Downto0

Members
  • Content Count

    1,301
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Downto0

  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
  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
  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
  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
  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 coll
  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
  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 flagge
  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
  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
  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 tha
  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,
  15. Looks like it came from the same author. I believe that argument is moot because they are now claiming that I activated my own line...but to argue that point...the agreement clearly states that the account manager can obligate the account user but says nothing about the account manager being obligagted to the contract. One is left to assume without supporting documents. If an account manager, by virtue of managing an account, would authomatically be liable to any contract of any account they manage then all the account managers at the cell phone company would also be liable to our tcpa c
  16. Their claim has evolved. In the cell phone company's mtc arbitration, they said this below before there was any controversy about arbitration: Wife activated six lines of wireless telephone service with cell phone company through cell phone company’s website on the internet. On that same day, husband was added as an Account Manager on the account and likewise obtained service from cell phone company. At the time of activation, Plaintiffs were required to, and did, accept cell phone company’s terms and conditions for the provision of wireless telephone services. The cell phone company he
  17. Yea, and the appeals court doesn't even have to agree with that ruling I posted. We're in the 8th and the ruling is from the 7th. It's persuasive, not binding. Lots of things can go wrong. That's one of the reasons I'm here. All ideas are good ideas because it gives me a chance to debate myriad issues which can come up. So here is the meat of their claim for arbitration: Plaintiff's wife activated five lines of service with cell phone company. On the same day, Plaintiff's husband was added as an Account Manager and activated service from cell phone company. The parties’ agreement wi
  18. So much for the Benefits claim: Santander maintains that although Pereira was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, she is nevertheless equitably estopped from challenging it. A non-signatory is estopped from refusing to arbitrate "if [she] knowingly seeks the benefits of the contract containing the arbitration clause." Zurich, 417 F.3d at 688 (citations omitted). Santander contends that Pereira directly benefitted from the loan agreement because she drove the automobile acquired through the loan. This benefit is legally insufficient to compel arbitration. Estoppel bars a party who c
  19. It is an uphill battle but it shouldn't have become that. I've had a chance to go through my emails to my attorneys and I clearly told them I was not a party to my wife's contract. I had assumed they would proceed accordingly. They sent me the initial complaint to be filed against the cell phone company. Everything read okay but this is before arbitration popped up. I did not get those motions nor did I expect that I should. Our agreement states that they would not be informing me of the proceedings and would only contact me to sign a settlement or other things for which they needed m
  20. Yea, I agree with the insurance angle on the borrowed car but my example was different. To illustrate how it would compare to my case, I brought in the debt collection angle where the owner of the car did not pay for the car and the creditor started calling numbers and the creditor somehow found out you borrowed the car and started leaving messages on your cell phone. Clearly the creditor did not have pec. You sue. Creditor compels arbitration because you benefited from borrowing the car. You did benefit from driving the car but not because the creditor passed that benefit on to you via
  21. Yea, I don't like my constitutional given right to the courts taken away from me, first by my own attorneys because they conceded to arbitration because they were looking at the 5 figure prize. To add insult to injury, they lied to me about the term I did not agree with so that I would sign. I guess they were used to the typical consumer in trouble who was glad to even have an attorney defending them and they usually will sign anything...the same as we typically do agree to terms with creditors without considering the consequences because we want that newfangled phone. Then secondly by the
  22. That's how it usually starts. However, if the consumer clearly tells the creditor that they can't call their cell phone and the creditor calls anyway then the amount in controversy is immaterial. What is matterial is whether there was prior express consent and, with a cell phone compay, whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate.
  23. Actually, they've taken about 4 more cases from me since this happened. We have a working relationship. The cell phone company did not claim that account managaers are obligated to the contract. The cell phone company did not claim that using a phone from anyone else's service obligated that user to the contract. Maybe these are good claims and they should have made them. They did not. They are forever barred. The reason those topics came up was because they were in the history of events of the case. We debated and it is clear that I don't need to worry about those claims anymore. No