Am I way off base here?? Citing 45 FCRA violations!!!

[luckyduck]

One CA, three accounts. One is validated and we paid it after validation. One is partially validated, unpaid, and still in dispute until we get proof that payments were made. One has not been validated whatsoever, never mentioned in communications about the debts, and we don't even know if it really is a debt, or if they are double reporting the same debt twice.

The validated and paid account is being reported mostly accurately, but is listed as open on EQ, and was never reported as disputed to TU while it was disputed.

The half validated account shows three different balances on each CR. None of them are accurate. it shows as open on EQ, and never reported as disputed on TU. It was verified, and changed during verification to reflect conflicting balances.

The completely unvalidated, unresponded to account was previously showing as unpaid on EQ and paid on EX. In DV process and dispute process, it was verified and updated to show as unpaid with a conflicting balance on EX.

So, one account is reported mostly accurately, but a couple of inaccuracies.

One account is reported with three conflicting balances, reported as open, and never reported as disputed, and was verified in DV process.

One account is reported with two conflicting balances, was reported as paid, now shows unpaid, was verified during DV with absolutely no reference to account or validation provided. In pertinent part, here is what I wrote to the CA:

In accordance with FDCPA, XXDHXX is entitled to $1000 for violations of the Act, or actual damages, whichever is greater.

In accordance with FCRA, XXDHXX is entitled to up to $1000 per violation of the Act, plus punitive damages.

You have committed several actionable violations of each act.

1. Three violations of FDCPA 807(8) failure to communicate and report that three debts were disputed with Trans Union.

2. Violation of FDCPA 809(d) failure to cease collections of the second listed debt upon notice of dispute and prior to validation.

3. Five violations of FDCPA 807(2)(A) misrepresenting the amount of the second and third debts with credit reporting agencies.

4. Three violations of FDCPA 807(2)(A) misrepresenting the legal status of a debt by reporting closed accounts as open with Equifax.

5. One violation of FDCPA 807(2)( by attempting to collect an amount which is not lawfully permitted in the state of Indiana, specifically a $5.00 rebilling fee.

6. Eight violations of FCRA 623((1)(A) failing to conduct an investigation upon notice of dispute for three accounts with two to three credit bureaus.

7. Eight violations of FCRA 623((1)( failing to review all relevant information provided by two to three credit reporting agencies on three accounts in relation to these disputes

8. Eight violations of FCRA 623((1)© failing to report results of investigations to two to three credit reporting agencies regarding three accounts.

9. Eight violations of FCRA 623((1)(D) failing to report results of investigation to all other credit reporting agencies that you furnished the information to upon each of the three disputes.

10. Eight violations of FCRA 623((1)(E) failing to modify, delete, or block three items of information from two to three credit reports within 30 days when this information was not verified by an investigation prompted by the disputes.

You have accumulated thirteen violations of FDCPA which entitled XXDHXX to a possible $1000 or more. You have accumulated forty violations of FCRA which entitles XXDHXX to approximately $40,000, or more.

Any fool can look at these credit reports, and the documentation accumulated and see that you are reporting incomplete and/or inaccurate information. All of your these reportings are inconsistent with one another. One of these alleged accounts, has been provided absolutely no verification, and changed from Paid to Unpaid.

I am in possession of documentation outlining every communication between XXDHXX and you since October, 2004. I am in possession of an updated credit report for every day for over a month. I have been able to watch the changes in your reporting as they have occurred, and will very easily be able to show that this is not simply a clerical error, but rather intentional errors made with the intent of causing XXDHXX’s credit score damage.

Per statutory limitations, XXDHXX is entitled to up to $41,000 in statutory damages alone. Additionally, he will be entitled to attorney’s fees and punitive damages. Also, consider the damages awardable for defamation.

I am making a one time settlement offer. You may take this offer, or you may wind up in federal court. The choice is yours. As the minimum statutory damages would be $100 per violation of FCRA and $100 for violations of FDCPA, the very minimum XXDHXX may be awarded would be $4100.00. Additionally, it is expected that your attorney would require approximately $3500 as a retainer to defend this federal case.

My offer of settlement is as follows:

1. You provide XXDHXX written notification that these accounts have been billed and reported in error. This statement would be true and accurate.

2. You provide XXDHXX a copy of your written requests to the credit bureaus removing all three of these items from all three of his credit reports.

3. You send XXDHXX confirmation that all three of these accounts are considered paid in full, and that no further collection efforts, or subsequent reporting of these accounts will occur.

4. You send XXDHXX a check in the amount of $7500.00.

Please note that patience is currently nonexistent, and any delay in your decision will only lead to further action. Upon receipt of the requested documents and check, XXDHXX agrees to refrain from any further legal action, including civil proceedings and involvement by state and federal agencies. I look forward to a very timely response.

First, note that I am his "Attorney-in fact". Second, I do fully intend on filing suit if they don't settle this. If they can't figure out how much he owes, then they can't report it, and rather than removing it, they verified. That's f'ed up.

Am I going out on a limb with these violations?? Am I asking for too much money? Not enough to sound serious? Any recommended changes?

It just seems a bit much for three little tiny accounts with one little tiny CA. If I take this to court, is it likely that I will actually be able to hit them for each of those little subsection violations, or is it only one per "section"? Just want some input before I call this the final draft. Don't want to sound completely stupid.

[blrogs]

i dont think your off base but do you want to show your full hand up front? maybe just a mention of the others?i would also cite the entire statue to affirm your stance. you never know what idiot will open the letter! also would it be better to see if they are willing to make an offer??

I,m still learning

[c m chase]

If you have this many violations, why are you even bothering with another letter? They're going to ignore this one just like the others. Sounds like you've given them quite a few chances already. File suit.

[blrogs]

thanks chase ! was hoping someone would jump in ! HAPPY HOLLIDAYS

[luckyduck]

If you have this many violations, why are you even bothering with another letter? They're going to ignore this one just like the others. Sounds like you've given them quite a few chances already. File suit.

#1 - because DH is out of state, and that makes it hard to jump right into court.

#2 - don't have the money to front to a lawyer, haven't sent an ITS yet, and want to give them one chance to settle before I file anything.

#3 - looking at moving out of state next month, and want to minimize the crap on my plate when we do move.

#4 - They have not ignored one letter. They've sent as much documentation as they can muster. They don't realize why they are being harrassed or what they are doing wrong. Honestly, they just don't get it. I'm hoping that laying it out will help them "get it".

you never know what idiot will open the letter!

This letter is being addressed and attentioned straight to the owner/president.

DH just wants it off his report. I have a personal grudge because these bills are all 5-6 years old and they update every three months which really messes with the score. And of course, it irks me that they can't even report a consistent balance.

If someone knows of an IN lawyer who works on contingency, I won't bother with an ITS. I feel the same way. I'd rather go straight to court myself, but I want to add just one last letter to the paper pile.

[admin]

Remember, you don't need a lawyer.....

[luckyduck]

BB.BB.B..B.BUT, if we are going to court, I want to slam them with lawyer fees too. Another reason for the letter is that they think they've been dealing directly with him. I need to make my presence known. This will be my "first" communication with them. So, I do need to send them something regardless of whether I hire a lawyer or not. I'd like to see a quick little check myself. Much less hassle that way.

[Guest]

Lucky.. I know of a fantastic lawyer in the Louisville, KY area that ONLY files federal cases. If you are in Southern Indiana I would contact him first.. he might be slow but he knows his stuff.

He has settled all but 1 of our cases and we have ended up with about 7500 in FCRA settlements.

If you would like to email me.. I will send you his info.

[jordanmorganusa]

First off, what did they send as validation that made you pay? I would still file for any and all FCRA/FDCPA violations that they committed on that account. What I've seen as validation when I ask for it make me laugh.

Just remember: never let someone outside of the family know what you're thinking again. Give them a couple of generic violations. If you have them on 10, tell them 4. When they get the suit, WHAMMO! Make sure you add as an individual anyone that specifically sticks a thorn in your side(Ex: the compliance manager-I have quite a few that are going to be losing their jobs after I'm done).

[admin]

You might want to look at this:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/11/0323014comp.pdf ( pgs 12- 18 )

On page 14 alone:

Civil Penalities, In it, they cite a violation of Federal Trade Act, 15 USC. 45(m)(1)(A), actaul knowledge or knowledgeably fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances. And because they violated FTC Act 15 USC. 45(m)(1)(A), Section 814 of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692l and Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation of Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461, as amended, authorize the court to award monetarty civil penalties of not more than $11,000 for each violation of the FDCPA.

They go on to describe civil penalties for violations of the FCRA.

You should be salivating.

[Recovering Attorney]

If I got a letter that detailed, my eyes would glaze over and I'd never get to the end of it. Simply tell them you are going to sue by XX/XX/2005 unless they give you x, y and z. Then do it.

[blrogs]

ummmm? chase that is a short dress? thanks to jeep i noticed! ad min your pj,s are kinda short !!! hehe!

[c m chase]

Great link, admin.

blrogs...whatchu doing looking up my dress too??

[jordanmorganusa]

Posted: 30 Dec 2004 21:29 Post subject:

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

You might want to look at this:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/11/0323014comp.pdf ( pgs 12- 18 )

On page 14 alone:

Civil Penalities, In it, they cite a violation of Federal Trade Act, 15 USC. 45(m)(1)(A), actaul knowledge or knowledgeably fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances. And because they violated FTC Act 15 USC. 45(m)(1)(A), Section 814 of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692l and Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation of Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461, as amended, authorize the court to award monetarty civil penalties of not more than $11,000 for each violation of the FDCPA.

They go on to describe civil penalties for violations of the FCRA

And in English that would mean...?

Sorry, I just think it's a good idea to spell things out for the "least sophisticated consumer". Just a thought.

[admin]

Posted: 30 Dec 2004 21:29 Post subject:

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

You might want to look at this:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/11/0323014comp.pdf ( pgs 12- 18 )

On page 14 alone:

Civil Penalities, In it, they cite a violation of Federal Trade Act, 15 USC. 45(m)(1)(A), actaul knowledge or knowledgeably fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances. And because they violated FTC Act 15 USC. 45(m)(1)(A), Section 814 of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692l and Section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation of Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461, as amended, authorize the court to award monetarty civil penalties of not more than $11,000 for each violation of the FDCPA.

They go on to describe civil penalties for violations of the FCRA

And in English that would mean...?

Sorry, I just think it's a good idea to spell things out for the "least sophisticated consumer". Just a thought.

Thought you lawyer types would be helping me out.

Actually, I think it means that because they violated the FTC Act and the Inflation of Adjustment act that they could act for 11 times what it specified in the FDCPA. Interesting that they cited PER VIOLATION, no?

[jordanmorganusa]

Ok, it's morning. I'm on it. I need to stop reading these damn boards late at night. I've been dreaming credit law... 8)

[luckyduck]

I've been out of town for a while. I decided not to send them anything. I've already filed complaints with BBB and state AG and they "assure that they are doing everything within the law". Yeah, that's why one account has three different balances, and another has two different balances on the CRs.

Admin, I will look over that link. Got a lot to catch up on being gone for over a week so it may be a few days.

Sky, I'm in Northern Indiana. And i realized we have a federal courthouse just down the street from me. Duh. That relieves part of my issue. Thought I'd have to go to Indy, thus also part of the reason I wanted a lawyer. That in mind though, I may just file myself. I'll need to research and figure out how to plead and file, but can't be much different from circuit or superior, and I'm fairly descent as pleading in those courts.

Jordan, the CA contacted the OC and the OC sent a letter and a complete transaction history from day one to the end. They not only had the history and the proof but had kept notes on why he closed the account and everything, personal details that confirmed his identity and everything. It was 100% perfect validation. That is why it was paid. Plus it was only $166 and paid directly to the OC and within SOL.

Will definitely read that link. Salivation for sure.

[luckyduck]

Admin: That pleading was filed by the state AG. That is why they can plead for $11K per violation, because it's an action by a state or federal official.

That has always made me ponder the court decisions stating that it should be per action, and not per violation. If the state AGs and FTC can file per violation, it seems that the law was intended to allow the consumer to file per violation as well, but didn't specify such. In any case, it is always a good idea to shoot for $1000 per violation. If they don't know any better and don't argue it successfully, it could be won. It can't be won if you don't ask though. Nice thing in this specific case is that they have three accounts on three CRs, and those violations rack up.

I finally got the insurance company to send out the forms on those medical bills. They said it looks to them like they are paid in full, and the med provider is trying to collect on the insurance discount.

I can't do anything further until I get that info stating what the insurance already paid. I need my proof to counter their proof. This is going to be quite a fun little journey.

[Xanathos]

With that many violations, lawyer fees are the last thing you need to worry about. The statutory damages alone are enough to give most CA's a heart attack, let alone the actual and punitive claims...and on THAT continuous violations of law, any lawyer worth his/her salt would be advising that client to settle, settle, settle, because a jury would want to make an example out of anyone THAT aggregious.

[luckyduck]

Well, the CA doesn't know how much is owed and is trying to collect based on the information they have. Problem is they are reporting/verifying/updating conflicting balances, and that is where they are busted.

New Question: Since the OC is the one withholding the fact that they received payment from the insurance company, and absolutely no statements have been made from OC or CA about any payments being made, can someone tell me just what I can slam the OC with?? I know payments were made even if they weren't fully paid, and the proof is on the way.

The OC is not reporting anything. They are giving the CA inaccurate information, and therefore the CA is collecting an inaccurate amount and reporting conflicting/inaccurate balances. Letters have been written to both the OC and the CA, and the letters to each have mentioned that these accounts were paid by insurance, so they can't say they didn't think to look into it.

One account is six years old, and the other is four. I want the OC more than I do the CA, but I'm not sure what laws to use to slam them for fraudulent medical billing on accounts that old.

I'm going to get both, but I want to pile on as much as I can. Does anyone know if I go to Federal Court, whether I can attempt to hold the OC liable for all acts of the CA since it's really the OC that's causing these problems by withholding the payment information?

I'd be interested in any ideas from any laws/acts or cases that might help out. Thanks