Downto0

Members
  • Content Count

    1,301
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Downto0 last won the day on January 10 2010

Downto0 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

48 Excellent

About Downto0

  • Rank
    500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Iowa

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Right. My point is that I knew there had to be guidelines as to how data should be accepted and listed. So, who is over the fcra? Still the FTC or did the cfpb take over?
  2. Here's a section from facta where the banking industry was to establish guidelines FCRA 623 ``(e) Accuracy Guidelines and Regulations Required.-- ``(1) Guidelines.--The Federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Commission shall, with respect to the entities that are subject to their respective enforcement authority under section 621, and in coordination as described in paragraph (2)-- ``(A) establish and maintain guidelines for use by each person that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information relating to consumers that such entities furnish toconsumer reporting agencies, and update such guidelines as often as necessary; and ``(B) prescribe regulations requiring each person that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency to establish reasonable policies and procedures for implementing the guidelines established pursuant to subparagraph (A). ``(2) Coordination.--Each agency required to prescribe regulations under paragraph (1) shall consult and coordinate with each other such agency so that, to the extent possible, the regulations prescribed by each such entity are consistent and comparable with the regulations prescribed by each other such agency. ``(3) Criteria.--In developing the guidelines required by paragraph (1)(A), the agencies described in paragraph (1) shall-- ``(A) identify patterns, practices, and specific forms of activity that can compromise the accuracy and integrity of information furnished to consumer reporting agencies; ``(B) review the methods (including technological means) used to furnish information relating to consumers to consumer reporting agencies; ``(C) determine whether persons that furnish information to consumer reporting agencies maintain and enforce policies to assure the accuracy and integrity of information furnished to consumer reporting agencies; and ``(D) examine the policies and processes that persons that furnish information to consumer reporting agencies employ to conduct reinvestigations and correct inaccurate information relating to consumers that has been furnished to consumer reporting agencies.''. So, these would be the guidelines that data furnishers must follow to submit data to the CRAs. I'm not clear as to who is to police the guidelines to make sure that the data furnishers are following them. Clearly, however, it could not be the data furnisher. I would think that the CRAs would certainly play a part. Any thoughts?
  3. Your letter is fine. You identified the account and the problem. The CRAs have to contact the data furnisher and the data furnisher has to respond and, I believe, the account (or bad data) will be removed. Make sure you sent it to all three. Also, there are typically local CRAs that some creditor draw a cr from. You might want to seek some of them out as well. However, I've been that route. It does not work. I don't think it will work in your case either because the information you have given us reads as if the OCs sold your delinquent accounts and JDBs have bought them and are now listing them as their own. Perfectly legal. I don't often use that term but in your case the trade lines appear to be legit. You should sue if you have the documentation that you disputed. It's not hard. Contact a NACA or consumer attorney and they will likely take your case. Some will take your case on contingency. Otherwise it looks like to me that those delinquent accounts won't drop off your cr until the 7.5 years have passed.
  4. Before I do anything I need to find out their authority to list personal private information. I think you agree that the CRAs cannot publish any piece of information just because the data furnisher gives it to them. For the moment, exclude cell phone numbers and think about other private personal information. What about religion? What if the CRAs listed the religion of all the account holders? That could help identify account holders. What about ethnicity? What about your driver's license picture on all your accounts? You get the drift. At some point the data furnishers will send personal private data which should not be published. It's hard for me to believe that it would be left up to the account holders to police their own records when it is the CRAs who have the ability to flag inappropriate data so that it won't be on a credit report in the first place. One could argue that the consumers have a free credit report per year but what about the other 11 months? One would have to download a cr everymonth. That's an unfair burden for the consumer when the CRA could easily put a system in place to safeguard personal private data. I'm probably going to have to give the fcra another good read to see exactly what the CRAs are required to do when they receive data. Maybe they can mindlessly publish what ever the data furnishers send them. I know that most courts will find the data furnisher guilty but sometimes the CRAs are found to violated the fcra as well.
  5. I'm not familiar with that part of the fcra which gives permission to list any information on an account holder. Or, do you have another source? I would not be considering a TCPA violation for the CRA because they did not call my wife. It would be more of a privacy issue. Listing a cell phone number does not give pec but it would look like the number does have pec. Why would anyone publish a number and everyone else should know that you can't call that number? It is irresponsible to throw a cell phone number out into cyberspace. The CRAs know that but they do it anyway probably because it makes their reports more attractive. I can hear the JDBs talking, "Get a report from TU or EX because they list cell phone numbers".
  6. You must have cited the wrong case because it does not support your position: Sullivan V Equifax: Because reporting a debt to a credit reporting agency can be seen as a communication in connection with the collection of a debt, the reporting of such a debt in violation of the provisions of § 1692e(8) can subject a debt collector to liability under the FDCPA. The complaint alleges that InoVision has "continued to report such inaccurate information to various credit reporting agencies . . . has failed to mark the debt as disputed and has continued to attempt to collect monies from the plaintiff regarding the inaccurate information by the aforementioned conduct." Complaint, 7 16. These allegations are sufficient, at this stage of the proceedings, to state a claim under the broad language of § 1692e of the FDCPA. See, e.q., Finnesan v. Univ. of Rochester M e d . Ctr., 21 F. Supp.2d 223, 229 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) ("allegation that defendants . . . caused derogatory information to be placed [on plaintiff's] credit report states a claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under 15 U . S . C . There are tons more. I have consumer attoneys working for me on 4 dispute cases. We've settled for around $10,000 on other cases and expect to settle for that much more this year. The op can pm me for more info because I simply do not have time to try to read cited cases which are not to the point.
