I just got off the phone with Steve Reger of TransUnion. I can't believe the arrogance of this pr**k. I have one lousy account and a thirty day late that I have sent proof that are not correct and he siad we are not required to accept information from you if our investigations show your information to be wrong. I WANT THIS GUY, I WOULDN'T SETTLE WITH HIM FOR A $5000 CHECK AT THIS POINT. He knows he messes with peoples lives. He even threatened to put stuff back on my report if I proceeded with my case. I hope he does, I'll drag his a** back to North Idaho as many times as necessary. If anyone has any information about him, my email is on. Otherwise, I have 4 denials of credit and two reinsertions and a guy with a really bad attitude. I know this judge, she's really good and doesn't take any crap. She's going to shove his arrogant attitude back down his throat and I'm going to laugh all the way to the bank with my check. On a more pleasant note, I have a completely clean Equifax report at this time, and I'm working on Experian. Problem is it doesn't seem I can get refinanced until I have all three scores and Trans Union is withholding my score at this point. Thanks for the vent, and let the game begin. CBJ
Make sure to tell the judge he's threatening you. and get an injunction for not only this item but the others if you can. Wow. Arrogant, aren't they! By the way, every item you dispute with TU automatically generates a fcra violation. You know how it is supposed to go: You dispute The item is marked "in dispute" for you and anyone else to see The dispute proceeds The "in dispute" notation is erased when the investigation is complete. TU's SYSTEM CAN'T EVEN DO A BASIC THING LIKE MARK THE ITEM AS BEING "IN DISPUTE" So any item you've ever disputed has generated an fcra violation. More importantly, if creditors pull your report while your items are in dispute, they don't see the notation either. Nobody even knows it's in dispute but supposedly, TU sees it. This is a very basic fcra requirement. As far as I know, the TU system hasn't yet been updated (it's in process supposedly) test it and then shove that knowledge back at them. How they are a national bureau when they can't comply with the fcra on any dispute is beyond me. Test it... put an item in dispute, repull your report a day later.. nothing. and better yet, have a local creditor pull it and not see the "in dispute" notation. Nice, huh knowledge is power and if he's going to play hardball, may I suggest a Radioshack telephone tape recorder? If your state permits it, it would certainly show a predisposition against consumers. and TU is supposed to consider consumer info... by the way I am sure you've read the fcra several times and thus know that. Ammend your complaint to include the "not showing the in dispute notation" on every item that has also previously been disputed and removed, get an injunction for permanent removal. smack them back. If you want a hardball atty, David Szwak is great and will work with a local atty on contingency. bump it to District court and take this bozo out of the loop www.bjslaw.com
I have a tri-merge from a local mortgage company. Only problem is I disputed over the phone, as I was trying to call and settle with this fine example of humanity, and they bumped me to an investigator. So tomorrow I'll send another dispute, priority mail CRRR and have them pull another for me. The local lending companies are just as sick of the CRA's as we are and they are willing to do anything to help. About consideration of consumer info, he didn't deny they considered it, they just don't consider it as relevant as the CA. Also since you were the expert about getting damages, do you know if what he said about any damages that occur after the lawsuit is filed can't be counted? If that's the case maybe I do need to refile, although I was denied a place to live based upon and two car loans based upon my TU report BEFORE I filed. Damn I'm as mad as a wet hen and twice as ornary. I wish there was a way to f**K with him as much as he is messing with my life right now. I asked him point blank if he was withholding my score, and he told me that they were not required to give out a score. With one 30 day late, one judgement and one collection I know I could beat 620, and get my mortgage, but now they won't even look at me without the score. Well I may not get my mortgage but I will have my day in court. BTW - Everyone California is a two party consent state so recording a conversation when one of the parties is in California is a Federal offense. I got in trouble over that one when I was recording my ex when she was in California. But that is another story. CBJ
Is Mr. Don Richman reasonable, or are you just joking? Or maybe he is in my state so I can punch his lights out? This is my one worry, I don't think a check is enough, I wanna make sure this guy knows that its wrong to mess with peoples lives. And at 6'1" 240 lbs with a 52 inch chest I could make a human missle out of him. Course i'd probably get in trouble for that wouldn't I? <smile> WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE???????? I just don't get how these people can go to sleep at night. CBJ
Thanks! I just want what isn't suppose to be on my report, off of my report. Seems to me if Experian and Equifax sees fit to take them off (and I didn't even sue Experian, yet) then TU should be just as reasonable. Although I don't think I wish to be at this point. Have you had any luck with Experian? CBJ
I will know by Friday, I hate Experian the most. They are satans spawn of CRAs. I don't see how they can verify debts as mine if I can't!, We shall see. I have 90 days of letters to all the CAs and proof I have no debt with them. Yet if they verify this crap I will scream.
