Forum
|
|
Forum
|
| Subtopic | Msgs | Last Updated |
     | Friday, March 10, 2000 - 01:58 am  I started out with 20 errors and wrote and got the new report back. Now I only have 6 but it looks like TU didn't even approach the credit cards that I had listed in my chaptr 7--last date of contact is listed as 1997 and balances due are still reflected. Should I contact the companies themselves or send the proof again to the cra? This has ruined a fine Thursday and gotten the significant other upset about qualifying for a mortgage.
|
| | Friday, March 10, 2000 - 06:18 am My experience is the CRA's are nearly totally incompetant. I have been battling ONE small date mistake with them for 4 months! I have sent clear, concise letters explaining exactly what has to be done. I have a 6 year old charge-off which was suddenly re-dated to current when the account was sold to another agency. When I get back the report the CRA didn't address the problem but addressed totally unrelated stuff as if they were respoonding to someone else. I think it is a sham smokescreen to just "answer back" within 30 days with irrelevent bullshit to appease the consumer. I also asked, in accordance with law, for written contact information and they have ignored that request 3 times. I have sent everything certified, return receipt. Now, I have been combing the boards to figure out who to sue! Keep pounding them! And, good luck!
|
| | Friday, March 10, 2000 - 07:47 am Well, Senator, it can take quite some time to get your credit profile in order. You went from 20 errors to 6 and that's a positive thing. Of course, one error is one error too many. I suggest you write them back thanking them for the work they have done and requesting additional work on the 6 errors. I have also heard that including your bankruptcy discharge sheet can help resolve bankruptcy-related credit inaccuracies.
|
| | Friday, March 10, 2000 - 08:12 am Don't play footsie. Sue them using the rules to do so under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. You are not alone. Their problem with inaccuracy after a bankruptcy is gargantuan-- one of the great untold stories because consumer shame.
|
| | Friday, March 10, 2000 - 12:17 pm I'm fine with anyone who wants to sue Trans Union, but doing so is easier said than done. I would recommend continuing your procedure and continuing to conscientiously document every action you take in hopes of building the strongest case possible in the event you do have to sue.
|
| | Friday, March 10, 2000 - 01:32 pm The event is nigh. What's so hard about suing them, Sean? Is the law weak? Is Trans Union just too smart? Are you being compensated to play these games? They've had their chance if it has been 30 days. Threaten to sue and offer them a settlement. I think they'll settle (the did in January with the FTC-- that was soooo funny) and want you to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Tell them the non-disclosure will cost them double. Make some money on it.
|
| | Friday, March 10, 2000 - 02:52 pm If it's so easy why hasn't Denise Richardson got her settlement yet?
|
| | Friday, March 10, 2000 - 04:27 pm Two reasons: #1: If she's signed an NDA, we WON'T know if/when she settles. #2: She's not likely to sign one (just my totally baseless outside observation/opinion) and thus THEY are not likely to settle.
|
| | Friday, March 10, 2000 - 06:01 pm I spent the evening looking through the attic for the papers showing some of the items settled and others extinguished by the chapter 7, making copies and writing a letter tracing the 5 listings for one commercial credit account that is now citifinancial--forensic credit analyst--and is settled but still shows as outstanding. I'm not ready to sue yet. I hate lawyers. Necessary evil only as a last resort. Most don't give a damn about their work, only their egos, BMWs and home in suburbia. They're worse than doctors who work for HMO's. Everyone's comments and help is appreciated.
|
| | Friday, March 10, 2000 - 07:09 pm You don't need a lawyer. Just write them a letter outlining their violation, threaten to sue, and watch their reaction. What they DO NOT want is a public record-- even in the smallest court. The law says, "An action to enforce any liability created under this title may be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction... " See what happens in small-claims. Do it yourself. What do you have to lose? The law isn't complicated, and it is supposed to protect consumers. You can't be afraid of the system that was created to protect you. That's a good question about Denise Richardson. The story at http://www.consumeraid.org/creditnightmare.htm seems to end at March, 1999. Perhaps she could fill us in. Denise, I'm mailing this to you right now. The thread is BayHouse Real Estate, Finance and Credit Forum: Credit: Getting the cra straightened out. Suing five companies at a time sounds complicated.