  7. First off, if these collectors are listing their accounts and not specifically stating that they are disputed then you can sue them under the FDCPA. Secondly, credit reporting is a collection activity if the debt is delinquent. There is a FTC opinion letter on the issue and a ton of courts have followed the FTC's lead. Thirdly, your creditors likely sold your delinquent accounts to a debt clearinghouse and JDB's are now listing those accounts as theirs. If you look at every entry there should be some indication of who they once belonged to. They want you to know so that you will realized that you do owe the debt. Personally, I would not bother with disputing the CRAs if you have documentation that you already disputed the accounts because the CRAs will likely just verify the accounts. I would go straight for their jugler and sue the data furnisher who did not list the account as disputed. You can contact any NACA or consumer attorney and they will likely take your case if you have the documentation.
  8. Yea, I have a friend who is having the same problem with removing cell phone numbers. In fact, he's starting to get robo calls from someone he has never done business with before. I'm not sure if they are collection calls or telemarketing calls but either is illegal since they would not have prior express consent because they likely got the number from TU. Clearly, the CRAs cannot publish all personal information without considering the consequences. They have to have some sort of vetting process to sort out information which should not be published. Cell phone numbers should be flagged and removed from a credit report because publishing them makes it appear as if they are public domain and anyone can robo call when quite the opposite is true. The account holders should not have to inform the CRAs that they don't want their cell phone numbers published.
  9. I've noticed that TU and EX are listing my wife's and my phone numbers on our credit reports. Most of the numbers we don't have anymore but they list one active cell phone number for my wife. Any debt collector or JDB or other creditors who download a cr from her now has access to her cell phone number. My thoughts are that, by TU and EX listing her cell phone number on her credit report, credit report users would assume that the number is okay to call otherwise what would be the purpose of listing it? Well, they would not have prior express consent. Granted, she could sue anyone who used the number they got from TU or EX but aren't the CRAs liable since they published her cell phone number in the first place?
  10. Southwest Credit systems is a JDB. They probably bought the debt from AT&T, or a clearinghouse AT&T sold the debt to, and then listed their own trade line for the delinquent AT&T account so the account numbers would be different. When you say that you called "them" I assume you meant you called SouthWest Credit and that SouthWest Credit told you that the debt was from AT&T. You then called AT&T and they told you that your account was a different number and that it actually had a zero balance. You are still waiting for Eric to call back. My guess is that if Eric did anything at all, he did check with his supervisor and his supervisor told him that the debt was sold and to not worry about it. I don't think he will call. Why would he? Presumably, AT&T does not own the account anymore and the boss would not want Eric to waste his time on non monetary issues. I would write SouthWest Credit a cmrrr letter disputing their trade line. They have to respond to that dispute. They will probably send you a welcome letter and dun you for the debt. Then you would dispute the debt and demand verification. They may or may not respond...depending upon if they think they have verification, or not. If you are not satisfied with their response then you dispute directly to the CRAs. You could try these disputes online or by phone but your documentation would be limited. It's easier but less effecient. I disputed a trade line with SouthWest Credit and their return answer was that they could not verify the account and were deleting it. Maybe the same will happen with you.
  11. That's what happened in our case. The judge would not enforce their settlement so they went back to a ruling on their mtc arbitration. It's an uphill battle for sure. I've been reading what cases I can find and most of them compel arbitration even if the creditor uses the court system a little bit. This is especially true if the creditor has already, as in our case, filed their mtc in lieu of an Answer. I agree. I'm still researching cases and if I find anything worthwhile I'll post it.
  12. I filed a lawsuit against a cell phone provider. They compelled arbitration. We were in the middle of settlement negotiations and both parties asked for an extention of time and the court granted that extention. Negotiations fell apart. Cell phone company file a motion to enforce their version of the agreement. I filed a motion to enforce original settlement amount. Court denied both motions. Cell phone provider then file a motion to rule on its mtc. My question is, did not the cell phone company use the same court system which they want to deprive from me? It's my understanding that one who wishes to compel arbitration must do exactly that, compel arbitration, and cannot file other non-arbitration motions else they themselves have chosen to use the court system. That's why compellers of arbitration file a mtc instead of an Answer or a mtd because some courts will see that as acceptance of the court system and may deny a mtc. My case is a little different in that they did file a mtc but later used the court system to enforce a settlement - something which had nothing to do with arbitration. Then they went back to compelling arbitration. Can they have it both ways?
  13. I agree. Benefits in my case but the issue is the same.
  14. If noone compels arbitration then you are correct. If someone compels arbitration, and there is a valid contract, then one must proceed according to contract. Suing all the account managers at the cell phone company would be wild but so is implying that an account manager is liable to the contract of any account they manage. So what about the cell phone company making notiable changes to their claim once they are in appeals? First they don't say that I activate my own account but that I somehow received service because I am account manager or that I benefit from my wife's service. Then, in their response to our appeal, they say that I activated my own service. Thoughts on this?