Time to sue TU. I'm already in litigation with EFX (See my threads about EFX). As part of a settlement, Sheman Acquisitions agreed to pull their trade line from my CRA files. In anticipation of teh suit, and in violation of the FTC Adamcin letter they pulled a hard inquiry on my TU. I pointed this out to Sherman and they sent me a letter saying "any inquiry created...was made in error." I mailed this letter to TU with a demand that they remove the offending inquiry. Yesterday I got a letter from TU saying "If you believe that an inquiry on your credit report was made without permissible purpose, then you may wish to contact the creditor directly." DUUUUUHHHH, I did that and sent TU the results. Time for them to read a summons.
It will be interesting to see how this turns out, since the FCRA says they must show it. I don't think anyone has made it to a suit over this. Good luck!
The FCRA says CRAs must show inquiries, even tho they were done 'in error'? WTF? God that just burns me up. What I hate most is that the OCs, CAs, etc. are able to use this as a way of 'getting us back' and then saying 'oops, it was an accident, we didn't mean that.' and get away with it. its bullcrap. i'll be watching this closely. good luck.
Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU The first thing they teach you about Civil Law in Law School is "For every wrong there is a remedy". My position in the suit is that the CRA has an affirmative obligation to report "accurate" information. The offending inquiry was without permissible purpose and is a hard inquiry costing me valuable FICO points. In both my suits against CRA's I have provided letters from the creditors requesting removal of the offending line. In both cases the CRA has chosen to ignore those letters. Only the CRA can remove trade lines from CRA files. FCRA states that the CRA must give credence to documentation provided by the consumer. I have a similar suit pending against Equifax, only that one is not over an inquiry, but over an erroneous collection account trade line that the CA has asked be removed and EFX refuses to do so. For the Courts to hold that neither EFX nor TU has to remove the offending line would be the same as the Court saying "once an erroneous entry gets into your credit file, it stays there forever."
Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU That's not what the FCRA says LOL!!!! It says: (3)(A) Identification of each person (including each end-user identified under section 607(e)(1) [§ 1681e]) that procured a consumer report (i) for employment purposes, during the 2-year period preceding the date on which the request is made; or (ii) for any other purpose, during the 1-year period preceding the date on which the request is made. We've debated this whole issue heavily, and it has never been resolved in court (as far as I know), but Butch describes it better than I can "One cannot violate the law by complying with it." Sherman did indeed pull the report, and the CRA has a cause of action against them for doing so (as did Flyingfr), so I am really curious to see how a court would rule. That's all I'm saying.
Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU Actually Picantel sued Experian for refusal to investigate and remove inquiries and won. Section 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy (A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of {any} item of information contained in a consumers credit file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information or delete the item from the file before the end of the 30 day periood beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of dispute from the consumer.
Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU CRA's are the gatekeepers of very private information about consumers. One of the goals of the FCRA was to protect the sensitive information in one's credit reports from those who have NO RIGHT to be snooping around in these reports. Hence, the statutory $1,000 penalty imposed on those that access a consumer's report with no legitimate purpose. If the creditor had no legitimate purpose, the $1,000 penalty is paid to both the consumer and the CRA. But when was the last time you heard about a creditor paying a CRA $1,000 for wrongfully accessing a consumer's report? I **think** CRA's deliberately don't investigate complaints of creditors wrongfully accessing consumer's report. They don't want to know find out the creditor might have been abusing their relationship per the FCRA with the CRA, then heaven forbid they would have to maybe SEVER their business relationship with that creditor, which would probably cost them $thousand$$ in lost revenues from that creditor. If the CRA investigated and became factually aware the creditor was wrongfully accessing reports and DID NOTHING, then they would face future potential lawsuits for continuing to allow that creditor to access credit reports when they knew that creditor had previously **lied** to them about their certification.
Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU sorry - off topic but I couldn't resist... another cat haiku litter box not here you must have moved it again i'll poop in the sink
Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU Rhondak.....that one I think is my favorite verse from the real Cat Haiku. I didn't put that in my tagline because the word c**p is a little too harsh for me, but I think it is the best word choice to really give one a "window" into the mind of a kitty Litter box not there You must have moved it again I'll crap in the sink Sorry for the hijack
Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU hehehe I have a list of cat haiku's on my fridge. I am the official feeder of 4 kitties, unofficial feeder (strays) of 9 more, 6 of them kittens. my daughter just calls me the crazy cat lady. (did I mention the raccoons and possums that eat on my porch as well?) I've been trying to figure out how to get the humane society to help me fix the strays here.
Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU better be ready for TU's lawyers to change the venu to Federal Court.......thats is what they did to me and I blew there minds by filing an amended complaint with a much larger demand for money..... they (tu's lawyers) are a pain in the butt though.....so be ready they did it to me the day I went to court filed the papers moving it to Federal Court.
Re: Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU If they do that the damages go from $1,000 to $100,000 plus punitive damages
Re: Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU I agree with u on that flying when they moved my suit from SCC to Federal court amended my suit asking for 130,000 in actual damages cause I was turned down on a refinance of my land contract due to what was on my report 9,000 in statutory damages and 150,000 in punitive damages......they about shit oh and requested a jury trail they r still objecting to that one ........but looks like I am gonna settle this in the next two weeks anyway most of it .
Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU I can appreciate why TU motions to move to Federal court, since filing in sclaims is so effortless and advantageous to mom and pop litigants. Federal court seems much more daunting, time/money consuming, and legal counsel will be able to represent, and you'd probably want to do likewise. Glad to hear you didn't back down. People in the business of litigation capitalize on lay-peoples' fear of the unknown 99% of the time to reach a positive outcome. Once you get past the "big n scary" facade that shrouds a lawsuit, you can wield a powerful tool. I know, since I always have legal counsel on retainer, mostly for business matters, but, I must admit, I wield it fairly often to f*** with people who do me wrong. lsmith, what was the eventual outcome of your case? Did TU settle?
Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU We r in negotations right now on settleing this looks like it will be done in the next few weeks..... will settle in the Low 5 figure.....not gonna get everything removed from my file that I wanted but I got alot of it deleted off. The rest I can live with cause it will be comming off in the next few year anyway
Removal of inquiries Perhaps I am missing something, but as I read FCRA $609 [15 U.S.C. $1681g], disclosure of inquiries is required to the CONSUMER. This is to protect the consumer from illegal inquiries by requiring that they be disclosed to him. I do not see any reference requiring disclosures of inquiries as PART OF A CREDIT REPORT to requestors. To the extent that inquiries are encoded with the reason or permissible purpose, erroneous encoding contrary to the actual use or legitimacy of the inquiry would appear to be reporting of false credit information. The fact that FICO uses this information to determine credit scores would support this position. www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm § 609. Disclosures to consumers [15 U.S.C. § 1681g] (a) Information on file; sources; report recipients. Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, and subject to 610(a)(1) [§ 1681h], clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer: (1) All information in the consumer's file at the time of the request, except that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require a consumer reporting agency to disclose to a consumer any information concerning credit scores or any other risk scores or predictors relating to the consumer. (2) The sources of the information; except that the sources of information acquired solely for use in preparing an investigative consumer report and actually used for no other purpose need not be disclosed: Provided, That in the event an action is brought under this title, such sources shall be available to the plaintiff under appropriate discovery procedures in the court in which the action is brought. (3)(A) Identification of each person (including each end-user identified under section 607(e)(1) [§ 1681e]) that procured a consumer report (i) for employment purposes, during the 2-year period preceding the date on which the request is made; or (ii) for any other purpose, during the 1-year period preceding the date on which the request is made. (B) An identification of a person under subparagraph (A) shall include (i) the name of the person or, if applicable, the trade name (written in full) under which such person conducts business; and (ii) upon request of the consumer, the address and telephone number of the person.
Flying, the pull of your report is a statement of fact...that is what happened and TU's record of it is in fact an accurate account of what happened. You have no case against TU, period. I and others have had TU delete inquiries..and I have even threatened to sue them for deleting them! LOL, you have a stronger (much stronger) case if you can catch them deleting an inquiry!! Funny stuff...but that's how it is. GL Right, if the creditor lacks a perm purpose, then THAT is your cause of action..NOT against the CRA that reflects an accurate inquiry.
