opinions please

[troubledconsumer]

I was about to send a letter of intent to sue, based on FCRA section 623 until i read a report on the FCRA by the FTC. Note:

A. Furnisher Notice

The one significant change in the furnisher notice is the addition of a reference to the fact that two of the sections apply only to parties that furnish information to CRAs regularly and in the ordinary course of their business.(14) The Commission specifically asked for public comment on this issue. 62 Fed. Reg. 9123, 9125 (1997). There was a consensus among the commenters that the notice should be revised to include reference to the different standards that apply to occasional users.

Representatives of different furnishers suggested two additions that the Commission did not adopt. First, credit card issuers advocated adding a section spelling out the limitations on consumers' ability to sue furnishers, a topic that seemed inappropriate for a Commission-prescribed notice of duties to furnishers. Second, debt collectors and creditors urged that the notice specify that a furnisher's duty to report an item as "disputed" lasts only while it is investigating the dispute. This point involves an issue of statutory interpretation that is more appropriately resolved in another forum.

Finally, the Commission asked for comments on whether the prescribed form should include the text of Section 623. 62 Fed. Reg. 9123, 9125 (1997). The Commission has not included the text, because the commenters generally stated that it was unnecessary. However, a CRA form that does so will be "substantially similar" and thus in compliance with Section 609©.

§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

(3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer.

© Limitation on liability. Sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] do not apply to any failure to comply with subsection (a), except as provided in section 621©(1)( [§ 1681s].

So basically a consumer cannot sue oh his on behalf, only the FTC can sue on the consumers behalf! WTF is that all about? I thought the FTC was designed to protect our rights? I have read in various threads that you can sue for a violation to section 623?

[Edit by troubledconsumer on Sunday, April 6, 2003 @ 08:50 AM]

[Swede]

<blockquote>Originally posted by troubledconsumer

So basically a consumer cannot sue oh his on behalf, only the FTC can sue on the consumers behalf! WTF is that all about? I thought the FTC was designed to protect our rights? I have read in various threads that you can sue for a violation to section 623?

</blockquote>

The case of Nelson v. Chase Manhattan gives consumers a private right of action to sue under the FCRA provided they have disputed the incorrect item through the CRA's first. Also check out this summary on the case FCRA Gives Consumers Cause of Action Against Furnishers of Credit Information

[troubledconsumer]

Thank you swede , I was getting very discouraged after I read that.

Is there a good site that has any caselaw or opinion letters, with briefings on their relevance that you may know of? I usually find alot of caselaw cases when i do a search on google, but 1 paragraph into reading it and my head is spinning.

I have read the opinion letters on FTC site, but figured maybe there was an archive somewhere?

Thanks again, much appreciated

[bingo]

Here is one Calawyer posted in Feb. Very recent and the judge does reference Nelson vs Chase Manhattan Mortgage.

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/03D0066P.HTM

[Swede]

<blockquote>Originally posted by bingo

Here is one Calawyer posted in Feb. Very recent and the judge does reference Nelson vs Chase Manhattan Mortgage.

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/03D0066P.HTM

</blockquote>

Thanks, forgot about that one. Linking it for you http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/03D0066P.HTM

[Edit by Swede on Sunday, April 6, 2003 @ 07:36 PM]

[troubledconsumer]