The post timed-out when I first tried to post this... Anyone want to help count the number of violations for this CRA. First paragraph. "Thank you for your recent inquiry. After an investigation of our records, we located the following delinquency information at the above address." Yes, you're reading that right... at the above address... In other words, they don't even have an idea of whom at the above address, that these accounts in my alleged consumer report belong to, because they do not store this information, they only list things based on the address. (I would hate to see their reports for a consumer in an apartment complex.) Second paragraph. "At least one company has inquired of you within the past year." No list of who has inquired, just a sentence stating that at least one company has inquired of me. (HINT: they even included the required "SUMMARY OF RIGHTS" which lists as bulleted item #2, that they must give you the information in your file, and a list of everyone who has requested it recently.) A table listing 8 companies, with no alleged account numbers, no alleged contact information, just an alleged date (and all of the alleged dates are xx/01/xxxx, so they are claiming that the delinquency date for all 8 alleged accounts occurred on the first of the month, talk about consistency), and an alleged dollar amount. Third paragraph. "If you dispute the accuracy of the above information you may either write to *NAME OMITTED* at the above address, or telephone 1-9X3-XXX-XXXX or 1-888-XXX-XXXX." (Just so no one thought they listed a 1-900 # - they're not *THAT* illegal, yet... ). Called the toll free # (from a payphone (and a different payphone then I used to request the report)), and itâ??s only a VOICE MAIL BOX!!! (I need to check the consent decrees with the big 3 CRA's and the FTC to make sure, but isn't one of the requirements that there in fact be a live human being at the phone number listed for the consumer to contact for disputes.) (I just left a message asking for the name and address of everyone listed in my file. ) The best part, they spelled the CITY NAME wrong.
Section 609(c)(2)(B), a toll-free number established by the agency, at which personnel are accessable to customers during normal business hours, after 10 am, Eastern is most certainly normal business hours, and that was when i got the voice mail. It doesn't just say the big three, but any company calling itself a CRA, as defined by 603(p)... Their summary didn't include the list of agencies involved in enforcement, just mentioned that if I wanted to read the full FCRA, I could view it at the FTC web site, www.ftc.gov (No thanks, I have it on my hard drive). The best part is this letter is apparently what they consider to be an AA report... Yes, I know who the one company was who made the inquiry (although the at least indicates that there could be more than that one), because that is who made the AA, however, they are required to disclose the complete report, not just a letter summarizing the report. I wonder what all 8 companies will do when they get my Johnson v. MBNA compliance dispute request, requiring that they conclusively verify the name, address, SSN, and DOB, (and quotes the major parts of the appeals court ruling including the footnote where it states that MBNA was liable for $90,300.00 because Johnson's SSN and DOB were not in their CIS). Especially since the CRA apparently doesn't even have those two pieces of information. Which leads me to wonder, if the CRA apparently doesn't even have this type information, and apparently they only verify the address matches the data furnishers records, how can they even reasonably investigate any disputes in compliance with the FCRA, under Cushman v. Trans Union, or Henson v. CSC Credit Services, let lone, under Johnson v. MBNA.
Of course, do you happen to have a link to the old, current FCRA pre-FACTA new FCRA. I want to make sure that I don't quote any violations which aren't violations, yet.
jam, i believe it is 609(c)(1)(B), I just got out of a lawsuit with TU on this claim. It is not a cause of action that has ever been ruled on before...omg, pro se plaintiff with a case of first impression in the 8th Circuit, not the most consumer friendly circuit around. TU's Priority Department should get a class action on this claim. Experian's Special Services commits a less volatile violation of the same. I am trying to round up a group of TU Priority Department consumers such that we can communicate regarding our experiences trying to speak to a TU rep at 1-800-916-8800...voice mail, voice mail, voice mail.
CAwatchdog, well I am one of the consumers you can add to your list.. I'm in the process as well filing pro se against T.U and Experian but I am in the 9th circuit would that matter to you?
I will join you in a lawsuit against TU, they never return my calls, b/c I sued them before. Im in the 8th circuit I believe, Maryland
arobinson, you are 4th Circuit. So you are in the "Priority" Department? The mere suggestion that some consumers receive *Priority* is offensive to the "FAIR" Credit Reporting Act. Of course, it is anything but priority that we receive.
priority, special handling, is there any other terms the CRA are using to place consumers on their "ignore list" ?
***************************************** Jam is there a case somewhere that deals with this issue but related to judgments ? CRA verify the data of a persons name & address only and slap it on the report .no furnisher no ss# no DOB what do you think? I disputed the judgment and it can back verified from the investigation, I pulled the court docs and there is nothing at all in the file but a similar name & address no id info on top of that that case with the other party was vacated so how can it be reported correctly ? what should be my next step?
Well... As far as I have looked, there isn't any similar ruling to Johnson for anything... Remember Johnson is only months old... and before Johnson was affirmed by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and before FACTA ingrained what came from the previous court ruling -- the great thing about Johnson's attorney testifying before Congress during the FACTA hearings. Officially, we were not guaranteed any right of CONCLUSIVITY on the data furnishers side, only on the reporting agency side, as upheld in Cushman v. Trans Union, and Henson v. CSC. So the system was lopsided in that the DF could claim to have verified less then conclusively, and the CRA could rely on the DF's less than conclusive investigation, UNLESS the consumer had a pile of documentation proving that the DF was unreliable; and even then the consumer may have had to hit the CRA over the head with a sledgehammer to actually get them to read the documentation.
