willingtocope

Credit Repair Organizations Act

7 posts in this topic

Very interesting....

what about in the case of debt fixer attorneys- like Lexington law.

(B) Payment in Advance.--No credit repair organization may charge or receive any money or other valuable consideration for the performance of any service which the credit repair organization has agreed to perform for any consumer before such service is fully performed.

Can these attorneys say the fee is a "retainer"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here's a class action against Lex Law that seems to be related to the CROA...

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:iL9yyN5JngcJ:www.noticeclass.com/lexingtonlaw/pdf/NoticeProposedSettlement.pdf+%22lexington+law%22+croa+court&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us

...my gibberish to english translator is broken at the moment, so I'm not sure who won or if its been appealed. Its from 2000, I think, so I'm surprised they're still in business if they lost...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and here's some more gibberish from myfaircredit.com...

http://myfaircredit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1171&sid=130df7fe0109b9d8c1527ec76ab834e0

...I think this says that the class action got denied. Not that the suit didn't have merit, just it didn't pass the test for "numerosity".

Maybe we should draft lawyers and send them to Iraq...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and here's some more gibberish from myfaircredit.com...

http://myfaircredit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1171&sid=130df7fe0109b9d8c1527ec76ab834e0

...I think this says that the class action got denied. Not that the suit didn't have merit, just it didn't pass the test for "numerosity".

Maybe we should draft lawyers and send them to Iraq...

hmmm... so - Iosello v. Lawrence (Lex Law) the plaintiff failed to meet his burden to put forth sufficient evidence of typicality. Gosh, that's too bad, seems as though he needed better attorneys:

plaintiff failed to set forth any factual showing that Lexington's alleged violations were imposed on the proposed class.

plaintiff has not established any factual support for the contention that all Lexington consumers who paid or were charged a fee for the purpose of challenging inaccurate, misleading, or unverifiable negative items on their credit reports were subjected to the same or substantially similar contract, relied on or viewed the same web pages as the plaintiff, or were subjected to any of the alleged CROA violations.

Interesting too- Lexington Law is also Carreon And Associates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm.....

http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/2005/apr-may/creditscores.html

In brief, the relevant language causes consumers to forfeit their new FACTA rights if they use the assistance of a “credit repair organization” (CRO) as defined by the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679-1679j (CROA). The CROA definition of a CRO is broad enough to encompass licensed attorneys assisting consumers in exercising the new FACTA rights. This is believed to be the first time in U.S. history that Congress both created new federal rights and simultaneously nullified them if an individual chooses to use a licensed practitioner of law to assist in exercising those rights.

...so...is this basically saying that you've got to go it alone?

It does say that lawyers (e.g., Lex Law) fit the CROA definition...which would make it illegal for them to charge an up front fee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and then a little further along it says...

Of critical concern here, FACTA also states that furnishers’ statutory duties “ shall not apply if the Notice is submitted by, is prepared on behalf of the consumer by, or is submitted on a form supplied to the consumer by, a credit repair organization as defined in section 403(3) or an entity what would be a credit repair organization,

Share this post


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