|
| | Saturday, March 11, 2000 - 05:00 am Greg: Thanks for your note. The story on http://www.consumeraid.org you refer to was written, what seems like, an eternity ago. At that time, I was filled with frustration after being told conflicting information about my rights to sue. I researched and have become much more knowledgeable since then. I feel we were forced into, what should have been, unnecessary lititgation due to their inactions to correct their errors. We filed suit in May, 99 after exhausting all attempts to force them to correct and stop their gross inaccuracies, harrasment and defamation. Our case is in Federal Court in the Discovery phase. As to Sean's question, "If it's so easy why hasn't Denise Richardson got her settlement yet?" Sean: I am not looking for a "settlement" I am seeking accountability and accurate credit. I am simply standing up for my rights (and all consumers rights)to accurate credit reporting. The FCRA needs to be enforced or amended so that when consumers are violated by corporate actions it doesn't take a Federal Lawsuit to force them to abide by the laws that are intended to protect us.
|
| | Saturday, March 11, 2000 - 07:34 am I think your comments should be enough to prove my point, thanks Denise. Greg has this idea that all you have to do is threaten to sue someone and they fold up shop, give you what they want and it's all over and done with. In reality you filed May 99 and now 10 months later you're not even out of discovery! Don't you have letters from the original mortgage holder admitting that they had done wrong? For what seems like an open-and-shut case it has dragged on and will drag on for a good long time. Even if you win there is likely to be an appeal. The decision to sue someone is not something that should be taken lightly. The mere fact that Trans Union only corrected 14 of 20 errors after the first letter is not reason to jump straight into a lawsuit. I recommend that Senator write another polite, gracious letter to the credit reporting agencies with whatever supporting documentation he can find and see what happens. I think that Greg's recommendation that he just sue is a little naive.
|
| | Saturday, March 11, 2000 - 12:29 pm Denise: Did they offered a settlement? Could you discuss it if they did? Sean: You're too afraid of the boogie man. Less than a year ago, I threatened to sue a telemarketer for not identifying themselves properly, not maintaining a proper policy to maintain a list of consumers who wish not to be called, and arguing with me about it when they were flat-out guilty. They settled for $4,000. It was easy. So, who's naive: you or me?
|
| | Saturday, March 11, 2000 - 03:35 pm Well there ya go, Senator. Just write 'em a letter threatening to sue and I'm sure they'll overnight a $4,000 check to you.
|
| | Saturday, March 11, 2000 - 03:38 pm Greg---I have observed your postings. You have given some excellent advice, and helped many a naive consumer. Keep up the good work. It would appear that you are not familiar with the very intricate workings of the U.S. District Courts. Average time on docket for a successfull FCRA case is approx 20 months. If Denise has more than one defendant, she will be spending many months in the discovery phase.She has no control over this. It is "the system." It is important to realize that plaintiff's bar has never recognized consumer law as a profitable field. Thus, very few litigators are willing to pursue a cause of action under § 1681 et seq. There is one comment I must make re "who's naive?" The entire corpus of American consumers is naive. The financial sector along with the credit industry, make the rules and call all the shots. Even if there is "a flag on the play," it is unlikely that the average U.S. consumer will ever see any remedy for any damages suffered. The beauty of this board, and the Internet, is the ultimate effect of causing consumers to become more educated. Not all consumers have the ability to represent themselves in any court, let alone write letters. We must encourage consumers who are watching this board to put the financial sector on notice that from now there must be a level playing field. If we can accomplish that, we've moved mountains.
|
| | Saturday, March 11, 2000 - 07:19 pm David: The law says, "An action to enforce any liability created under this title may be brought in any appropriate United States district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction... " I mentioned it above: does county small claims court meet that description? I don't see these cases as big-budget legal battles. I see them as Judge Wapner-type cases. Hundreds of those will have more effect than a few full-dress district court affairs.
