I. When is suing time? We have bunch of letters to dispute a TL, then after 30 days to complain they didn't do anything, then do the same after 30 more days ... How about the things which are clearly a violation? Like: - A person pulled my CR, but I have paid in full and closed my account, and have never applied again for a credit with them - A person pulled my CR, but I have never had an account nor I have applied for a credit with this OC - I bought a car and paid cash, but they pulled my CR - CRA disclosed incomplete report (split file) - CRA reinserted previously deleted information without OC verification, OR did not notify me in 5 days, OR did not send me complete notice - I received a list of inquiries where the OC is something like "HBCA NV CT" - CRA disclosed incomplete report (split file) - OC did not report the exact date my account was closed - OC did not report the exact date my account went delinquient for the last time We can prove in court these are pure violations. Why do we waste our time disputing them over and over again?
Re: Re: Things to think about ... I'm going to start suing them for any reason I can, I'm going to make some money, then I'm going to put all cases together, publish a book and make a whole lot of money, then I'm going to send them a "Thank You" card ...
Re: Re: Things to think about ... § 607. Compliance procedures [15 U.S.C. § 1681e] (a) Identity and purposes of credit users. Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 605 [§ 1681c] and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 604 [§ 1681b] of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 604 [§ 1681b] of this title. (b) Accuracy of report. Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates It is maximum possible accuracy, NOT, absolute accuracy, that's why AND someone else (a 3rd party) has to see your report and there has to be damages. If you search the archives, there are tons and tons of amazing threads on this very subject. Though, I believe, permissable purpose is a different ball of wax. There either was a purpose or there wasn't and that has more to do with our right to privacy. Reinsertion is certainly negligence and that all hangs on the CRA. From Philbin: The parties agree that a case of negligent noncompliance with 1681e(b) consists of four elements: (1) inaccurate information was included in a consumer's credit report; (2) the inaccuracy was due to defendant's failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy; (3) the consumer suffered injury; and (4) the consumer's injury was caused by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry. See Morris v. Credit Bureau of Cincinnati, Inc., 563 F. Supp. 962, 967 (S.D. Ohio 1983); Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 1234, 1238 (E.D. Mich. 1980), aff'd, 689 F.2d 72 (6th Cir. 1982)... Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... Sassy, I agree that "maximum possible accuracy" could have many, many meanings ... How about a split file? You apply for a loan, they pull a "split" file with only your bad TLs, you get the loan at a lot higher rate. So, splitting the file by CRA is way below even a common accuracy, there are damages. Even if we dispute with the CRA, it's not gonna help at all - we have already gotten the higher rate. Or, while disputing with the CRA, we've missed bank's promotional rate. What do you think - can we get them in court?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... There's not many, many meanings, the courts have defined it and in favor of consumers. But, none of those were based on suing first. Sassy
II. How long is long enough? Section § 611(a)(1)(A) states that the agency shall reinvestigate the current status of the disputed information before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute. But, according to Section § 611(a)(6)(A), the agency shall provide written notice to a consumer of the results of a reinvestigation not later than 5 business days after the completion of the reinvestigation, so it counts down to not less than 35 days ...
IIa. How is the time calculated? Few quotes from the FCRA: "[color=0066FF]Before the expiration of the 5-business-day period ... the agency shall provide notification ...[/color]" "[color=0066FF]A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description ... by not later than 15 days ...[/color]" "[color=0066FF]A consumer reporting agency shall provide written notice ... not later than 5 business days ...[/color]" "[color=0066FF]... a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing before the expiration of the 5-day period ...[/color]" "[color=0066FF]... a consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer ... not later than 5 business days ...[/color]" "[color=0066FF]... the consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer ... not later than 5 business days ...[/color]" What exactly "[color=0066FF]shall provide[/color]" and "[color=0066FF]shall notify[/color]" mean? Is it the date they prepared and printed the notice/report? But, I wasn't notified on this date. Is it the date I received it? Then they have just a little time to prepare it. Most of the quotes above talk about 5 days, if the mail takes 3-4 days, then they have just one day to do it. They don't send CRRR. What if we never received it? How would they prove they notified us? If they can't prove it, can we sue them for failing to notify us? Just thinking aloud ...
III. Disputing with the CRAs: Online or By Mail? By mail I get the CM receipt proving that I have mailed something to Allen TX, or Chester PA, or Atlanta GA (if I put only the state and the zip on the CM and the RR, my post office will accept it and mail it). I also get the GC proving that someone from the above cities has signed, oops ... stamped the card. The stamp says either "TransUnion", or is just a date (EQ), or is some unreadable name (EX). If I track it with USPS, I get "Your item was delivered at 10:05 am on November 20, 2003 in ATLANTA, GA 30374". I started thinking about it today, when I got my last GC from EX - the name is barely visible and "/03" is all I can see as a date. Do I complain with the USPS that I didn't get what I paid for - the date and the signature of the person receiving the letter? Even if I do complain, what could they do? They cannot resent the letter to get the proper signature ... Do I call USPS as a defendant when I take my case to the court? Besides, I can fill everything properly and mail it to the CRA, and they will stamp for it, but inside the envelope I can put a blank sheet of paper. Or a funny postcard. How would the CRA prove there wasn't a letter inside the envelope? On the other side, how would I prove I did put a letter in the envelope?. So, how serious proof could the CM and RR receipts actually be when presented to the court? When I dispute it online, I get a printout of my letter. If they have provided an option for an online dispute, they must be responsible if their system has somehow failed and they haven't gotten the information. But, it's a printout that I get. I can always modify it and print it again. So, how serious proof could a printout from an online dispute be when presented to the court? Or, would the best way be if I dispute it online, state that I will be sending them a duplicate of my dispute by mail, then send them the same letter with the note that this is a duplicate of a dispute I already submitted online (with all necessary, if any, enclosures)? Of course, they could use the latest date as the date of dispute and this would give them few more days, but if we go to court I can prove that I have used all possible means to notify them about my dispute. So, what do you think? Remember, I am not talking about just a dispute, but about getting a serious proof to be used in a room of court ...
playing a little devils advocate on this, but: 1. as long as you have the account that is paid is still reporting to the bureau, they have PP. 2. make sure they didn't buy your account. household pulled my report after buying my paid/closed account because it was part of the retail division they bought from conseco (see #1) 3. why did they have your ssn if you paid cash? 4. why did it split, and is their anything linking the two different reports, ie, same ssn? 5. how can you prove they didn't 6. ??? not sure what your getting at on that one 7. duplicate comment 8. ??? need example 9. ??? need example people dont sue because it simply isn't worth the time in court. some of these things are difficult to prove, ie, they didn't notify you w/in 5 days of reinsertion. how do you prove that to a judge? your word isn't good enough, and they aren't required to send CRRR. in my case, i will only sue over the important stuff. once you appear "sue happy" to the courts, they are unlikely to take you seriously, so when there is a major violation you won't have a chance.
Re: Re: Things to think about ... That's not what I said, read it again ... They cannot buy a closed account, read again #1. When you buy a car, you give them enough information to identify you and to pull your report even without the SSN. Read FTC: KAISER and FTC: COFFEY. Search the board for a "split report". Many people have suffered this - suddenly half of the items in your report are missing. The CRA usually says "there are too many tradelines, this is why the report is split in two parts. Read FCRA § 611(a)(5)(B). Very often you can see such an abbreviation as the name of the person who pulled your report. You can request from the CRA more detailed information. Read FCRA § 609(a)(3). OC did not report the exact date my account was closed. Read FCRA § 623(a)(4). OC did not report the exact date my account went delinquient for the last time. Read FCRA § 623(a)(5), FTC :: HARVEY, and FTC :: JOHNSON.
Re: Re: Things to think about ... 1. yes i read your post and it doesn't matter if you didn't reapply, as long as the account reports a lender has the defense of PP. 2. yes they can buy a closed account IF IT IS PART OF A COMPANY/DIVISION THAT WAS PURCHASED. 3. i have never given my ssn when buying from a dealer or private party when paying cash. 4. splitting tends to happen when a different name tends to report w/your ssn or your name w/a different ssn 5. i still don't see how you could prove it. etc., etc., etc... i spend about 10 hours a week i compliance meetings making sure we (my company) are obeying all the laws. i spend another 30 hours per week dealing with customers trying to interpret the rules. i can read these boards til i'm blue in the face but these are merely opinions, not legal advice. my greatest fear as a consumer? that all this "credit repair" will eventually cause the fcra and fdcpa to be rewritten in favor of the OC's, CRA's and CA's - and every time we dispute an accurate item, we get to pay them $1000. do you guys ever read up on the OCC?
Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... jenz, you don't make any sense ... an account reports if the lender reports it. So if the lender reports it illegaly, that makes a legal PP? Besides, a closed account means there is no possibility for a business transaction or an account review. Read FTC :: BENNER and FTC :: GOWEN. Read #1 above. As I said before, when you buy a car, you give them enough information to identify you and to pull your report even without the SSN. I guess you don't care that much to read it. Both FCRA and FDCPA were written to protect the consumer. Under both laws the consumer has no obligations, only rights. Besides, the ammended FCRA was signed yesterday by Bush and the ammendments are all in consumer's favor. Have you ever read FCRA and FDCPA? 'Cause these are the laws to deal with credit reporting and debt collectors ...
Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... why are you getting so upset over my simply questioning the thought process? like i said, i have to work with complicance on FDCPA, FCRA and OCC EVERY SINGLE DAY. i can only tell you what the state and federal government tell us, the lenders, what we can and cannot do, but i'll just go back and tell them you said they were wrong i'm not criticizing you, but rather pointing out that there is a lot of room for interpretation with the FCRA, FDCPA, etc... Case laws don't change the laws, are merely an exception to a given rule and may or may not apply to a person's given situation. Before deciding if a suit is applicable, regardless of whether or not you feel there were violations, consult an attorney. don't go sue happy because someone on a message board told you what they did was illegal.
Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... As I said before, when you buy a car, you give them enough information to identify you and to pull your report even without the SSN. I guess you don't care that much to read it. You may give them enough information to "RUN" it...but you APPLIED FOR NOTHING TO "RUN" THE REPORT FOR!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... This is what I said in the first place, George ... Later I was just trying to explain to jenz that they are able to pull a report even without your SSN.
LOL ... no, jenz, I don't get upset that easy ... Your thought process would be completely wrong if you did not read the law and this is why I tried to give you the law quotes. Gotta be my bad English ... I was under the impression that so far you were sharing your thoughts and I was quoting the law. Suddenly, it's you that quotes the law and I, just saying somebody's wrong ... Right, but, the items I listed in my first post are clear violations by the law. For example, having a closed and paid off account do not give anybody a PP to pull your repost. That's it. There is no room for any interpretation. Right, they interpret the law and make it clear where it's confusing. Later they are cited in other case laws, and so on, and so on. It is called Collateral Estoppel - a legal doctrine that prevents the relitigation of facts or issues that were previously resolved in court. Besides, I read a case once where the plaintif won the case based on a citation from Ramsden vs Dyson, 1866. Yes, 1866, that's not a typo. I haven't seen anybody on this board claiming to be an attorney, or to give a legal advice. What we do though, is to share our knowledge of the law and to help those in need to look in the right direction. No offense, jenz, but if I had an account with your company, closed by me with zero balance and you pull my report without my authorization, I'll be happy to collect my $1,000 ...
