought about how much fun it would be to sue the local bureau especially because I don't like the local exec's personality, lol. I even considered naming him personally, LOL. Then I realized that the more people and organizations I name in the suit, the more lawyers are likely to be involved, and the more likely it is that somebody down the line will want to "fight" and "win." I was shooting for simple deletions, not a power struggle.

For these reasons, I decided to keep it as simple as possible, which is why I chose to leave the locals out of the loop. As I mentioned before, that was a good choice for me: my goal of deleted derogs was met, and I didn't have to fight any jerks. Your goals may differ, though, so I don't pretend to think that my outcome would be suitable for everyone. I can tell you, though, that the small amount of money I spend on the lawsuit and on the process server was quite a bargain given the clean credit file that resulted.

Doc