I'm considering filing a small claims suit against the CRAs and a collection agency over an account that can not possibly be verified. I'm concerned that if I file and I lose, that I will have to pay the attorney's fees for the other side. Is this a valid concern? How should I weigh this risk (assuming it exists) against getting the result I want? EQX: 660 EXP: 619 TU: 598
Do you have all your paperwork? Have you requested validation from the CA and disputed with the CRA? Do you have a good paper trail, complete with certified mail receipts? Whether you can be liable for attorney's fees varies from state to state, but I think if it's not frivolous you're not going to be hit with fees in small claims. But make sure you have your case together. Note, I'm not a lawyer, never even played one on TV.
Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc The debt is mine. I don't dispute that it's mine but it's being reported incorrectly and no matter what I do, they won't fix the inaccurate information which relates specifically to: 1. When the account was opened. 2. When it first became delinquent. 3. The true account number. And, all of this amounts to the fact that it's being reported longer than it should be. I definitely have damages. Namely, I had to pay 29.99% in 2000 to finance my car. I've had to pay an extra month's rent in advance to rent my last apartment. I was also saddled with $100/day late fee charge clause in my rental agreement. My current apartment's lease had to be paid in ADVANCE and in FULL. I was denied a mortgage. Oh it goes on. This debt is a problem that has to go. It's already been removed from one the TU and EQX reports because those entiries actually had ACCURATE info which immediately proved that it was obsolete and had to be removed. Of course the problem child is Experian. I would swear on a stack of bibles that Experian makes a great portion of its money selling "bad" credit profiles to sub-prime lenders. They love negative information. I would like to find a list of Experian's subscribers to prove or disprove this theory.
Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc Is it your debt? You only said it couldn't be verified. jenz ===================== Any debt that can't be proven isn't a legal debt. >------------>> LB59 PS: Cnoob states I had to pay 29.99% in 2000 to finance my car I've had to pay an extra month's rent in advance to rent my last apartment. I was also saddled with $100/day late fee charge clause in my rental agreement. My current apartment's lease had to be paid in ADVANCE and in FULL. I was denied a mortgage. Oh it goes on. Judging from this Cnoob has paid this debt many times over. No only paid it but paid it unjustly!!! >------------>> LB59
Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc what are you doing to me lbrown!!!!! whether or not the CA/OC could prove the debt wasn't the question - i asked if it WAS theirs, not if they could prove it. no one forced them to pay for these things at a higher rate! i had a 646 fico and was offered a 17% auto loan rate. i laughed and went elsewhere. if this was his debt - whether or not there is a written contract - they could have prevented these problems by paying it. also, you have to prove that this was the cause of those financial problems. i'm betting there was more than this one debt that caused the problem.
Re: Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc There is NO reason to ask if this is "his" debt WHO CARES? This is NOT a place to throw YOUR moral beliefs onto someone else. People come here seeking help in repairing their credit and I am positive that they do not come here to listen to someone preach about the morality of paying back a debt.
Re: Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc If the account has been reaged, sue for FCRA violations. If the FDCPA has been violated, sue for the violations. Both are strict liability sttautes and the legitimacy of the debt doesn't matter.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc There are many here that are not repairing their credit at all and DOITMYSELF is correct in stating that it matters not what one's MORAL beliefs are on this board. lbrown is correct in stating that without validation/no contract there is no binding debt. IN ANY EVENT................ there is no reason for any CA, CRA or OC to be allowed to break the various laws governing each one of them and they should be held accountable for that.....regardless of whether or not a person owes the debt.......period.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc what did i say about morals? the freakin point i was getting at is simply that this person better hope there isn't proof somewhere in archives that doesn't resurface in time for court. negotiation on these things is a lot easier when your not lying about a debt not being yours. AND you don't end up blacklisting yourself.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc Once again Lbrown59 already stated, "Any debt that can't be proven isn't a legal debt" The "proof" of this debt is EXACTLY what the OP is seeking from the CA. If they say he owes this debt then they must prove it!!!
Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc Okay. Let's start over. I'm not sure where jenz got the idea that there was a valid debt out there that I didn't pay and it's as a result of that issue that all this stuff happen. In fact, no where in my original message or follow-up message did it say that I didn't pay or was trying to get out of paying. The issue is the debt is mine and IT HAS BEEN PAID. The reason I want to sue someone is because the CRAs and the creditor REFUSED TO REPORT IT CORRECTLY and as a result are continuing to report a negative account that is over SEVEN YEARS OLD. Here's an excerpt from my follow-up post: > The debt is mine. I don't dispute that it's mine but it's being > reported incorrectly and no matter what I do, they won't fix the > inaccurate information which relates specifically to: > > 1. When the account was opened. > 2. When it first became delinquent. > 3. The true account number. > > And, all of this amounts to the fact that it's being reported longer > than it should be. As for jenz's comment that I was somehow an idiot for taking high interest rates, I have only one thing to say: It's difficult to pay your current bills on-time without a job. So, you'll have to forgive me for buying the car at that rate and securing transportation to work. With respect to the apartment, it's much the same "excuse". I prefer to live in a home rather than on the street, so I took the deal. Don't be so naive and/or high-and-mighty as to think that I did not shop around. However, I do think it's somewhat poetic that the 29.99% interest car is the one that allowed me to keep the job which then allowed me to pay my lease in advance. That sort of disposable cash was worth the investment on the car note which is now PAID OFF. The original question was and still remains: What's the risks involved in suing Experian and the creditor for: a. refusing to update this account as paid when it was paid. b. continuing to refuse to delete it from the record seeing as how the 7 year reporting period is over. c. playing with the dates on the account and the acct number. Any thoughts?
Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc I don't see the risk. You're bringing the claims in good faith. The debt has not a thing to do with the way it's reported,etc.
Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc jenz seems to feel that the law should apply to all creditors except those whom you owe money to. jenz also seems to feel that a consumer must earn the protection of the consumer laws by not oweing the debt.
Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc In general you risk paying the attorney fees if they can prove (read Hedwig's reply) your claim is frivolous, or if you lose the case, so let us know more about the case: a.1. Who reported the account as "collection" - OC or CA? a.2. Was the debt sold to the CA? a.3. Have you contacted the OC/CA about the accurate reporting? If yes, was it in writing, CRRR? a.4. Do you have any letter from OC/CA stating that they will/can not update the tradeline? b.1. Is the CRA refusing to delete it? If yes, do you have it in writing? b.2. What is the date the account was reported delinquent? b.3. When was your first delinquent date (the date you first missed a payment)? c. I assume when the account was transferred to the CA, they changed the account number and reported it with a new date. Is that so? Give us more details ...
Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc I second that. Someone on this board once said: [color=0066FF]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.[/color] Besides, as lbrown and many others have said before, the law just works this way - if they cannot prove it, it does not exist. If someone breaks the rules of investigation, or the procedure - the defendant is not guilty. Even if he had killed a man ... However, without knowing the debt was paid, jenz makes a good point - if we go to court, we better be sure there is nothing that the other side could come up with to screw our case.
Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other The collection was reported by the in-house collection department of the original creditor. No. Yes, I contacted them. Yes it was in writing with CRRR. I received a nasty letter along the lines of, "This item will remain on your report until it is paid in full. Pay now." All I have is the usual updated report with the "item verified/unchanged" message next to the account. I'm not going to put account dates here, but the account has been delinquent since 1996. It is obsolete as of early 2003 (at the very latest) and has been recognized/deleted as obsolete by both TU and Equifax without much effort from me. Experian is the one that is refusing to remove it. Yes. The collection department is in-house to the original creditor. The account number was changed and then reported as a new collection with a new more recent date shortly before the neg. entry with the original acct # was set to go obsolete. Convenient, no? So for a while I had two UNPAID collection entries for the SAME DEBT which tanked my score through the floor. When I made a stink about that, the original account entry was updated to say "transferred to another lender" and my score somewhat recovered. When the obsolete date for that original account came around, it fell off all of the reports and left the entry with the newer/fresher/bogus account number on my report which had an obsolete date much further out in the future. I believe this was intentional. As I said previously, I had an easy time getting this rectified with TU and EQX once I laid out the chronology of events. What's even worse about this Experian problem is that they have altered the obsolete date of the bogus account. I have all of the credit reports that document this. In 2002, when the debt was being reported twice, the bogus account showed an obsolete date that is less than 4 months from now (the date obsolete date was incorrect, but that is what was listed), but NOW that obsolete date is not even on the report! It's magically disappeared. They are f*cking with me. Seriously. I have a feeling that they are fixin' to extend that obsolete date again. I've disputed the account as obsolete using an online dispute. I can't wait for their response. That brings me to the lawsuit business. If they come back and give me some crap about the account is verified and is scheduled to go obsolete 7 years from the bogus date, I will want to hit the roof, because it will be an undeniable violation of FCRA. Honestly, I just want the matter resolved. Although I want to punish them for doing this to me, my main focus is rectify the report. I would be willing live and let live if they simply do the right thing.
Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other The first problem I see is that you are not dealing with a CA. By FDCPA's definition the OC is not a debt collector, therefore FDCPA does not apply to the OC collecting on their own account. The second problem is that the CRA is reporting what is submitted to them by the OC, i.e., they have no fault in reporting the new date - they can get away saying "it's a new account, new account number, new date, how should we know this is the old account" and claim the attorney's fees. The OC, on the other hand, can say it's their policy to change the account number when it goes to the collection department. Dunno what to tell ya ... hope the experts will join.
Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other There is NO reason to ask if this is "his" debt WHO CARES? This is NOT a place to throw YOUR moral beliefs onto someone else. People come here seeking help in repairing their credit and I am positive that they do not come here to listen to someone preach about the morality of paying back a debt. DOITMYSELF ----------------------------- Right you are. >------------>> LB59
