I re-wrote my letter to TU using some of your suggestions which I appreciate. Let me know what you think of this. Trans Union To Whom It May Concern: You have just been served with a lawsuit based on your continued violations of the FCRA. You have claimed in your letter to me that certain tradelines were verified by Trans Union, when in fact they were not and I have valid proof to support my claims. Sanctions against a Credit Reporting Agency can be as much as $1,000 per violation. At this point in time, I will dismiss my lawsuit for deletion of the accounts listed in exhibit 1 from my credit bureau file, as well as your written promise that they will not reappear in the future. In addition, I will also require that the accounts listed in exhibit 2 be re-inserted to my credit file. I will give Trans Union until August 23, 2001 to comply with my offer. Should you decline my offer, I will then ask for monetary damages in the amount of $1,000 per violation plus deletion of the aforementioned accounts,in addition to any and all other damages as the court may deem just. This incorrect credit report has already caused me to be declined for credit. Should my report continue to be incorrect and I am denied further credit due to itâ??s inaccuracies, I will file another lawsuit for further damages. Please do what is proper, and take care of this matter now so as to avoid further costs and inconveniences to both of us. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, LKH
I like it. Almost Perfect! I would leave out the last two sentences...the "Please do what..." and the "I look forward..." you don't need em. Get em LKH -Dave
Not to be nit pickey, but... I think it should read as follows: This incorrect credit report has already caused be to be declined for credit. Should my report continue to be incorrect and I am denied further credit because of its (no apostrophe), I will blah blah blah. Other than that, I thought it was excellent!
Looks good LKH. Hope you post what they say when you receive your response from them, if any. I'll do the same. It will be interesting to see how the two different letters shake out with them. I made no mention of removing tradelines in mine, other than that I'd be open to a "reasonable offer of settlement". I gave them 10 days, sent the letters out 3 hours ago. Can hardly wait....... danrs
My only issue with your letter is what are your causes of action? Yes, you have them on violations but I suggest paraphrasing parts of the statutes to make them aware of what they have done without really being specific. Make them at least think, because if I were in the CRA shoes, this letter would not scare me and I would think it was frivilous. Suggest that they seek competent counsel upon receipt of the letter. Is the purpose of this letter is to actually persuade them into doing what you want or is it simply a precursor to you filing the suit? But I really suggest making the letter as effective as possible so that you won't have to really go to court. I am not aware of your entire situation with the CRA and you may just be at the point where all you want to do is sue them, which is definitely understandable, but I suggest making sure you are ready for the worse case scenario which is actually battling this in court , no matter how unlikely it may be. Good Luck! Cypri
This is an explanation - offer of settlement letter that is going to be attached to a lawsuit. No more games. I gave them the opportunity to correct their blatant errors and they chose to feed me a line of crap. The reason I didn't go into detail with their violations as I did in my first draft, was because several people on the board suggested I not tip my hand. If they choose not to settle and decide to fight, I will have 2 witnesses from creditors lined up that will state they were never contacted by TU in any way to verify my disputes. Depending on these results, Equifax may be next. They also have claimed to have verified an account several times but the creditor says nope. I will of course keep the board updated on my results. Oh, and I do have an atty. that I have spoken to about this and will represent me if need be.
For those of you interested, here is the sections of the FCRA that Trans Union has violated. They violated (1) (a) and (2)(a) § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] (a) Reinvestigations of disputed information. (1) Reinvestigation required. (A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute, the agency shall reinvestigate free of charge and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file in accordance with paragraph (5), before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer. (B) Extension of period to reinvestigate. Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A) may be extended for not more than 15 additional days if the consumer reporting agency receives information from the consumer during that 30-day period that is relevant to the reinvestigation. (C) Limitations on extension of period to reinvestigate. Subparagraph (B) shall not apply to any reinvestigation in which, during the 30-day period described in subparagraph (A), the information that is the subject of the reinvestigation is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or the consumer reporting agency determines that the information cannot be verified. (2) Prompt notice of dispute to furnisher of information. (A) In general. Before the expiration of the 5-business-day period beginning on the date on which a consumer reporting agency receives notice of a dispute from any consumer in accordance with paragraph (1), the agency shall provide notification of the dispute to any person who provided any item of information in dispute, at the address and in the manner established with the person. The notice shall include all relevant information regarding the dispute that the agency has received from the consumer.
LKH, I don't think you have to cite the provisions of the FCRA. This is a CBA and they know the rules and if they review your disputes they will know you've got them. If it went to court you would present the FCRA as part of your argument. Mist
I am not including that with the lawsuit or letter. I was answering Cypri's post and just putting the info out there for anyone interested.
Cypigirl, Nothing we do as consumers, at least in a non-class action sense, is going to scare these people in the least. No matter what we say, do, or present to them, they will go on as bothered by us as individuals as a gnat would bother a cow. Possibly annoying, but hardly scary or of concern. For the CRA's, as with any big corporation, this would be nothing more than a business decision. If they can get rid of us with little or no cost to themselves, I believe they will do so. Once they are served with a lawsuit, or maybe even a letter threatening such, it will go straight to their legal department. They must have multitudes of attorneys on payroll I would think. Those attorneys are professionals, and will not anger or scare at our words. What they will do is make a business decision. Get rid of Chump A for no out of pocket costs, or spend thousands of dollars to defend against Chump A, and possibly run up against a sympathetic judge or jury and spend even thousands more, and risk publicity, which might encourage more of us to do the same, eating in to more of their profits. Someone suggested in another thread that they might even have the case moved to another court, out of small claims, to countersue us. The cost to them to do that would be all out of proportion to what they MIGHT collect IF they could prove anything. Trying to collect a judgement from someone who already has credit problems isn't a very good bet I would think. Unless the "Sue the CRA's" trend takes the country by storm, and they need to start making examples of people, I would consider it highly unlikely. Maybe it is oversimplification, but I wouldn't doubt for a minute that's just how it works. As LizardKing said not too long ago here, out of the millions on top of millions they keep records on, how many of us actually go to the trouble to file suit? If they settle each one, the "integrity" of their data would still be astronomically high percentage wise. I simply can't see it being worth their time to fight it, especially when they (legal dept) know the CRA screwed up, no matter how minor the screw up was. Now, here's to hoping I don't end up eating my words.........:-O danrs
if you give them a way out, I will bet that they will bite. It really is a matter of a simple business decision. I wish that I would have did this in the beginning. I believe that it would have shortened my recovery time in half....Good luck!
I disagree. K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid. Those letters containing and paraphrasing statutes are worthless. The CRA's know the statutes letter for letter, and know exactly where they stand. You do not need to overly inflate your complaint with the letter of the laws that are being broken...it makes you sound like a cog in the wheel. For instance "remove it or suffer the consequences" -DaveLV (via Lex)... 'nuff said. Simple and it says it. -Dave
It was just a suggestion. I am looking at it from both angles. I did not say you should cite the statute. Just give examples of what they have done to you, without really going into detail. How they have slandered your reputation, invaded your privacy , caused you emotional distress....... What are your damages? I am going off the letters I have seen at law firms when I was law clerk. I can send you a sample of what I mean, but if you are just interested in suing, then push forward. I wish you the best! Cypri
