willy2004

Members
  • Content Count

    142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by willy2004

  1. yes, and the CRA does not have to comply with 611(a)(2) if the CRA complies with 611(a)(8) in its entirety.

    In other words, the CRA does not have to notify furnisher if the CRA deletes, notifies consumer of deletion by phone, etc..

  2. Lead, the criminal statute that applies (or at least one of them) is:

    18 USC 1028(a)(7)

    I am aware of one case in the 6th Cir where a defendant was sued civilly for violating 604(f)(1) and had previously been sentenced pursuant to 18 USC 1028(a)(7).

    He was a car salesman and was obtaining consumer reports on other consumers in order to approve a prospective car buyer for a loan.

  3. From above, compare the following FTC links:

    (This is false.)

    At your request, a CRA must give you the information in your file, and a list of everyone who has requested it recently.

    http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/2summary.htm

    VERSUS

    (This is an accurate statement.)

    You have the right to know the name of anyone who received your credit report in the last year for most purposes or in the last two years for employment purposes.

    http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/crdright.htm

    Actually, the second statement should read "consumer report" (and not "credit report").

    I frequently send letters to the FTC.

  4. muneca, different CRAs delete inquiries for different reasons. I don't want to give you a false answer.

    A CRA is only required to disclose inquiries to the consumer according to the text of the FCRA.

    Depending on the caption above the list of inquiries, an argument could be made for a 611 dispute. For example, I believe that TU and EX (and maybe EQ) assert that each inquiry is "permissible." If an inquiry is impermissible, then 607(B) might apply to a hard inquiry.

    Experian is the real DOG of the bunch: "By Federal law, your personal credit report must list all taht have requested your credit history."

    A recent letter from Experian concedes the following:

    "(Subscriber XYZ) did not receive a copy of your personal credit report. Therefore, the inquries are not required to display on your personal credit report for any specified period of time."

    In fact, the identity of a person that requests a consumer report, but does not "procure" a "consumer report" does not have to be disclosed in my "file" pursuant to Section 609(a)(3).

    If you fill in the gaps w/regard to "Subscriber XYZ" (that lacked a PP), then I trust you will recognize why Experian's misrepresentation is purposeful. Roughly every single word that this CRA says is a purposeful misrepresentation.

  5. I think that the only basis for disputing an inquiry is that the person did not actually procure a copy of your consumer report. My experience is that TU will delete a fraudulent inquiry all on its own...with the right incentive. http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14621&highlight=fin+coll+agency

    It can happen so fast you won't even know it...and TU will allege that every question you have about the fraudulent inquiry is a 'dispute regarding an item that does not appear on your file.' For example, they might deny your request for the identity of the person...it has happened.

    GL w/it.

  6. Section 605©

    © Running of reporting period.

    (1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)(2) of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.

    http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm

    Read the statute, read the statute, read the statute.

  7. ....and I know that is not what you were asking, lol.

    Nodding to Don's post and adding the following:

    Read about "firm offers" under Section 604© http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#604

    You can "opt out" and if you do, persons are not pemitted to obtain your _____ (is the word "consumer report"?) in order to make a firm offer.

    Therefore, if you are opted out, each person named on your CR, whether soft inquiry or hard inquiry, should have a permissible purpose.

    To opt out, 888-5-OPT OUT

    Do some searching on the site for tips about assuring that you are opted out.

  8. From above, compare the following FTC links:

    (This is false.)

    At your request, a CRA must give you the information in your file, and a list of everyone who has requested it recently.

    http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/2summary.htm

    VERSUS

    (This is an accurate statement.)

    You have the right to know the name of anyone who received your credit report in the last year for most purposes or in the last two years for employment purposes.

    http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/crdright.htm

  9. Hi,

    I just received my credit report with a lot of inquiries...

    I have some that say "permissible purpose" another ones that says: "are not seen by anyone but you"=maybe true, I don't know= :roll:

    I am ready to prepare my "removal of inquiries" letters, but I don't know which group I have to use?

    Would you mind to help me out with this one? :? Now, if you by any chance are going to ask me, which one I authorize? the answer is none.

    Thanks,

    My guess is that you are looking at a TU report.

    Notice that Experian inquiries describe "requests" and not necessarily "procurements."

    Experian circulates a form letter that says "By federal law, your personal credit report must list all who have requested your information."

    This is false.

    The FTC prescribed Summary of Rights describes "a list of everyone that has requested it" under the subject heading "You can find out what is in your file."

    Draw your own conclusions.

    .

    Section 609(a)(3)

  10. I just got my Experian Credit Report and there are a ton of addresses which are wrong, some that were mine a million years ago, 1 name that isn't mine and a few versions of both my current and maidne names.

    So I know I dispute the ones which aren't me/mine but what about the old addresses. Should I have everything which isn't current taken off or just the ones more than 5 yrs old? How do I phrase it I mean if they were mine at some point is it really ok to say it isn't mine?

    As for my names should I leave all the versions of both my maiden and current names on there and just get the wrong name taken off or should I clean it down to just my current or 1 current & 1 maiden?

    Will they throw up flags for me wanting to clean up my names & addresses all in one felt swoop even though theres quite a few wrong?

    THANKS!!!!!!!!!

    Melissa

    My philosophy follows, but it has not and will not cause Experian to change their policy until they are successfully sued:

    Send a letter requesting FIRST for the "source" of each false item of information pursuant to 1681g(a)(2), including the name, address and phone number of the source.

    SECOND, after the source is disclosed, dispute the items of information pursuant to 1681i(a)(1) according to whatever grounds is applicable (address is nonexistent, an address I never lived at, a SSN that is not mine) and demand DELETION.

    Inevitably, names and SSN will be "deleted," whereas addresses (that are in fact deleted) will be guised by Experian as "updated."

