     douglas pratt (Dougpratt) | Friday, April 20, 2001 - 10:02 pm 
when one of the CRA's tells you they are going to clean up their mistakes, get the name of who you are speaking with, then GET IT IN WRITING!!!- pin them down to a specific time frame, let them fax it first, then snail-mail. if you're talking with somebody who can't do this, ask for a supervisor. get first and last names, employee identification numbers, and direct-dial line. don't settle for a recording- this is the best excuse for failing to answer for ongoing negligence and deceit. report to your state's attorney general's office if the problem continues. any company doing business in large volume through out the country is subject to compliance with state laws-- if they screw up, the most powerful legal advocate for the consumer is the attorney general. when somebody's lie puts things out of hand for me, one of my lawyers puts things out of hand in turn-- a telephone call at home at 2:10 am on sunday morning tends to awaken people unto the world of corporate greed and what it is doing to real lives in real places. care to lose all you have worked for to some dumb jackass mistake? i don't think so. soft spoken, succinct, don't tread my behind and i won't tread on yours.
what's legal here may or may not be legal there; it was a state action in california that finally gave consumers access to FICO scores, and further federal legislation is pending so everybody might see those mysterious numbers granting and denying credit, and how much more borrowing costs become according to a numerical score the computer spits out.
[UN]fair isaac is in violation of chapter 93 A of massachusetts' consumer protection laws, as their proprietary credit scoring software obliged wells fargo national bank to deny my credit application seeking to refinance my primary residence under a 70% LTV. anyone denied credit in massachusetts is entitled to a fully plausible explanation; merely stating that a "credit score" wasn't high enough to grant credit, or being spefically cited as the sole reason for denial, is inadequate disclosure unless EACH AND EVERY parameter of a mathematical formula used to categorize any borrower's profile as unacceptable is disclosed and "FULLY EXPLAINED in PLAIN ENGLISH," so that the information can be easily understood, and consumers know what action to take to make scores acceptable. we have tiered pricing of consumer credit products tied directly to the numerical scores [discrimination], lenders categorically denying credit applications without knowing why they have done so, with no plausible explanation [adverse action lacking due process]; inadequate disclosure of the roles FICO scoring plays in corporate lending policy to the consumer marketplace; racism by computer made legal-- lack of discovery, exemption of software modeling from challenges or redress. categorical disregard for admissability of evidence and patterns consistent with illegal and unconstitutional activity taking place throughout the lending industry.
the last paragraph of your post indicates equifax thinks your 1999 bankruptcy discharge was thrown out, and transunion thinks it's still pending. if there is any question, fax and fedex that pretty little ribbon front page to their representative still confused about it. CRA's hire anybody over 18 and breathing, minimum wage, a day of training and online they go. decent customer service costs money, and since they don't pay for mistakes, why make an effort to avoid or correct them? [UN]fair isaac has it an order of magnitude better- forget staff; one server does it all, so let's play golf or fly around the world on the company jet. frigg the consumer-- this company truly OWNS the credit industry, so don't be surprised when it acts that way. few people have access to presitgious legal representation and the means to engage it-- i do, and making progress here is like running a boston marathon in an iron lung; inspiration today, more setback tomorrow, and i have yet to file any kind of action in state or federal court. no lawyer is taking undue advantage; they consult and advise-- when a strategy takes form, they know it will be well worth the effort to go forward. anybody can pay an attorney to take the moon in for monopoly on green cheese-- that's not my style. neither is theirs. no law firm wants to commit great efforts to hopeless cases, and pissing life with epilepsy most of the time when i can't work and $300/hour on a part time job when i can, sorry i don't want to be spending what precious quality time i have sitting in court either. up all night on internet sparing my wife from endless petit mal seizures isn't my idea of paradise, though i'm alive and doing fine-- *.
goodnight for now-- not meaning to get off key again--- life is wonderful--** |