|
| | Sunday, March 12, 2000 - 05:15 am Greg-- Small claims courts are not part of the U.S. District Court system. Small claims actions are heard in County or State venues. The rules are very different. That does not rule out proceeding as a pro se litigant in an FCRA case in U.S. District Court. By Constitutional authority, one may represent himself in any U.S. District Court as a plaintiff or defendant. As well, the Equal Access to Justice Act of several years ago, reaffirmed the Constitutional guarantee to represent oneself. However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure MUST be followed to the letter. I do not see this as a bar to proceeding pro se, however, one should be sure he is familiar with the mechanics, procedures, and rules of the U.S. District Court system. One should also be aware that there may be U.S. District Court Justices who have absolutely no familiarity with 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Mind you, for an individual to proceed with a cause of action in U.S. District Court against a multibillion dollar defendant (or several defendants) is no small task. The outside counsel of the defendants have unlimited funds, and do indeed "bury" plaintiff's counsel in paper-work. I have followed Ms. Richardson's case peripherally, along with other cases wherein the consumer was damaged to an extent hitherto unknown. It is amazing to me that Ms. Richardson is still mentally capable of proceeding against defendants who have damaged her and her husband multiple times during a ten year period. Most consumers would have thrown in the towel long ago, and just made the decision to live in our economy using cash for everything. You can be sure that the lower socio-economic aggrieved consumer does exactly that. The least educated, lowest paid consumer in America, is most likely unaware that we have Federal Consumer Protection statutes. Therefore, if that person were to have been damaged by erroneous, adverse information in his credit file, he most likely would either pay more for any credit he might obtain (red-lining), or simply chose not to "play" in the financial sector-CRA game. I am not sure if I understand your reference to "these cases." It is well known that an FCRA case is a discovery-intensive cause of action. Whenever the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, discovery is the only weapon, and discovery is very expensive and time consuming. As to the FCRA's reference to "[a]ny other court of competent jurisdiction..." Small claims court is not the forum for a violation of § 1681. State superior Court is a permissible venue, but you can be assured that the powerful defendants will move to remove the case from State Court to a U.S. District Court. Why? Simply because it is the most expensive and difficult forum to litigate a case, and plaintiff's bar doesn't have the bankroll that a multibillion dollar company has. And you thought you lived in a representative democracy! The playing field in U.S. District Courts is not level. That does not mean we as consumers should give up. To me and to consumers like the Richardsons, it says: "Make this a level playing field, make all parties fully accountable for their actions at all times." As I said before, only an educated consumer can do battle with the sector who wishes to deprive him of his hard earned reputation and money. Therefore, you and the others who contribute to this and other boards should continue your work. You may not see instant gratification (quick settlement in a small claims court.) However, picture a scenario wherein individually-aggrieved consumers win their cases in all of the U.S. District Courts, and subsequently win the ever-present appeals by the multibillion dolar defendants. You now have consumer-favorable case law in all Federal Circuits and Districts.(Thousands of consumer favorable "Wapner-type" cases do not form a body of case law for anything) The end result of favorable case law in the Federal system is what the Richardsons are seeking: an FCRA which does protect the consumer--all consumers in fact. But more importantly, there will then be a level playing field between a restaurant manager (for example) and a 200 billion dollar bank and a 100 million dollar CRA. Your input to these boards is very useful, admirable and impressive. You should continue your work. Please remember, there should never arise an argument between people posting on these boards. The consumer has one common enemy: not other posters, but billion dollar companies. A united stance of aggrieved consumers is a pre-requisite for leveling the playing field. You should be aware that many multibillion dollar companies have staff whose sole responsibility is to monitor these pro-consumer message boards. Keep that in mind when posting. Stick to the "high ground." The companies watching the postings here and elsewhere are enthralled when an element of divisiveness presents itself. Consumers must stick together at all costs.
|
| | Sunday, March 12, 2000 - 11:00 am This is one of the best posts I have seen in a long time! So concise, so descriptive and on the mark. If you are an Attorney, you are a superb one I am sure. (Or maybe a physician who also obtained a law degree.) I hope Ms. Richardson reads this post. It will certainly inspire her. Thanks so much for such a memorable post and such a great source of information. Kristi Feathers
|
| | Sunday, March 12, 2000 - 03:59 pm Yeah, I agree with Kristi, much appreciate David's posting. My problem is that my issues with the CRAs and creditors/collectors have not nearly been as devastating as Denise's. Since I don't NEED credit (right now), and I really don't need the aggravation of endless disputes, I don't do anything for my own credit. Just like any "lower socio-economic aggrieved consumer" I pay cash for major purchases such as real estate or vehicles. I have credit cards, but I know that I'd pay a premium for any auto or real estate loan, due to collections/charge offs on my credit. I HAVE the cancelled checks, written notification of the address change, requests to close accounts, etc. But since everybody uses Credit Scoring, it doesn't do me any good. BTW, we're talking LESS than a few hundred dollars. But I refuse to pay for 2 reasons: 1) It won't improve my Scores. 2) I sure don't want to be part of this nation of consumers living in fear of CRAs and Scores and pay bills they don't owe just to preserve their good credit rating. Hell NO! I do realize that it is much more cost effective to pay a few hundred dollars than it is to dispute. But I also know too many people who don't have a few hundred laying around to pay the phone company or a credit card company twice. I have not looked at my reports in years now, and I wished I could just have the CRAs NOT REPORT ON ME AT ALL.
|
| | Sunday, March 12, 2000 - 11:26 pm My comments come from a disenchantment from following another district court consumer rights case: http://www.webpan.com/pgrice/chevy.htm. When the decision (finally) came, I was floored. I found the item while fighting with several companies using the federal law governing that activity. It seemed similar to the FCRA, and that's mostly where I developed my opinion about staying out of court. In that case, the big company offered over $4,000 to settle, and the plaintiff declined and proceeded to court. With that knowledge, I was able to win several settlements. I only collected one because the verbiage of the non-disclosure agreements of the others made me angry and want that much more to not sign and be muzzled, made it clear that they desperately don't want press, and made me curious about what would happen in an actual small-claims court case. For every one that agreed to settle, another wouldn't; the ratio was about 50/50. So I am going to form my own body of case law to use against future violators: I'll send them a copy of the small-claims decisions. If I lose all the small-claims fights, I'll post the decisions. Welcome to my court. As you could imagine, several lawyers and consumers who are considering action have contacted me with regard to credit scoring, but, to-date, I have seen no substantial results. By "these cases," I am referring to any simple, small, annoying error-- and violation by the FCRA-- by credit bureaus. A district court case doesn't seem like the proper venue-- like killing a gnat with a sledge hammer. And, as you point out, not many are up to the task, whether they be illiterate, or weary. That is not to say that I don't see the Richardson's effort worthy. I applaud them, and indeed, their case will shape the things to come. But in the meantime, people want to buy houses-- and are kept from doing it-- so there has to be a practical solution until the bigger issue is resolved. In a recent radio interview-- as I always do-- I encouraged the lawyers of that city to look into filing cases. Say someone files in small-claims court for a violation of the FCRA where the credit bureaus err-- as the original poster states above. I presume he sent his schedule of debts from the bankruptcy as evidence that they should be listed as in bankruptcy. That's about all the proof the credit bureau should need to correct the report. What do you think would happen? The few FCRA cases that are known to have been won are not on the Internet to my knowledge. How can I accomplish that?
|
| | Monday, March 13, 2000 - 03:31 am Greg- I understand that you as a consumer feel the personal affront and ad hominum attack of an aggressive telemarketer, and wish to be protected from those "nuisance" calls. My family is no different than yours, and in fact I have settled with 2 telemarketers since the inception of the Federal Telemarketing Act. I must caution you, though. But I do not wish to criticize you, because you raise valuable questions and give reliable answers in your postings. The Maryland State Court wherein this cause of action was heard is very pro-consumer. It is the same venue where a recent class action was settled against Hughes Direc-PC for deceptive practices regarding fair access to their broadband satellite service. However, the Hughes class settled for something less than what I would consider equitable. Of course you will find plaintiffs bar ready to do "battle" against a defendant like Chevy Chase, when the statute used for stating a claim upon which relief may be granted is so well written and concise. One cannot compare the complexity, plays-on-words, and overall consumer unfriendly language of the FCRA with any other statute. The FCRA is a complex statute by design. Who lobbied our elected representatives in the U.S. Senate and the House of Reps to legislate a consumer protection statute that is almost undecipherable? The financial sector, along with the members of the IRSG (the CRAs). Does it not appear strange to you that the body of case law under 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq is rather small for a country of 260 million people (wherein 190 million are active consumers??? Let us make a comparison to case law under 7 U.S.C., looking at cases which made law to protect women from discrimination in the workplace. Title 7 was an omnibus workplace anti-discrimantion statute which dates back some 25 years. The FCRA dates back some 25 years. Why then are there many thousands more cases filed and decided under Title 7 violations than under Title 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.? The answer is simple, but let us see if we can deduce that answer. More consumers are affected adversely by erroneous adverse entries in their credit reports than the number of people who have sufferd blatant, damaging workplace discrimination based on their gender. These are well published statistics which you can find in many law texts and on many web pages. Therfore, there should be many more FCRA cases filed and decided. Why in March 2000 would an employer risk a major punitive damages claim by violating an employee's rights under Title 7? Answer: they wouldn't. Why? Case law. As the number of employee-favorable cases in the Federal Districts and Circuits grew, employers learned to change there ways. It is a rare employer who would risk being sued in Fedral District Court for workplace gender discrimination. Case law under Title 7 has bolstered and affirmed the original legislative intent to protect employees from workplace discrimination based on gender. Greg--I understand your frustration with the system. I too at times feel like the system in the U.S. is only concerned with big business. However, compiling cases from small claims courts or from courts of "LESS competent jurisdiction," is an exercise in futility. There are more than a "few" FCRA cases which have been decided in favor of the consumer plaintiff. I refer you to Westlaw. Major database wherein you can find annotated decisions