After considerable searching by Sassy and I ... WE FOUND IT!!! This case applies to CRA's refusing to accept your information, and CRA's deleting positive accounts, (this, BTW, is the ONLY issue I have left) Lets take a look: http://www.cfac.org/CaseLaw/Cases/Schendorf_v_UD_Registry.html FAYE A. SCHOENDORF, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U.D. REGISTRY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. We reject UDR' s position for several reasons. For one thing, UDR does not limit its sources of information to the public record and adjudicated facts. As stated, UDR accepts information directly from landlords about good tenants and problem tenants and includes that data in its reports. (See also Cisneros v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 548, 567.)[FOOTNOTE 1] More important, UDR' s reliance on a "public record" standard is completely at odds with its statutory duties as a credit reporting agency. As Division Four of this court stated in an earlier appeal in a different case: "UDR overlooks its broader obligations under the statutes as a credit reporting agency. Both [the] CCRAA and FCRA require ' maximum possible' accuracy. (Civ. Code, § 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. . . . ' The CRA's insist that even though they've deleted positive accounts (because they're not "required" to report it) or leaves negative info. present because they refuse to consider your information, leaves the report "technically accurate", therefore you have no cause of action. The above paragraph says to me; the report must also be COMPLETE. If it's NOT complete it could be misleading. 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.) DON'T LET THESE NITWITS TELL YOU THAT THEY CANNOT ACCEPT YOUR INFORMATION. And don't let them delete good TL's out of their vindictiveness. It renders your report INCOMPLETE and therefore MISLEADING. Unless resolved I will be filing in FDC against EQ. for precisely this issue.
Fave Butch growling dude, Thank you for finding it and giving me credit. Truth is, I was at a soccer tournament all day and haven't searched at all. The first thing in my inbox was jsummers responses on the other thread that I responded to. I'm apologizing in advance, tnobles, that one got to me! The kudos are all yours, Butch, thanks for hunting it down! Sassy
BUTCH YOU ROCK!!! I am SO using this..... 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.) in a letter to Equifax FIRST THING MONDAY MORNING! EQ thinks they can change the "Status" and "Balance" dates of a collection to make it look like I just paid it, but I will NOT let them get away with it, I don't care if it's "just how their software does it." TIME TO RE-WRITE THAT SOFTWARE!!
Wow, Butch - this is a true find! Not only will this handle deleted tradelines, but I believe it may apply to my question of adding history that has never existed, assuming someone has been denied for inadequate history. While researching this information further, I turned up what appears to be the root of the misleading claim. <quote> Alexander v. Moore & Associates, Inc., supra, 553 F.Supp. 948, 952 [finding that "section 1681e(b) of the Act, fairly read, would apply to consumer reports even though they may be technically accurate, if it is shown that such reports are not accurate to the maximum possible extent."].) <end quote> Can anyone find this text on the Internet? I wasn't able to pull it up. Thanks again!
Thanks, I might need this against TU too. By the way, in light of the present circumstances, you might want to review your tag line ;-) 0
http://www.lexisone.com/ http://www.loislawschool.com/ has a free trial deal http://www.versuslaw.com/main.asp you may be able to find the cases here
Hi Oz, Do you have good luck with VersusLaw? I have an account on LexisOne, but it doesn't turn up much for me. Once I used it to order a complaint and it ran about $100. I have yet to find any caselaw serch engine that is exceptional. Being a software developer, this doesn't make much sense to me because, in my experience these companies usually get data from the same location. Thank you!
Butch, You sir, are a gentleman AND a scholar. Since I just happen to live in LA County, this might be the *slightest* bit useful when and if I have to file later this month. Hugs and kisses, HDAlex
Butch, How much do I owe yu for all of this hard work? My centaurion card is maxed so I can only pay with.... CASH!!!! heheheheh I was talking to my husband the other day about how the dedication of a few change the lives of so many. I am thankful that you dedicants are here on this board otherwise, I would be still getting 25% on my car loans...... Thanks!
Buthc, I LOVE YOU!!! This will also help me with the case i've filed against Equifax for refusing to investigate a judgement. Even though the date filed as satisfaction date in the courthouse is wrong, equifax's date is even a year later and they refuse to investigate, calling my request frivolous, never put it into dispute. In fact, even though they should have been served with my lawsuit last week, the judgement is still not markes as being 'in dispute'. Isn't that another violation? michaela
I'm not sure how this helps with deleted tradelines. There is nothing requiring any tradeline to be reported. Hmmm... on the other hand...if it was reported and it wasn't the information provider who requested that it be removed, then seems to me that this might fall into that category. Hmmm...hmmm..hmmm.... L
Whyspers, you have the background on the legal side, so I'm probably wrong here - but I think the valuable component is that the CRA's can't claim a reason not to add credit history, because even though the report would be *accurate*, it would still be *misleading* because it would show a limited version of the person's true credit history in the last seven years. Essentially, what this case established IMHO, is that the CRA's obligation isn't limited to maintaining an accurate report, but more importantly, maintaining an accurate report that isn't misleading. This means their obligation extends to assuring that information that is left out must be contained if it can be established that it's absence would be misleading (which it seems, in my opinion, if you need the tradeine enough to fight it, it must be creating a misleading credit history without it). Does that make sense? -Rusten
It makes sense to me, and this very sentence is why this thread scares me so much for those of us who are trying to get negatives removed from our reports. I'm afraid that if you bring this to their attention (although, realistically, I'm sure they've seen it already) and it's used to get them to re-insert positive tradelines, they may have a lightbulb moment and decide to use this ruling to make it harder for us to get negatives removed. Maybe georgiaboy's paranoia is contagious. Maybe I haven't had enough coffee. But it's a concern I've had since reading this case.
Technically, we should strive for the extra - 720. At 720 you can get the low-doc loans, the extra point break, etc. That is the paramount where anything higher is just bragging rights. If I could keep my cards below 20%, I'd be there - but that's easier said than done ;-)..
Schoenndorf takes it even further. The CRA's must report in fair and accurate and complete manner to promote the free exchange of commerce (the economy). THIS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE! LOLOL
WaAlien (is that short for Washington Alien, a last name, something else?!) I think that if you look at the caselaw with objectivity, without bias for either the CRA or consumer, I think essentially it's difficult for this to be good for the CRA in any light, because it is essentially clarifying the "Reasonable procedures" clause - 1681(d) and Accuracy of Report 1681e(b). Those have always been two of the most important stipulations of the FCRA, and this just gives more weight to them, IMHO. For your reference: FCRA 1681(d) Reasonable procedures. It is the purpose of this title to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this title. FCRA 1681e(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.