I'm not a legal expert by any means, but I ran across this and thought it might be helpful. CASELAW ON MAXIMUM ACCURACY FAYE A. SCHOENDORF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U.D. REGISTRY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents -- Calif Court of Appeals -- Complete case at http://www.cfac.org/Attachments/Schendorf_v_UD_Registry.htm. UD Reg is a CRA of sorts. They declined to update the plaintiff's report because they said it was correct as reported. Plaintiff sent supporting documentation (letters from neighbors disputing the events described in the report), copy of cancelled check showing the landlord had settled and paid HER. UD's defense was basically "this is all in the public record -- we're sorry she doesn't like the public record, but we're just reporting it as it appears." The court said, "On appeal UDR contends that it was not required to make any changes in plaintiff' s report because the information she provided was not a matter of public record. We conclude that plaintiff made a sufficient showing that UDR should have modified her report even if the additional information was not contained in court files or similar sources. Accordingly, we reverse. <snip> "UDR overlooks its broader obligations under the statutes as a credit reporting agency. Both [the] CCRAA and FCRA require 'maximum possible' accuracy. (Civ. Code, ÂË? 1785.14, subd. (b); 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b).) This means that a report violates the statutes when it is misleading or incomplete, even if it is technically accurate. . . . 'Congress did not limit the Act's mandate to reasonable procedures to assure only technical accuracy; to the contrary, the Act requires reasonable procedures to assure "maximum accuracy." The Act's self-stated purpose is "to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit . . . in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information." 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b). Certainly reports containing factually correct information that nonetheless mislead their readers are neither maximally accurate nor fair to the consumer who is the subject of the reports.'" (Cisneros v. U.D. Registry, Inc., supra, 39 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 579-580, italics added.) And on a different note, this was interesting. "There is a common misconception that only officers are legally personally liable for wrongdoing by a corporate employer. Anyone can be liable for a tort (discrimination, harassment) when she violates stated company policy and has discretionary control over a subordinate or a customer; there have been personal liability claims associated with the FMLA and FLSA [and sometimes copyright infringement]. See Paul Kennedy, Robert Tisch, "When Supervisors Are Sued," Human Resources, Jan. 1997, p. 124."
I know exactly what you mean. They have verified a collection from Credit Vision, after I have sent them letter after letter. It's my own fault actually, one of the stupid things you should never do is give a CA your SS# to verify the debt. I WILL NEVER TALK TO A CA AGENT AGAIN! I need to write this on the blackboard at least a thousand times. Gheesh the guy calls me up I say I've never had an account with US BANK...."Well let's see if we can take care of this right now, could you verify your SS# for me?" Now they are using that information to verify with Experian. ARGGGGH I felt so stupid.... still do for that matter. They must still be laughing their asses off. Spawn of Satan indeed. I am so ashamed to be human at times. CBJ
Bless you. I love case law, it helps with the whole clarity issue. These guys know the FCRA frontward and backward, but they interpret it for themselves. If you don't have something for the judge to use, they will win. Judges are people too, and for the most part I've found them to be pretty good people, least up here they are. Thank you for your efforts. I think I will sue this guy personally. Why not? Sort of the kill them all, let god sort them out of litigation theory. <smile> CBJ
You're welcome. I'm still pissed that I didn't sue this one particular a***hole at OSI. So I get my thrills vicariously. Good luck.
CBJ - what's most ridiculous about this situation is that your credit wasn't bad to start with! I can understand my constant paperwork dances because of the Ch 13 - but the service reps really control what gets done and what "might get displaced or not done." I cannot understand why the FEDs haven't nailed the credit agencies to be correct in 90 days from now - PERIOD! Hell large companies have to go through entire database changes and do it successfully. Is somebody paying or supporting someone's campaign - and is left untouched? dogman
Are OSI and Gulf State the same company? They seem to share accounts if nothing else, there are many people who have had Gulf State accounts disappear only to reappear as OSI accounts. CBJ
OSI has their hands in so many things, it's difficult to trace. Go to the State of Fl corporations search, and put in "Beffa" in the registered agents search. See how many companies come up. Beffa is one of the principals of the parent company. Also, one corporation search (I don't remember which) shows "Payco, Inc." as having changed their name to "OSI."
CBJ, I agree with Marie except maybe even go to Federal Court. Can you tape a phone conversation in Idaho? If so, get one and set the boy up. It seems that you already know how to push his buttons. Stay calm and push Fast Forward. With your CC denials, you ought to get a nice chunk of change. Charlie