of all cases from all U.S. Districts. Also you might want to try Lexis.com. Mind you, these databases are very expensive. A simple search under FCRA on Westlaw may take less than one hour but cost you about $600.00. Lexis has a variable pricing plan. You probably are aware of the fact that almost all of the U.S. District Courts now have web pages. On these pages you can find recent published opinions (decisions). There is one more database which has all the U.S. Courts of Appeal decisions and State Supreme Court decisions. Find it at www.versuslaw.com Very reasonably priced (about $100.00) per year per user. No, you do not have to be an attorney to purchase time from any of these databases. You just have to have extra money. The paucity of FCRA cases published has another influencing factor. It would appear that aggrieved consumers (and their counsel) who are willing to settle with an ignoble multibillion dollar corporation for $4000.00, have in reality frustrated the true objectives of the FCRA. A strong FCRA case which is well pleaded and properly briefed, should survive summary judgment, and be heard by a jury of that consumer's peers.Indeed, if that aggrieved consumer can show willful and knowing violations of § 1681, then he will be entitled to punitive damages. If you are interested in seeing actual cases filed in all the Federal Dockets, then sign up for PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records). For 7 cents a page you may do a "case party" search of the entire U.S. District Court system looking for the name of a certain party. Let's say that you want to see if Bank X has other pending cases in U.S. District Court. Go to Pacer, select "case party index search", enter the name of the Bank, hit enter, and voila. But make sure you are seated. You will be shocked at the sheer number of pending and recently terminated cases wherein Bank X was a defendant. Let me make reference to your statement "[s]imple, small, annoying error..." If that error caused a denial of credit or an increased cost of credit to the aggrieved consumer, then it is actionable. And rightly, it should be because the statute imposes certain accuracy standards upon the credit reporting industry. Naturally, the statute was "watered down" by lobbyists to include the terms "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy." The true test of the resolve and determination of the American consumer is his desire to see himself face-off against a 200 billion dollar corporation, knowing that his voice is as important as the corporation's voice, and knowing that a jury of his peers will get to hear his complaint and evidence. Sure, that is a lot of work. But it is the only system we have for change in these United States. You seem quite bright, have a good handle on the CRA industry, realize that credit scoring is merely a device to circumvent the Truth in Lending Act. I ask you then, why not help build the only body of case law that will one day free all American consumers from the chains of the financial sector? A quick fix is no fix, Greg. Use your knowledge in a more productive manner. Remember, finacial institutions, and IRSG members read all your postings. What is $4000.00 to a 200 billion dollar bank? These entities fear you, but are counting on the fact that you will become frustrated with the very slow progress realized in the United States District Courts. For your information, your relentless "attacks" in pursuit of your credit score did not go unnoticed by the "big boys." Only people like you, the Richardsons, Ms. Baker and others posting here have the power to "resolve the bigger issue."
|
| | Tuesday, March 14, 2000 - 01:34 am I received the Experian report and was surprised--they had actually cleaned up a mess and paid attention to what I had pointed out. Down to two mistakes and have addresses and a reminder to contact creditors directly to straighten it out. The problem? They list the outstanding balance as outstanding even though the verbiage on the right side of the page says discharged in bankruptcy. Still havent received the TRW.
|
| | Tuesday, March 14, 2000 - 04:36 am Senator: Originally, did you send the bankruptcy schedule of debts to Experian? On what date did you send it? Why do they continue to show those two balances?
|
| | Tuesday, March 14, 2000 - 04:54 am Yes, they had the copy of the schedule of debts and they had it over 30 days ago. Do they ever tell you why they still reflect the balance? I just attribute it to paying the poor people who work for them a minimum wage. Why care when you can work at McDonald's and make more? No one gives a @@#4 in America anymore--why? Because management and unions have consistently screwed them and they're finally waking up. Take for instance the crummy bonuses that were paid here recently. First they pay zip to most. Most count on bonuses. Bonuses have been almost nil for two quarters. Employees leave for more money. Management can't figure it out. Duh.
|
| | Tuesday, March 14, 2000 - 10:40 am Senator is right. Nobody cares and why should they? As far as David's postings go, I really don't understand WHY there isn't anyone providing comprehensive info on credit related court cases on the web. Or is there? A list of cases, each with a summery. So that consumers and attorneys could just pick what applies, copy, paste, send it off to the CRA, creditor, or collection agency with their dispute.
|
| | Wednesday, March 15, 2000 - 05:08 pm I apologize regarding TRW--it is Experian. who can keep track of all the players without a scorecard? CSC just returned my paperwork for the third time asking for more proof of identification--I sent them a copy of my social security card and a paystub with my current address and social security. They returned it this time because they need a photo of me--driver's license. We just moved recently. It is an old address and they want current. What an incredible run around. Is this a play by Sartre or Camus? What existentialism.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |