Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Saturday, July 08, 2000 - 08:50 am  An account which was not mine was listed on my credit report which I discovered about 2 years ago. I disputed the information as not belonging to me and it was removed. The CRAs all included "do not confuse" statements afterwards. However, this same account was reinserted within the last year but with a higher amount being owed. It had one 30-day late in the past but was current. I am again working to have it removed for the second time. Should I threaten to sue the CRAs as violating the FCRA by allowing this to be reinserted without my knowedge? Would this do me any good? Do you think I can get $4,000?
|
| | Tuesday, July 11, 2000 - 08:42 pm I don't know how much you can get, but I definitely you get a lawyer. Threatening to sue doesn't do much good, unless it's on a lawyer's letterhead. Of course you have to pay the lawyer for the letter. So get a lawyer to send them a demand letter for removal and your $4,000 + his fees, and you'll see. If they don't settle and pay, file the suit.
|
| | Tuesday, July 18, 2000 - 08:02 am The CRA is not reinserting deleted items - they don't just add/delete at will. A CREDITOR is obviously continuing to report you. You must solve the issue at the root of the problem, not the tree tops. If you dispute with the CRA, they'll remove it, but that won't stop some creditor from reporting it again. Contact the CREDITOR. Tell the CREDITOR to stop reporting. Sue the CREDITOR for continuing to report erroneous information.
|
| | Wednesday, July 19, 2000 - 03:13 pm Doesn't the CRA have an obligation to INVESTIGATE items that were previously deleted PRIOR to reinserting them? I thought I read this in the Fair Credit Reporting rules. I have two letters now from the Creditor (JC Penney) stating the item will no longer appear in my credit report (one from 1997 and one from my recent [re]dispute. I don't trust this item won't reappear. They're reporting on someone with my same name, different spelling, different middle initial, different address, account number, etc. One of the CRAs even changed my middle initial to match this other person on my mailing address. Strangely, my Federal Income Tax Return had the initial changed also (I wondered why) could this possibly have something to do with that also?
|
| | Thursday, July 20, 2000 - 01:07 am The CRAs do NOT have "common carrier" status like the phone company or ISPs. Once data is disputed and it is established that the data is INCORRECT, I believe the CRAs ARE violating the FCRA and are liable, possibly for defamation. That changed initial on the tax return is really weird.
|
| | Thursday, July 20, 2000 - 01:46 am By the way, I did contact the CREDITOR and the CRA in 1997 when I discovered the item. I had not requested a copy of my Credit report again until recently when I discovered it there again. I'm not sure it was EVER really deleted. Is there any way I can find out if the item remained all this time or if was actually reinserted at some point?
|
| | Thursday, July 20, 2000 - 11:20 am I think only the bureaus would know. Have you read Denise's credit nightmare?
|
| | Friday, July 21, 2000 - 06:56 am If you dispute an item and the CRA can not verify it or verifies that it is incorrect, they are required to remove it. According to the orignal posting, this is what happened. THEN ... some time later ... the creditor reported it AGAIN. Are you saying that you expect the CRA to maintain a history of what USED to be on a person's credit report and if that creditor happens to report AGAIN, that they should deny that to the creditor? Damn, they can barely maintain CURRENT information correctly, let alone maintain a history of deleted information. What if, like what just happened to me two weeks ago, the creditor reports the account but changes the last activity date and/or the account number? How is the CRA to know that you didn't strike a deal with them, make a payment plan (reage the account), re-open the account for whatever reason? They can't know that, nor should they expend the $$ and effort to verify new items.
|
| | Friday, July 21, 2000 - 10:22 am John, If CRAs can't keep records, they should just close up shop and go home. They are NOT a common carrier, and the FCRA is VERY clear on that: "§ 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i] .... (B) Requirements relating to reinsertion of previously deleted material. (i) Certification of accuracy of information. If any information is deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A), the information may not be reinserted in the file by the consumer reporting agency unless the person who furnishes the information certifies that the information is complete and accurate. (ii) Notice to consumer. If any information that has been deleted from a consumer's file pursuant to subparagraph (A) is reinserted in the file, the consumer reporting agency shall notify the consumer of the reinsertion in writing not later than 5 business days after the reinsertion or, if authorized by the consumer for that purpose, by any other means available to the agency. (iii) Additional information. As part of, or in addition to, the notice under clause (ii), a consumer reporting agency shall provide to a consumer in writing not later than 5 business days after the date of the reinsertion (I) a statement that the disputed information has been reinserted; (II) the business name and address of any furnisher of information contacted and the telephone number of such furnisher, if reasonably available, or of any furnisher of information that contacted the consumer reporting agency, in connection with the reinsertion of such information; and (III) a notice that the consumer has the right to add a statement to the consumer's file disputing the accuracy or completeness of the disputed information. (C) Procedures to prevent reappearance. A consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to prevent the reappearance in a consumer's file, and in consumer reports on the consumer, of information that is deleted pursuant to this paragraph (other than information that is reinserted in accordance with subparagraph (B)(i))." The best thing about the FCRA is that I can read and understand it. It really makes my day to read law and not feel like an idiot.
