and i would be more than happy to counter sue for your frivolous suit. i'll be more than happy to delete your positive tradeline in exchange for my not being able to pull any more inquiries then
Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... What is that based on, jenz?????? Do you believe that is true if paid in full and closed as well, that the reporting itself gives the purpose? Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... �§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. �§ 1681b] (a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other: (1) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, or a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury. (2) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates. (3) To a person which it has reason to believe (A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer under 604(a)(3)(A) for review of an account of the consumer. i'm not saying its right by any means, just legal. i don't do it - have no reason to in my job - nor would i encourage any coworker to do it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... Finally we are talking ... A simple question - what kind of a "credit transaction" would you have with a consumer who has closed the account? Or, as it is said in FTC letter to Benner: "[color=0066FF]Because there no longer exists any account to "review" and the consumer is not applying for credit, the FCRA provides no permissible purpose for the creditor to receive a consumer report from a CRA.[/color]" ... or, as it is said in FTC letter to Gowen: "[color=0066FF]A creditor has no existing business relationship with consumers whose closed end credit accounts have been paid off.[/color]" So, where is my $1,000?
C'mon guys ... and ladies ... Think about the other things too: II. How long is long enough? IIa. How is the time calculated? III. Disputing with the CRAs: Online or By Mail?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... I dunno, I'm kinda with the faction who believes that judges tend to become acquainted with "frequent litigators." Frankly, if that's something somebody feels like they need to do -- as a second income perhaps or just because they feel that justice won't be served otherwise or whatever -- then I certainly respect that. However, given my psychology background, I'm concerned about a couple of issues: 1) If you're litigating week in and week out, then your otherwise positive focus may shift from other perhaps more important locii like family, friends, work, art, and altruism; 2) Time spent on picayune lawsuits might be better spent figuring out how to generate income in other, perhaps even more profitable, ways. I once titled an essay I wrote here "Get a Litigious Mindset"; its overall message was basically that consumers will exercise far more personal power with creditors if they appear to be litigious, and that also is the central theme behind the "Nutcase Series" of letters for fully paid creditors reporting really bad tradelines. And of course sometimes going to court can be helpful if not outright necessary. Of course I've written about my own Lizardking-inspired small claims suits against the CRAs, which benefitted me greatly. However, I purposefully didn't title my essay "Get a Litigious Life" because while I favor a "litigious mindset" I don't favor a "litigious life" wherein all conflicts, even business-related or credit-related ones (or family-related ones), are resolved within the legal system. Maybe the distinction is too fine, and perhaps I'm not making much sense to anybody but me, LOL. That said, hey, if you think you need to sue everyone whenever possible, then by all means do it. Just don't forget to post about your credit-related activities here so that your individual examples might assist others down the road. Doc
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... You are right, Doc, "Get a Litigious Life" would not be such a good idea. The point of my first question was though, if we have clear, proven violations, why should we bother to dispute, even more, wait and dispute again after 30 days, when we can directly take them to the court ...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... how many people who are disputing have ACTUAL errors on their reports and not just poor credit? i couldn't imaging suing a creditor over a debt i didn't pay because they did something stupid, like not validating or whatever. if it is a truly erroneous item, i would file suit in a second if they failed to correct/remove.
You are talking about morality and ethics ... a poster here (sorry, can't remember who) once said "Whether to discharge debts through bankruptcy, enter a credit counseling program, pay debt negotiators or just do nothing and ignore the collectors is a BUSINESS decision. It has NOTHING to do with morality and ethics." I kinda agree with him ... imagine a collector, who keeps reporting the inaccurate negative tradeline (account ## days late) after you paid the debt in full.
Jeez, am I all over the table tonight? I agree with vghost -- I see nothing wrong with taking advantage of ones civil rights as provided for by FDCPA. The collections industry NEEDS serious regulation -- if any of them are claiming to be owed money by consumers and can't prove that the debt was truly reassigned to them, then they don't deserve to collect, and -- moreover -- would be well served by paying a courtroom penalty. So, what's my score so far? Litigate everywhere possible? No. Nail CAs who can't validate to the wall? Yes. My Creditnet addiction is boiling over. I'd better go get a cola. Doc
Post 31, new page, so let me bring it again ... 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 - Upon my request 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? 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 ..." "A consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer a description ... by not later than 15 days ..." "A consumer reporting agency shall provide written notice ... not later than 5 business days ..." "... a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing before the expiration of the 5-day period ..." "... a consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer ... not later than 5 business days ..." "... the consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer ... not later than 5 business days ..." [/color] What exactly "shall provide" and "shall notify" 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? 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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... Thanks jenz, I do disagree but that wasn't why I asked, LOL We've enough furnishers/creditors pulling reports and saying the same often enough -- I was wondering what we were reading different. You consider an account in that wording to be unconditional, yes? versus an open/closed account. Interesting. I'm flying with Doc on this the litigous mindset but not lifestyle: So, what's my score so far? Litigate everywhere possible? No. Nail CAs who can't validate to the wall? Yes. My Creditnet addiction is boiling over. I'd better go get a cola. Doc Nodding, everything but the cola, I'll have a rootbeer!!!!!! Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... Oof, Sassy, root beer -- I think that's an acquired taste that I never acquired. Then again, I was drinking "TAB" back in the 70s when they still made real "TAB" that tasted like beer and carbolic acid mixed up with saccharin. Yum, yum! Doc
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Things to think about ... oh dear, Doc, I remember tab -- there's the problem, you left your taste buds in the 70's!!!!!!! I used to need a pepsi fix, now it's rootbeer -- I don't know how these things happen, it's as mysterious as tab and Clint Eastwood (I remember watching him drink tab too) LOL Where's my datsun keys???? ohhhhhh nevermind, I'll take the pinto ;-) Sassy