  11. retmar, thanks for the good word. I will keep holding the meetings. So far, it is just me. :)

    Don't forget about 1681g(a)(2).

    We have a statutory right to learn the "source" of each item of information on our reports, including names of other consumers, addresses that do not exist, addresses that belong to other consumers, "mixes" of these addresses, and even the SSN that identifies another consumer.

  12. Local Advocates, Twin Cities Chapter

    The name is unofficial.

    The primary goal is to fight the CRAs with a sharp weapon.

    The 2nd meeting is scheduled for:

    Wednesday, August 11, 2004 at 8:00 PM

    Dunn Bros. Coffee

    530 University Ave. SE (University Ave. and 6th)

    Minneapolis, MN. 55414

    (612) 331-5195

    Minnesotans, please post below if another day/time/place works better for you.

    I will place a large green notebook on my table.

    I describe generally and then specifically why I am convinced that establishing local groups of consumer advocates is essential to putting a dent in the CRAs.

    My hope is that consumers will pool their stories/documents such that we can get some class actions filed against the CRAs. The CRAs affirmatively and adamantly misrepresent the FCRA in order to induce consumers to accept their unfair policies. A policy is less likely to be proved based on one guy’s experience, If 100 or 1000 consumers have experienced the same, nowparticularly this guy. it looks more like a policy. Moreover, a policy that 100 consumers have been subjected to that does violate the FCRA is a policy that the CRA “knowingly” adopted. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and other federal courts have allowed punitive damages to be awarded on this basis.

    The CRAs have to be punished with punitive damages, simply stated. If we can come together and pool our evidence of the policies described below, I think (and hope) that a law firm will take our case, win the case, punish the CRA, etc.. A victory of this type will either cause the CRA to change the policy or make it easier for the next consumer plaintiff to get another victory.

    Three months ago, I wrote a letter to Experian’s Special Services Manager in which I requested provision of the §611(a)(3)©(ii) notice that is absent from Experian’s “Previously Investigated” form letter. The last thing that she wants to learn is that another consumer has a copy of my letter to her dated well prior to the date of another consumer’s “Previously Investigated” letter. Multiply that effect by 100 or 1000.

    Roughly six months ago, I informed Trans Union that NCO is the real identity of a fictitious person that has obtained my consumer report and those of many others. I have a stack of letters to all of their offices informing them of this. They have admitted it to me though they continue to deceive other consumers. The last thing that Trans Union wants to learn is that another consumer is holding copies of my letters and TU’s letters.

    I had a laundry list of false names and nonexistent/false addresses on my Experian report. Experian “updated” them though they were actually deleted and reinserted. Experian’s Special Services Manager told me: ‘When it comes to variations, Experian interprets variations as trade information.’ She expressly voiced Experian’s interpretation as a legal conclusion that expresses the legal opinion of Experian’s legal counsel.

    She was apparently attempting to mislead me into the false belief that my “dispute” regarding this blatantly false identifying information falls outside the category of that which can be “disputed” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a). (“…any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency…”)

    Emphasis is placed on “any” in addition to countless other reasons to conclude that “trade information” is “any information” that can be disputed, deleted, and NOT reinserted in the absence of complying with the reinsertion provisions of 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(5)(B) and ©. Additional FCRA provisions are also violated by this policy.

    Since the time that Mrs. Stafford has taken the above position, the Comeaux case was decided. You can read about Mrs. Stafford’s other misrepresentations that shed some light on Experian’s commitment to preventing fraud and mixed files. http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=116075#116075

    The first post in the link above describes what I learned last night regarding Experian’s “bravery” in asserting that “trade information” cannot be “disputed.” I have to “call or write” to Experian in order to do this, how suspicious is that? Meanwhile, furnishers can spill false identifying information into my file at will, including “Social Security number variations,” alluded to by the Comeaux court as something other than “variations.” Nonexistent addresses and names of other consumers are neither “variations” that cannot be disputed. How many consumers have had false identifying reinserted into their file? A close friend of mine obtained a mixed file. Previous, unmixed copies of her Experian report show SSN variations, false names, false addresses that are not atypical of an Experian consumer report. Do I have to wait until I get a mixed file and have “actual damages” to stop this crap? I hope not, gang.

    So these are only some of the reasons that I am calling this local meeting. I don’t want to see people’s private credit information and nor do I expect anyone to show up or even have a word to say if they do decide to show up. If one or many local networks are established and we eventually have a national network, we will collectively be a dangerous weapon to the CRAs. Infiltration is a topic that will be addressed if and when the time comes, the sooner the better.

    It should be obvious that the forums are a unique weapon unto themselves. I hope that we can create more weapons to fight the absurd unfairness that we all know too well. Thanks.

  13. I sent a brief description of Experian's policy to the attorney that handled the case above. (I only provided excerpts from the case.):

    Mr. David Szwak, Esq.

    Bodenheimer, Jones, Szwak & Winchell, LLP

    401 Market St. Suite 240

    Shreveport, LA. 71101

    My belief is that Experian will not change its policy based on consumer complaints. It will take some litigation to change this policy.

    The reinsertion w/out notice is a serious violation, in my opinion.

    FIRST, I suggest requesting the "source" of each false item FIRST.

    SECOND, I suggest committing "disputes" to writing regarding false names, addresses and SSN.

    (this will get you an updated copy of your report that shows deleted addresses referred to as an "update")

    THIRD, requesting a description of the procedures used to investigate the items, a list of the items that were investigated, the business name, address and tel # of any furnisher contacted in connection with Experian's investigation of each item of information.

    Lastly, keep an eye out for reinsertion of previously disputed/deleted addresses. It is the addresses that Experian regards as "updated" in order to escape its obligation to notify the consumer of reinsertion.