|
| | Friday, July 21, 2000 - 01:38 pm Thanks Christine, Whether or not the CRAs have the administrative savy to maintain credit files accurately is not the consumers problem, it's their business, they should handle it correctly, especially since we're being held to such high standards by their recordkeeping. The law seems crystal clear in that "a consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to prevent the reappearance in a consumer's file, and in consumer reports on the consumer"... My original posting questioned whether or not I could sue for $4,000. I was not informed at any time that this information was going to be or had been reinserted into my file and it seems to have sat there about a year before I discovered it again! This taught me a lesson -- check my credit reports regularly and KNOW THE LAW!!
|
| | Friday, July 21, 2000 - 02:05 pm I say sue, sue, and sue again. They can get away with poor recordkeeping and nothing happens to them. You are a VICTIM of poor credit reporting. You have suffered loss due to someone else's negligence. There are several lawyers here in Virginia who would love to pounce on your case. Don't just sue the CRA for violation of the FCRA, but sue the creditor as well for continuing to re-insert false information willingly. During the penalty phase, be real teary eyed and ask the jury for ALOT of punitive damages. I would be thinking retirement if I had a case like yours. Good luck. Mike
|
| | Friday, July 21, 2000 - 02:33 pm Sue the creditor as well? I thought they were immune. I sent letters to all three CRAs demanding they remove the information once and for all, offered to settle with them within 10 days of my letter or I'd obtain an attorney and report them to the FTC. Of course, I haven't heard from them -- except Experian did send me a revised report showing the item deleted. (I don't recall getting that revised report after my initial dispute). Not a peep regarding the settlement offer. I sent the letters prior to reading Christine's suggestion to get an attorney to send it on letterhead. Well I'm willing to go forward with my threat -- any referrals out there for a willing and able attorney? I live in Florida.
|
| | Saturday, July 22, 2000 - 02:42 am One thing to remember, in this country, noone is immune. If the creditior willingly violates the law, then they are responsible for paying not only actual damages but punititve damages for pain and suffering that you experienced as well. Being denied credit for that brand new auto that you want is painful on the inside. I mean, think about it, you took if for a test drive, fell in love with the car, and then you get to the table and shzaam!, credit denied. You need to be compensated for those bitter feelings that you had as a result of someone else's negligence. Hold them responsible and go after them to the fullest extent of the law!!! Mike
|
| | Saturday, July 22, 2000 - 12:47 pm Right on, Mike  Now if we only could figure out how! I know people don't just sue for FCRA violations, but for defamation, injury, etc. I believe it was Mitch who once posted that many of these suits are dismissed in FL. Right now I just really don't have time, but I promise to look into finding lawyers after Alaska.
|
| | Saturday, July 22, 2000 - 05:26 pm I do appreciate any and all help. I'm working on obtaining a mortgage and have been reviewing my credit reports and correcting any erroneous information. Now I've run into another problem! I had two JCPenney reports being reported -- one that was mine, one that was not (the one referred to in previous post). The account which was mine was sent to collection and I paid it off completely, in-full, immediately afterwards. It was not being reported as paid so I disputed it with all three CRAs and sent a copy of the cancelled check with the disputes. I received from Experian (no FREE credit report) a "status sheet" simply stating that the JC Penney account had been "Updated" -- "Status - paid". I telephoned Experian and questioned why they had not sent me a full credit report and was informed that there were certain states (Florida was one of them) where only in case of Fraud or if I had been denied, or if I paid them $8.00 could they send me the full report. No, I didn't pay the money. That was in June. Based on the update they mailed to me showing the JCPenny Updated-Status-PAID, I trusted this had been in fact updated on the information they were distributing to potential creditors. Well, today, a month later, I went to a broker who pulled my credit report and it had that JCPenney account listed as it was before my dispute -- Charged Off - Collection. No mention that this had been paid at all!! It seems creditors are getting different reports than the consumers!! I don't know if this is JCPenney or the CRAs but it really IS a pain when you're trying to get credit. Now I'm gathering information and writting letters re-disputing the same stuff AGAIN!
|
| | Tuesday, July 25, 2000 - 05:19 am I stand corrected, Christine. Thanks. Yes, I had a RNB-Hudson's show back up about a month ago. It charged-off in 1/93. About 6 months ago a collection agency contacted me on it. I told them 'no-ahh-ahh' (statute of limitations) and also told them that they better not report anything. They agreed to turn it back over to the original creditor. Wouldn't you know -- the original creditor, after getting my cease & desist/statute violation letter, RNB Hudson's reADDED a trade line to my report for this account (which had lived there for the past 7 years derogatorally) and changed it to "PAID AFTER COLLECTION" and changed the date to 6/2000 !! First and foremost, I never paid them a dime! Second, I wasn't gonna live with this nightmare another seven years. I disputed it and it was removed. Now that was Trans Union -- I have to order two more reports just to see if they tried to screw me there, too.
