Sign in to follow this  
Sky Warner

Settled Lawsuit

Recommended Posts

Well i settled my lawsuit. I cant discuss the terms ((You know how that goes) But I did get a nice chunk of change.

I advise anyone who can shell out the few bucks it takes to file a small claims to do so.

They called an hour ago to tell me they are Fed Exing overnight my check

Sometimes the little guy does win, :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A company who pulled my credit without permissable purpose

Im glad i did it.. it was a great learning experience and i hope to sue more companies in the future!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAH :p :p :p :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to go saki! :D

I am still waiting on replies from creditors who pulled my CR. One was calling me and trying to find the inquiry, but now she has stopped calling. So I guess I need to call her back to find out if they did anything. I did send them all CMRRR letters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats, Sakia! You've given me hope to pursue my case against Amex. I hope I'll be able to post results similar to yours soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sakiawarner

That is great news; glad to see you come out winning on this case.

:p :p :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BRAVO!

congrats sakia...

I have a question that pertains to this same subject. I have a chare-off/transferred cc with a company that I never had. I disputed it and they verified it as mine. I wrote and asked for info they never responded. Then they checked my credit report. So I asked them for deletion and 1,000 dollars.

Ques. #1 since they transferred it they no longer have the right to review it?

Well they didnt respond, and I checked today and the made another inquiry on 04-29 & again 04-30.

Also they made inquiry on my spouse, and this alledged account was opened in 1997 before wewere married.

Ques. #2 we live in a community spouse state so does accounts that occurred before we were married still apply to my spouse?

I gave them till april 30th before I file, but I was just making a threat to scare em', and it looks as if they are mocking me with the 2 most recent inquiry's. Waht do? do I have a case here? please reply!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont know about your spouse but if they charged off the account they do NOT have permissable purpose to check your credit again. Go to the FTC website. there is actually an opinion on this in there and they even say that if the accout is closed there is no reason for them to look at the credit.

Sue the pants off em :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sakia - Congrats!! It's nice to see the good guys winning for a change. All of your hard work has paid off. Good job!

paw67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

troubled,

I tried that $2500 X 2 against EQ and the small claims commissioner gave me $100 per address X 2 plus court costs.

I don't mean to burst any potential bubbles, but realistically most small claims courts are woefully ignorant of the credit laws and don't appear to want to be educated about them - at least in LA county.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks smogtek,

hey, you didnt sue the creditor that pulled the reports?

I was just planning on filing suit against the creditor, should I include thew CRA too?

well maybe I will get a lawyer and go for a higher court, they just pulled my report again twice on 05-06-03. it's like they are laughing at me now....grrrr!!!

any good credit lawyers in the Bay Area?

[Edit by troubledconsumer on Wednesday, May 7, 2003 @ 04:00 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I went after EQ for a tradeline and two bogus addresses.

Still working the tradeline, but the addresses are history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah, well I contacted a few lawyers and each of them asked for the paperwork, they think I might have a good case. But they seem to be more concerned with damages done rather then the illegal inquiries??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rightly so. Actual damages is where the payday is. If you want the big bucks, you go unlimited civil in the superior court.

Small Claims commissioners are idiots, in my experienced opinion. You need a real judge to hear the case and make a decision.

Don't forget to make your demands for payment first before going to court!

Filing an action then sending a final demand letter (including your court cost) along with the court notice, may get a prompt response and settlement.

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah thanks for the advice IronMan, I assume you were addressing me. I figured my lawyers would take of everything from here on out. But they did say they wanted me to get turned down by some more people applying for credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

demon,

Got locked out for a few months. EQ rep gave the commissioner a story about "protecting the consumer by not allowing any questionable info to get to potential lenders" and she bought it.

Anyway, after the court stuff was done I got an updated report and have since gotten two others - one online and another after disputing some inquiries using the online report #.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone is interested (I know I was) here is the FTC Opinion Letter.

Link Here

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Division of Financial Practices

~

Clarke W. Brinckerhoff

Attorney

~

202-326-3224

April 30, 1999

Mr. Kenneth J. Benner

American Council on Consumer Awareness

Post Office Box 17291

St. Paul, Minnesota 55117

Re: Sections 604(a)(3), 607(e), and 609(a)(3) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

Dear Mr. Benner:

This responds to your letters concerning whether the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") permits a party to obtain a credit report on a consumer under certain circumstances. We list the three questions you posed verbatim, with our opinion following each.

