The Perfect Lawsuit

ok, I've had 2 weeks to think about suing CRAs and I've come to the conclusion that we're missing the bigger picture. So far, we've focused on violations the CRAs do to get our way. And certainly, catching them not verifying is easy since I think they really verify only half the time.

But I think we've missed the biggest threat. Right now, I'm composing my initial assaults against the CRAs for my last errors (I have duplicate student loans w/derog info) that keeps coming up "verified" of course. You'd think even a monkey would catch the duplicate issue and correct them. But not yet. They say it's Sallie Mae, Sallie Mae says it's Equifax stupidity. I pay for the mistake.

So I'm just starting the cycle of what we've all seen done here: But I think I'll include something new when I get to the point of suing all the CRAs.

If I understand this process correctly: the CRAs do not have to SHOW you proof they verified the account info, just give us the "process" of how they did it. I think this is sheer, unadulterated BS.

Fox guarding the chickens.

But what if I included in my lawsuit a provision that would require the CRAs to give me proof of verification. Not just for me, but for everybody hence forward. For example, on one on my student loan "verifications" Equifax said it was done by letter.

It's only common sense then, that I be given a copy of this "proof" of verification so I can go after Sallie Mae. Right? No, they say I can't have it. I can't have it? Or they don't really have it?

I think the real consumer issue is they know there's no check and balance on them. They don't even have the same burden of proof that a creditor/ collection agency has. With companies who add info to our files, we can validate. No validation=full removal of info and possible money damages. Someone who puts info on our files has to prove it or remove it.

But what about the CRAs. They should have the same burden of proof.

Normally, we can catch CRAs on tiny little $1,000 violations that are a drop in the bucket to them... but wouldn't the bigger issue, the bigger threat... be to actually go through a lawsuit that, if won, would establish the need for all CRAs to KEEP THE PROOF OF VERIFICATIONs for every dispute. Every one.

Now that would be a burden... and it would also be to our advantage for them to have to really prove their verifications. No more telling us our accounts have been verified then laughing at us when they don't have to show us proof. I've actually had a TU customer disservice rep LAUGH at me when I asked for a copy of the letter she said they recieved from Sallie Mae. Laughed at me! "We don't have to show you proof, we just have to tell you HOW we proved it". SO all the CRAs have to do is to make up a process and put it into a computer. We suffer, they make money. Time to fix the root cause here folks.

Now, even if the lawsuit doesn't work, even if I settle... wouldn't that be so much more powerful of a position than just a few FCRA violations. If you were their counsel and you faced a lawsuit which could have ramifications of overhauling their processes... wouldn't you NOT want it to go to trial?

If I won, it would be a case people could then reference in their lawsuits. I guess I'm realizing that our bought politicians aren't going to overhaul the FCRA much to our advantage.. so perhaps case law can be our salvation.

I'm thinking this approach (in addition to the FCRA violations in my lawsuit) could not only help my personal position but also everyone's.

Well, feedback?