Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Occupation

Profile Fields

  • Location
    West Virginia

wvufan788893's Achievements

CIC Member

CIC Member (4/6)



  1. Strictly "debt relief or settlement" companies will damage your credit by the very virtue of the service. That is too say, they will settle the account or reduce your interest. Both of these actions lead to derogatory tradeline notations. Many are also unsavory characters as well which do a little bit of nothing.
  2. Surprisingly, sending letters to the inquirors does seem to work a good deal of the time. This probably due to the relative ease it is to press the keystroke for delete rather than to reply to the consumer and explain the permissible purpose they had to access their file. Simple economics. Good stuff too.
  3. Exactly. I'm also not so sure that the generic form letters that the CRA's send in regard to such requests wouldn't bring them into compliance. Who knows . . . I doubt that issue will ever go before a court. Doesn't have much sex appeal if you ask me.
  4. There is caselaw from the 4th which disallows such a counterclaim in any CCPA action, i.e., TILA, FDCPA, etc. I believe the case is Wiggum or something to that effect.
  5. That was EQ putting the notation on while the tradeline was under re-investigation. There is no legal standard as to how long a dispute notation may appear on a tradeline when such a dispute was subject to a consumer challenge.
  6. I'll take it that my response doesn't suffice or is misplaced with respect to your questions?
  7. Ahh . . . gotta love accord and satisfaction. It works far more than popular opinion would have you believe. However, as Methuss previously mentioned, make sure to check your jurisdictions common law and U.C.C. approach to the above doctrine.
  8. You have violations and a fairly solid case. Below please find the violations: 1) You may have Hudson & Keyes on continued collection activity if you can present an argument that you never recieved notice from them in writing and that your first request for validation was the initial communication. If you can, then it is plausible that a court would find your request for validation was timely. That would mean that potentially their verification of the tradeline was continued collection activity under the FDCPA. 2) Their failure to mark the account tradeline as being disputed by consumer is a FDCPA violation. 3) Insofar as the FDCPA is a per action statutory remedy, I would file against H & K. 4) You probably have H & K on a FCRA violation under 1681s-2b insofar as they failed to mark the account as being in dispute. Authority has stated as such, however, it may not be binding in your jurisdiction. Nonetheless, it would be very persausive and thus, I'd add an FCRA count. 5) With respect to Houston Funding, I'm again going to assume your initial request for validation was timely; i.e., within the first 30 days. Presuming the above is correct, continued collection activity would apply. You would have actionable FDCPA claims here. 6) Dispute the HF tradeline through the CRA's. Institute a civil action, you're good to go.
  9. You state to the judge that the fact that the furnisher failed to mark the account as being in dispute is both inaccurate and incomplete reporting under 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2b. Thereafter, you present the authority which I provided as support for your argument.
  10. I agree regarding damages. Some form of lost opportunity due to the high utilization, in part, would need to be established for liability to attach. So go apply for a mortgage . . . just kidding. Seriously, send HSBC communication stating that you never authorized joint status on the account.
  11. That is exactly right. I beleive that if a consumer contested these "set-up" fees before a bench or jury, they would likely prevail. Unfortunately, that has not occurred to my knowledge and thus, they entire industry is tarnished by the aforesaid unscrupulous acts.
  12. Oh c'mon . . . again, not everyone has the time to pursue repairing their credit. All would have to admit that it is a time consuming, frustrating, and tedious process. Moreover, the learning curve is quite expansive. It takes some time to learn how to do it properly. I don't think we should criticize those who seek some outside help. Just my opinion.
  13. Move for a continuance and amend your complaint to name the CRA involved. I would doubt the veracity of his statement, frankly, insofar as it seems he would have moved to dismiss the complaint had he had such evidence in hand. This is another reason why it is always better to name all possibly culpable party and to always file in the trial level state court wherein discovery is provided.
  14. I would presume that one would have to authorize becoming a "joint" account holder. If you did not do so, there is no contract thus no liability. You may ask them to produce such an Agreement. Doubtful they would but in any event, without such a document they could not hold you legally responsible. That would include reporting a corresponding tradeline on your reports. Verification of a not mine dispute may attach s-2b liability here but I would say it would be an area of first impression. You may want to remind them of a little case styled Johnson v. MBNA . . . they may change their tune. Of course, reduce all communication to writing.
  15. "In an effort to overcome plaintiff's contentions, defendant avers that "incomplete information" is different from "false information." Such an argument, however, turns on a skewed interpretation of truthfulness. Though "technically accurate," a report lacking pertinent information such as disputed debt is "actionable because it is misleading or materially incomplete." “By omitting the fact that plaintiff disputed her credit bills . . . defendant's report could have misled potential creditors into thinking that plaintiff had failed to repay money that she herself had borrowed. As such, we reject MBNA's "technical accuracy defense" and find that defendant's credit reports may have been so incomplete and misleading as to constitute "false information" under the meaning of section 1681h(e)." DiPrinzio v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., 2005 WL 2039175 (E.D.Pa. 2005) See Agosta v. Inovision, Inc., Civ. A. No.02-806, 2003 WL 22999213, at *5 (E.D.Pa. Dec.16, 2003) (citing Koropoulos v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 734 F.2d 37(D.C.Cir.1984)).
  • Create New...