1. How long after a consumer terminates an account does a previous credit card issuer or lender have access to the consumer's credit file?

Section 604(a)(3)(A) of the FCRA provides a consumer reporting agency ("CRA," usually a credit bureau) with a permissible purpose to provide a report on a consumer to a person who "intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer."(1) Once an account is closed because the consumer has paid the debt in full (and also, in the case of an open-end account such as a credit card account, notified the creditor to close the account), it is our view that no permissible purpose exists for a CRA to provide file information on a consumer to the creditor. Because there no longer exists any account to "review" and the consumer is not applying for credit, the FCRA provides no permissible purpose for the creditor to receive a consumer report from a CRA. I enclose a recent staff opinion letter (Gowen, 04/29/99) that discusses this issue in more detail.

2. Is a permissible purpose for obtaining consumer credit reports for the sole purpose of determining possible debt by a collection agency for the purpose of soliciting collection business from creditors?

No. You report that a debt collector and a major credit bureau assert that the collector has a "legitimate business need" to obtain a random selection of credit histories for the purpose of determining overdue accounts and then contacting the creditors on the account to solicit collection business. Section 604(a)(3)(F)(ii) does provide a permissible purpose to a party that "has a legitimate business need for the information to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account." In our view, this section authorizes a provider of an existing account (e.g., a bank that has established a checking account with the consumer) to obtain a report on the individual. In the scenario you described, the debt collector has no "account" to "review" when it orders a credit report (in fact, no "account" may exist for some consumers), but instead seeks to randomly examine credit files in order to solicit collection business from creditors. The collector is not authorized to obtain (nor a CRA to furnish) a consumer report for that purpose. The entire focus of Section 604 is to protect the confidentiality of consumers' personal data in the files of CRAs, by restricting access to parties who have a specific need for it.(2) If a third party such as a debt collector can review the consumer's file to see if there exists any account that the creditor has reported as delinquent, the section has totally failed its goal.

3. Is it permissible for a business doing credit with a consumer to obtain credit information under false pretenses, i.e. hiring another firm to solicit credit file information without disclosing the name of the party actually seeking the credit file information? In these cases the consumer attempting to determine who has accessed his credit file, as required, is provided with names of parties unknown to him.

No. Section 607(e)(1)(A) provides that the second firm may "procure a consumer report for purposes of reselling the report (or any information in the report)" only if it discloses "the identity of the end-user of the report (or information)" to the credit bureau. In our view, the firm hired to procure credit file information would be required to comply with this provision. Section 609(a)(3) requires the credit bureau, when responding to a consumer attempting to determine who has accessed his file, to identify the end-user -- not the intermediary -- as the recipient of the report. Thus, the amended FCRA results in the consumer being provided with the parties who actually used his or her credit file information.

The opinions set forth in this informal staff letter are not binding on the Commission.

Sincerely yours,

Clarke W. Brinckerhoff

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Section 604(a)(3)(F)(ii) provides a similar "review" purpose in connection with accounts (such as checking accounts) that do not involve credit.

2. "The bill also seeks to prevent an undue invasion of the individual's right of privacy in the collection and dissemination of credit information. ... (Section 604) requires that the information in a person's file be kept confidential and used only for legitimate business transactions." S. Rept. 91-517, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 1 (1969).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was my understanding that unless you actually applying for credit, these inquiries that they do are considered "soft hits", meaning they do not effect your credit bureau score?

Also, on credit card accounts, it states in the cardmember agreement, that they will pull your credit bureau report just to check up on you. I am wondering if this applies to ca.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So smog, you sued EQ? Can you still get into your file? The reason I ask is b/c everyone else I know that sued EQ got locked out permanently....

HA! HA! HA!

Ya, I sued their butts three and a half weeks ago and have now been locked out. The thing that sucks about it is that I can't get into PG either. At least I know they got served. :)

I am pissed, but what can I do about it? Oh, I am sure it is to protect my account and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is sad news, I was wondering if as of yet, anyone having sued ever accomplished getting back into the file.

Least if you can't then the lender should not either... but still that can hurt more too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dont know about your spouse but if they charged off the account they do NOT have permissable purpose to check your credit again. Go to the FTC website. there is actually an opinion on this in there and they even say that if the accout is closed there is no reason for them to look at the credit.

Sue the pants off em :D

Just because an account is charged off does not mean that the account holder no longer owes the creditor the money. It is simply a tax classification so they can write that amount off as a loss. They do still have permissible purpose to pull the CR. Such reviews should be soft inquiries, but sometimes they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this