|
| | Tuesday, July 25, 2000 - 04:31 pm They realized they weren't collecting anything so they 'forgave' you the debt and marked up your credit file (although I personally think settled for < full balance is a better description). Good that Trans Union deleted it. Expect to be receiving a 1099-C to brighten your tax life.
|
| | Wednesday, July 26, 2000 - 04:08 pm Christine, speaking of Denise, has there been any update on her case?
|
| | Thursday, July 27, 2000 - 07:58 pm No, sorry, I haven't heard from Denise in quite a while.
|
| | Friday, July 28, 2000 - 01:30 am Is there a way to "prove" the CRA didn't properly investigate a disputed item? But instead erroneously left derogatory information because the creditor did not respond within the 30 day period? The CRAs are supposed to delete these items from the file after the 30 day period aren't they? How can I know a CRA did not properly investigate an item I disputed?
|
| | Friday, July 28, 2000 - 03:54 am You'll never know if they've really verified something. I called one creditor, and had spoken with them about the account had been included in my '92 BK. I sent them copies of the paperwork directly, and then they faxed all three CBs with directions to remove it. Later I spent the money to re-pull all three of my reports to make sure (I working on getting my mortage pre-approval, and needed to clear this up). Well sure enough TU still had it on their report. So I called TU. They said they never received the fax (yet the other two had). And they would have to send the creditor a dispute. I couldn't believe it when it came back 'verified'. So I called the creditor again. They told me they had never received a dispute from TU. And at my request, they faxed me a copy of the letter to removed that from my report. Which I in turn, proptly faxed to TU with a very hostile note. I wish I had the energy to call them on that in court, but I pre-occupied with getting the pre-approval done, and couldn't take much more of that he-said / she-said. Plain and simple never trust those #%@&!.
|
| | Friday, July 28, 2000 - 06:14 am Shylock - "Settled" requires an agreement on both parts. I never agreed to anything, never paid them a dime, period. The account was charged off in 1992, so there is no way it should carry a status of 'Settled' anything. It's over 8.5 years since it was charged-off, so it should have never been reported again. I had sent my cease and disist to the collection agency, citing the FCRA and the FDCPA. They responded immediately by dropping all activities and sending everything I had sent them back to Hudson's. I think somebody at Hudson's decided to try to jab me in the eye with a sharp stick, just because I knew the laws and knew that they couldn't collect anything from me. I obtained my Equifax and Experian reports (both online instantly, one directly from Equifax for $8.00 and the Experian from truecredit.com for only $6.95). The same "newly dated" account was on both of the other two (as expected). I disputed it at both places and am awaiting the results of their "investigations" (which, by personal experience, I know they don't do half the time - claimed that they contacted the creditor and received replies within 3 days - creditor said they NEVER contacted them). I won't be getting a 1099-C for $136.00.
|
| | Friday, July 28, 2000 - 01:50 pm Don, I certainly don't trust the CBs, I'll even go one step further -- I feel this is deliberate inaccurate reporting so every adult in the country can send them $8 at least once a year. If consumers felt confident the CRAs were reporting accurately we wouldn't be so eager to pull our reports at cost, now would we? Looks like a scam to me and you know what they say -- if it looks like a snake and acts like a snake, it probably is a snake! If you have good credit, you must pay the fee if you want to see what's being reportd on you -- because you haven't been denied. If you've been denied and get the free report as a result of that, you'll probably find out they're reporting something incorrectly and the clock starts ticking until you've gone back and forth for at least a couple months to clear up the inaccurate information. In the meantime, your anticipated purchase is put on hold or maybe you won't be able to purchase at all!! -- from then on, you realize you have to pull your credit report on a regular basis so you won't have delays when you're ready to make future purchases. It's a set-up! They make it necessary for consumers to constantly monitor what the CRAs are putting in their files. My parents, who have had A-1 credit all their lives had to clear up inaccurate information before they could purchase their new home with a low interest rate. They were confident they'd get the great rates because they knew their credit history should have been perfect because they paid ALL their bills on time. The CRAs had derogatory data on them nevertheless. I'm just realizing this as a HUGE problem, as I'm going through mortgage approval also. Items I disputed over a year ago and again one month ago are still not removed.  I'm really trying not to pay the $8. It's not a lot of money -- it's the principal of the thing, you know?
|
| | Saturday, July 29, 2000 - 02:50 am In my last dispute I requested the following from the CBs: This is in the FCRA. At least some type of documentation will be given to me by the CRA stating how they "investigated" a dispute. Maybe this will encourage them to either actually investigate or remove items they didn't verify within the 30 day period. We'll see.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |