cjtx2

Members
  • Content count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About cjtx2

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    TX
  1. cjtx2

    After a NON-SUIT with Midland (what now?)

    Do you happen to know if there is a way to know who is marking the account in dispute, the CRA or the furnisher? There are some codes to report that it is no longer in dispute, which obviously the furnisher must use. But I have always wondered, because if the CRA marks the account in dispute and there is no way to tell the furnisher agreed, there is no easy way to know that the account was not really verified at all. The case you referred to is right on point. Which supports the view that a collector does not have to report the dispute (take any action) when you contact them directly even if they already reported a collection. As long as they leave the old reporting alone, there is no problem. Which is relatively common because a collection usually tanks your score and there is no need to update. But when you dispute with the CRA, the collector needs to respond to the CRA and verify it, so they have to take action and, and according to the plain language of the statute, report it as disputed. Also, if for whatever reason they decide to update it, any new report must disclose the dispute.
  2. cjtx2

    After a NON-SUIT with Midland (what now?)

    They give you some idea of the different factors that make up your score: Payment History 35% of FICO score. Shows how many accounts show 30+ days late Amount of Debt 30% of FICO score. Shows the percentage of available credit you are utilizing. Length of Credit History 15% of FICO score. Shows the average age of accounts Amount of New Credit 10% of FICO score. Shows the age of your most recently opened account. Credit Mix 10% of FICO score. Types of credit you are using and whether you miss something. For each of them you get a score of poor, fair, very good or exceptional. So again by process of elimination: for example, no new credit, same credit mix, same 30+ late, etc. If you score exceptional in a certain area, you could probably assume you have most or all of the percentage for that category. Then if the average age is the same across CRAs and the score did not change in all reports... But true, in the end it is just guesswork. For example: two different factors may counter each other.
  3. cjtx2

    After a NON-SUIT with Midland (what now?)

    Usually I have several things change every month, so it would be difficult to single out one change. At least with a static report. There was no report before to compare, but it was the only account in dispute at the time and the only balance excluded from the total owed, as calculated by myfico. A few days later, another charge off was sold, so the account balance came down to $0 for the charge off and it was still not reported in collections. The total amount owed myfico re-calculated was decreased exactly by the amount reduced from the balance on the reports where it appeared, and FICO score increased a few points (very few). While not conclusive, I think it is a very good indicator. Every time there is a change, the monitor re-calculates the score, so it has given me a better perspective on the impact of changes. I will have more definite proof when the next dispute appears. There is also a FICO simulator of how your score improves as you pay off the amount you owe. While it shows the effect of making monthly payments to other debts, disputed debts balances are left alone.
  4. cjtx2

    After a NON-SUIT with Midland (what now?)

    You are right. Unless Midland updated incomplete info after it was clear there was a dispute pending, just leaving an old trade line on your report does not count as "still reporting negative info". They are not actively still reporting, it is just an old report, which you need to challenge if you think it is inaccurate. So in either case, a dispute with the CRAs must make it clear that the account is in dispute and failing to mark the account as such would be actionable.
  5. cjtx2

    After a NON-SUIT with Midland (what now?)

    OP responded to a lawsuit and did not admit to the debt as stated, that is why OP invoked arbitration. Otherwise, if there was no dispute, Midland would have received a judgment and not a dismissal. Therefore, the account is in dispute and an arbitrator needs to make a decision to resolve the dispute. You are right about having to dispute with the CRAs before suing for FCRA. But, since Midland has been updating the account without reporting that it is in dispute, FDCPA applies, and it counts how persistent Midland was in updating false and incomplete information. Disputing with the CRAs would make his FDCPA case even stronger.
  6. cjtx2

    After a NON-SUIT with Midland (what now?)

    I had read about it before, but had no evidence it was in fact true. I used the myfico monitoring service. In addition to a combined 3 report and FICO scores for different purposes (credit cards, car loans, mortgages, etc.) they provide other information they used to calculate your score, such as total amount owed for each CRA. This is important in computing your debt to credit ratio to see how much you have overextended yourself and how much of a risk you are. The total amount due, which was not consistent across CRAs, included all other balances listed on the respective report, except for the one related to an account marked in dispute. I do not know for sure if collection accounts are handled the same way, but I suspect they are. The account was a charge off and was consistently marked in dispute by all CRAs.
  7. cjtx2

    After a NON-SUIT with Midland (what now?)

    Are they reporting that the account is in dispute? It is obviously in dispute since you compelled arbitration and they failed to proceed and their case was dismissed. It makes little sense to update a disputed account, since it is not included in calculating FICO scores. Failure for a debt collector to report the dispute is grounds for both a FDCPA and FCRA lawsuit.
  8. cjtx2

    Firing back with an adhesion contract

    The statute only requires that express consent must be given directly, as you said. I believe there is more flexibility in the way it is revoked and it comes down to whether the person making the call should have known that you had revoked consent. Just because you talk to someone else, there is no excuse to claim consent was still valid for another agent. You probably need to record the call to prove it. Same thing if you notify the company by any other means like mail, fax, email, etc. you have to prove that they received it. A customer statement, even though useless for scoring purposes must be disclosed with the report. If the inquiries show that someone received a copy of your report, the fact that an unedited consumer statement was also attached are business records that must prove withdrawn consent was received.
  9. cjtx2

    Firing back with an adhesion contract

    Assuming you cannot make preempting notices to revoke consent, you can still add a statement to your credit report, which will be delivered to anybody who pulls your report, where you explain, redundantly, if you want, that just because your number is listed, there is no consent. A CRA would rather delete than include your statement, even though it is perfectly legal and within your rights to clarify anything in your report that may be misconstrued. I seriously doubt a person will lose in court against a CRA. When listing numbers, the CRA benefits from the actions of its clients, in this case illegal actions, which brings more business to the CRA. Just because the CRA may raise plausible deniablity as a defense, it does not mean they did not know what was the number going to be used for or that the defense would be sustained.
  10. cjtx2

    Firing back with an adhesion contract

    There is nothing in TCPA limiting who you can revoke consent to. CRAs are just like any other business and they are not immune to TCPA. It makes sense to revoke consent as a pre-emptive strike before you get a call. And it is perfectly legal. Not only you do not have to wait for them to produce some fake consent, but you actually have proof that any implicit/explicit previous consent was in fact revoked. Otherwise, at least the first call gets a free pass. Have you ever heard something like "We will remove your number from our list, but it may take a few days to post, so you may receive other calls". Unless you make a serious threat of a lawsuit, you may end up receiving many more calls and the number is never added to their do not call list. Of course CRAs are not in the business of calling people, so revoking consent to a CRA is not really aimed at them, but their clients. CRAs profit from selling personal information to unscrupulous JDBs and CAs. It is not unreasonable to expect that they will use those numbers to call people who never gave consent. And I assume the more personal info CRAs can provide, including more addresses and phone numbers, the more valuable the report is. We are not talking about being liable just for listing the numbers. The issue here is for listing the numbers, after consent was revoked, knowing or reasonably expecting that they will be used without consent. They are not legally required to list phone numbers and there is no penalty for excluding them. It is a matter of profit for the CRAs, nothing else. I have not found any caselaw yet, but I suspect they either settle or delete the numbers to avoid a judgment.
  11. cjtx2

    Firing back with an adhesion contract

    You can revoke consent to anybody before or after they call you or even if they have no intention of ever calling you. There is no requirement that they obtained the number from you before. Once you make contact with someone, you can revoke consent for a given number, that's it. But you need an exhaustive list of all the people who may act on behalf of a CRA, including/especially their clients. A CA or JDB may have found your number from some obscure skip tracer. The CRA probably got it from a furnisher, an inquiry or a public record. It does not matter where they got it from, You can contact them and revoke consent. The expectation that someone may call the number that was disclosed as part of someone's contact info in a credit report is a reasonable consequence of such disclosure and it falls under the theory of vicarious liability. Even if you disagree with everything else, once the CRA does not have consent to call, it is not unreasonable to request that if it chooses to disclose the number, it must disclose as well a statement where you explain in no uncertain terms that you are revoking consent to the CRA's clients. That is your right under FCRA to include a statement to clarify anything that may be misunderstood. Such a statement makes the number useless or at least much less valuable for the CRA to include.
  12. cjtx2

    Firing back with an adhesion contract

    This is OT, but I am just wondering why Experian gets away with disclosing an estimate of the date an item will be removed. That seems like a conclusion of law, and CRAs are supposed to disclose exactly what was reported to them; i.e; DOFD. Experian was famous for changing the estimated day of removal to the last date the account was updated. Looks like they keep doing it. Some things don't change.
  13. cjtx2

    Firing back with an adhesion contract

    By listing a phone number, the CRAs are telling anyone who gets the credit report that they can use the information to contact you, even any phone numbers are fair game. JDBs and CAs pay for the information so there is a sense of entitlement. I know you can fight it, and they are supposed to produce written proof of consent if it gets to court, but why get into that if you did not authorize the CRA to disclose a private number in the first place? So no JDBs or CAs should be calling that number just because they were able to obtain it from the CRA While TCPA does not prohibit disclosing a number per se, it gives you the right to revoke consent to call. So you can revoke consent to the CRAs, their agents, affiliates, associates, contractors, directors, business partners, and even their clients. Who is liable in case the clients act despite no consent? That is why the contract specifies that the CRA is ultimately responsible for violations. Why disclose a number they know is highly likely to be misused when they don't absolutely have to?
  14. cjtx2

    Firing back with an adhesion contract

    I need to learn about arbitration. I dislike it based on old information because I think arbitrators are not accountable for their decisions as compared to judges where almost everything is public record and many OCs, JDBs and CAs bring a lot of business to those who rule in their favor, so the odds are stacked up against consumers from the start. You seem to have a lot of experience in this area, so I guess I need to take a fresh look at the whole arbitration process.
  15. cjtx2

    Firing back with an adhesion contract

    True, it was not necessarily the contract. It was clear that previous express consent was being revoked. The tricky part is that CRAs have immunity to report information about people and they do not need permission to do so. So the CRA felt it could list a private phone number without any consequences. They would be disclosing the number and implicitly telling clients that it was ok to call, giving them express consent. By revoking previous express consent, it would be a violation of TCPA each time the CRA told the number (giving implicit consent) and its clients called the number. The CRA cannot grant a consent it does not have and it was a reasonable expectation that the clients who paid for the credit report would use the information to call. If the CRA really wanted to disclose the number, it had to inform clients that previous express consent had been revoked. It would render the number useless and subject those clients to a violation of TCPA each time they called. Every time they pulled a credit report they were informed it was not ok to call. So deleting the number was the best option. And also, it is not clear if the contract had anything to do with it.