To Marie, Lizard, Bill etc. (long)

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by LKH, Aug 4, 2001.

  1. LKH

    LKH Well-Known Member

    or anyoneelse who may know. If you recall, I received an updated report from Equifax stating they had verified an account with Compass Bank. Compass had reaged the acct. I spoke with someone at Compass on Monday who was going to verify the date of last activity and then correct it and notify me by mail. I still haven't heard back from her. But in my conversation with her she stated that equifax, nor any of the cra's for that matter, had ever contacted them. I asked for a letter stating that. The result is they say they cannot give me a letter. Now, if I file a lawsuit against equifax, I can subpoena her and ask for any and all records showing correspondance from equifax, and if there is no record, a statement stating that would suffice. The question is, do I have enough info to file a lawsuit against equifax and would you do it?

    Next question - I sent trans union a letter requesting the methods used to verify along with names, addresses etc., which they adequately responded to. However, They say they contacted my car lender, but the lender says no way, and they will give me a statement. Secondly, on a bk13 that I filed but did not go thru with, they list the US District Court as who they verified this with. The District and Bankruptcy courts have different addresses and phone numbers, so it's obvious they just looked up the info in the phone book and didn't verify squat. Do you think I have enough to go forward on a lawsuit with them also? I would ask for deletion of any and all negatives in return for dismissal.

  2. Marie

    Marie Well-Known Member

    the short answer is yes, you have enough.

    I talked with an insider recently and was told that any reason to file is enough. In essence, he told me to quit procrastinating, quit piling up the evidence, take what's in progress and run.

    I have a good list already and I'm just waiting for the last set screwups to finish "investigating" so I can file.

    Here's my latest opinion of the whole thing. If you were going to file in US District Court and really go for money... I'd say to pile the evidence and then go for it. oh, and get a lawyer.

    If you're only going to small claims court then 1 or 2 items is plenty.

    Now, with regards to faking investigations. I know we've all been discussing "is it enough?" "Do I have enough proof?"...

    Look at this objectively. They say they verified. The creditor says no. It'd be better if you got a letter but you certainly can state in your lawsuit that xxx person at xxx date at xxx creditor confirmed no contact at all by the CRA either by phone or by mail.

    Now, this damning idea might be enough to scare them into removal if you just wrote them a letter before filing suit.

    But, once you file suit, they're on the defensive. They then must prove they DID the investigation. Since we know they faked it, they're screwed and they know it. They have nothing to counter sue. They're sending a manager, likely, to court. They could lose and have to correct your file and pay you money. and

    Since you DO have a witness who will testify that there's no contact, you have them.

    Think about the broader aspect. The CRAs don't want a lot of cases out there where they lose and thus admit they're faking investigations. Think large consequences.

    More lawsuits, Class actions, FTC...

    180 million credit files. If 1% files lawsuits and wants only 1,000 for one FCRA violation, that's a LOT of money.

    Further putting it into perspective. We're not their clients, we're their data. We're a software glitch, a hiccup, not even a power outage. We're little irritations in the system.

    Now, honestly, marketing info be damned, do you really think out of 180 million files they really care a bit if they remove all your negative info for a dismissal of a lawsuit? In the big picture, their system still has it's "integrity".

    And, they know what you're saying is the truth. They know they do a poor job with our lives. They don't care. It's like retrofitting cars.

    Add up the cost of retrofitting tires for all cars. Then compare that to x number of lawsuits at x average cost per settlement.

    If settlements are cheaper than going back in and fixing things... they settle. And unless some govt agency steps in and says they must, they won't do what's right. They'll do what's profitable.

    And, in the scheme of credit, their not verifying will weed out "credit repair" versus real issues.

    Do you really think the average person, the normal Joe, will file a lawsuit of any kind without some real provocation???

    Now, placing this all in proper perspective... do you have enough? yes.

    Filing with any real cause is enough for them to listen to you, correct issues, and most likely clean the report to make you go away without any money of theirs.

    Course, this is just my opinion. I saw one case where the guy just didn't get a good procedural description and filed. The cra sent a completely clean file 2 weeks later asking "is this enough?".

    I think it's all easier than we think it is. :) and that's very exciting indeed!!!!!!!!!!

    Hope my layperson's answer helps you clarify your position.
  3. LKH

    LKH Well-Known Member

    Thanks Marie. I appreciate your input. I just received an updated equifax today. I got 2 more deletions, with about 4 more items to go, so deleting those shouldn't be a big deal to them.
    As for TU, I will wait for my updated report which should be here any day, and then I will file.

    One more item. TU had deleted several positive accounts. In my letter to them, I explained that I wasn't disputing the accounts themselves, but rather certains aspects such as, date opened, amount of balance, etc. in their b.s. response, they still refuse to reinsert these accounts. I told them I had a hard time believing they could not verify current, positive accounts, but old, negatives get verified every time. I think the reinsertion will be a part of my offer to settle.

    Oh, in my offer to settle, should I advise them that I have documented proof that certain accounts were never even attempted to be verified?
  4. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    I go with Marie on this one.

    Might want to think about preparing the lawsuit and sending the prepared forms and see if they want to settle out of court or would they rather go fight.

    Might save you some time and expenses.

    That or just go sue them and be done with it.

    Big problem is that I tend to think the end result would be the same either way unless you are going to hold out for some real cash payoff in the process. If that is your plan, then just go file on them and be done with it.
  5. Marie

    Marie Well-Known Member

    Uhhh. I read too many boards. Someone posted their settlement included reinsertion of the good accounts that had dropped. lk???

    anyway, it's only right that they do that.

    I'd actually include in the letter /lawsuit that they deleted your positive accounts and wouldn't reinsert after their error. They know that it hurts your profile and score.

    Sounds like willful noncompliance again ;)

    They're not supposed to delete the account if you just disputed an aspect of the account. but it happens. I was told this again by Equifax again Friday.
  6. Marie

    Marie Well-Known Member

    Yes, I'd mention in the lawsuit and in the letter that xxx creditor confirmed to you, in writing, NO contact whatsoever from CRA liars.

    Ok, maybe you can drop the word liars.
  7. LKH

    LKH Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the responses Bill and Marie. The last question I have is regarding TU. Do you think I should let them know up front about the conflicting court info. I guess what I am saying is I don't want to tip my hand. If I disclose this in my settlement offer, it may give them the chance to correct their info and then I may be out of luck if they decide to fight me.
  8. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    I think that the best way to go is to give them as little information as possible.

    I'd give them the fact of suit, the offer of settlement out of court whatever that might be and so many days to reply and comply and that's all I would give them.

    Now then, I realize that you may actually have to give them a bit more informaiton than that, but in general, I'd give them the least information possible.

    As a for instance, I am charging you with rape and murder in small claims court in whackahatchet county court.
    Just leave out the part about "because you screwed up my credit and killed my chances for a loan"
  9. Marie

    Marie Well-Known Member

    Again, I think they'll delete everything so as NOT to enter a courtroom. I think there's no chance of a fight if you're willing to settle for deletions. why would they chance it? they lose a lot!

    The other info is interesting because I've been debating the same thing. How much detail shows you have them by the b...s and yet keeps some ammo for later.

    My bigger issue is how do I disclose a case without making all my accounts and personal information public information in the lawsuit.

    Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying that the verification info they gave you doesn't even reach the right people... right? If so
    Perhaps with your case, you could say
    "verifying information, contact address and phone number were for another court, demonstrating that there is no possibility of this tradeline because the verifying contacts don't house this type of information".

    I'm no lawyer, but if it has to do with verifying info, I think the mere fact that they B/Sed you, in writing, is the violation.

    If they tried to correct the contact info now, it doesn't matter. They've already committed the sin. They already lied to you about contact info (and thus about verifying the debt).

    Now, if we were talking about the tradeline, I still think if they corrected it now (eg: changed the case number, made it dismissed not discharged, whatever needed changing) I think you'd still have them not for the current report but for the bogus verification they clearly didn't do before.

    If it wasn't verified within the 30 days it's supposed to be deleted. right!

    I'm actually having an issue with this myself.. Lawyers???!! Opinions please!!!

    I don't want to say in a public lawsuit: "Bk7 not addressed at all in the investigation" because that puts another record of it out there.

    Can I just say "4 items in the requested investigation were not even addressed at all. Since the 30 days had passed the items in question should have been removed when the error was pointed out to Equifax".

    I don't want to have to say in the lawsuit:
    delete the bk
    etc etc etc.

    I just want to say "correct and / or delete all items in investigation as should have occurred on xxx, the date of the close of the investigation".

    and then work out the details later on the phone.

    Clear as mud?
  10. LKH

    LKH Well-Known Member

    Lizard - here is the exact letter trans union sent me regarding reinserting accounts.

    Dear Consumer,

    Thank you for your recent request to have tradeline info reinserted to our files. If a creditor does not verify the requested info the tradeline can not remain on file.

    If the info is not verified by the creditor we can not update the disputed info, and we are unable to reinsert the unverified tradeline.

    Consumer Relations Dept.

    It is quite amazing that they were able to get rid of 4 positive accounts in one shot, yet the negatives continually get verified.

Share This Page