Jump to content

Suing for FCRA violations


Recommended Posts

I posted before about suing under Section 623(a)(5) of the FCRA and someone posted that I shouldn't sue under that section.

However I found this case:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/9923012/9923012.shtm

and that is exactly what the FTC sued under. If I am suing for the same type of violation, wouldn't it be a good idea to sue for the same thing the FTC did???? (They settled for 1.5 million all I want is deletion from my report)

Here is what I have so far:

LOCAL COURT

SOMECOUNTY COUNTY, OHIO

Me Case No.

My Address Judge:

Plaintiff

-VS- COMPLAINT

Pinnacle Collection Services

7900 Highway 7 #100

Saint Louis Park, MN 55426

Defendant

Plaintiff, myName, for its complaint alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff brings this action under Sections 623(a)(5) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. || 1681-1681u, to obtain monetary civil penalties and for defendants’ violations of the FCRA.

DEFENDANTS

2. Defendant Pinnacle Collection Services LLC, is a for profit organization, existing, and doing business under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Its principal place of business is 7900 Highway 7 #100, Saint Louis Park, MN 55426. At all times relative to this complaint, defendant Pinnacle Collection Services has transacted business in this district.

3. Defendant Pinnacle Collection Services LLC, is a “debt collector” as that term is defined in Section 803(6) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. || 1692a(6). As part of its debt collection activities, defendant furnishes information to consumer reporting agencies. As such, defendant is subject to Section 623 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. || 1681s-2, which imposes a series of duties and prohibitions upon any person or entity that furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency.

THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

4. The FCRA was enacted in 1970 and became effective on April 25, 1971, and has been in force since that date. In 1996, the FCRA was amended extensively by Congress. Among other things, Congress added Section 623(a)(5) to the Act, which became effective on October 1, 1997.

VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

5. Section 623(a)(5) of the FCRA requires anyone furnishing information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account that has been placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subject to any similar action, to provider the consumer reporting agency, not later then 90 days after the furnishing of the information, the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action.

6. In the course of their business, defendant failed to comply with the requirements of Section 623(a)(5) in that, for a period of time, they reported dates of delinquency to credit reporting agencies, including delinquency dates, that were later then the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency.

7. The acts and practices in paragraph 6 constitute violations of Section 623(a)(5) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. || 1681s-2(a)(5). Pursuant to Section 621(a)(1) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. || 1681s(a)(1), the acts and practices alleged in Paragraph 5 also constitutes unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. || 45(a)

CIVIL PENALTIES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

8. Defendants have violated the FCRA as described above, with actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, as set forth in Section 621(a)(2) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. || 1681s(a)(2).

9. Section 621(a)(2) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. || 1681s(a)(2), authorizes the Court to award monetary civil penalties of not more then $2,500 per violation of Section 623(a)(5).

10. Each instance in which defendants reported a later date then actual delinquency date in violation of Section 623(a)(5) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. || 1681s-2(a)(5) since October 1, 1997, the date that Section 623(a)(5) went into effect, constitutes a separate violation of the FCRA for which plaintiff seeks monetary civil penalties under Section 621 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. || 1681s.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court, pursuant to this courts own powers:

1. Enter judgment against defendant and in favor of plaintiff for each law violation alleged in this complaint;

2. Award plaintiff monetary civil penalties for each violation of the FCRA as alleged in this complaint;

3. Award plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.

I pretty much copied the FTC's complaint and substituted my own info where relevant. However, there is a section in the FTC's complaint which deals with jurisdiction of the court. Should I add something like that to mine and what gives my local court jurisdiction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copying-and-pasting a complaint is never a good idea. Either write one yourself, or if you're not comfortable doing so, then hire a lawyer. A judge would instantly recognize what you're doing if you file that and it will shoot your creditability all to hell. Besides, why don't you just file in small claims court instead? Then you don't have to draft a formal complaint at all.

Having said that... you don't have "private right of action" under much of the FCRA. Meaning that you, as a private citizen, cannot sue for violations. However, the FTC can sue on behalf of wronged citizens. See 1681s. You do, however, have a right to sue under 1681n and 1681o (but not 1681m, for instance). The FCRA isn't as clear-cut as the FDCPA; make sure you do your homework before bringing suit under it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that... you don't have "private right of action" under much of the FCRA. Meaning that you, as a private citizen, cannot sue for violations. However, the FTC can sue on behalf of wronged citizens.

I suspected it was something like that, thanks for clearing it up.

I was also checking this out:

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forms/sampleletter17.shtml

I am thinking I will go the route in the sample letter above before filing a case. This should give me more violations if they don't follow the laws cited in the link. I'll re-write that sample letter to suit my case and send it. I've already disputed the item with the CRA's.

I think I was just confused because it's headed disputing an item with the origional creditor. They say Citibank is the origional creditor, but Citibank isn't reporting anything, it's all being reported by the CA who says they bought the account from Citibank. For purposes of requesting an investigation, since the CA is reporting, they really are the OC and not Citibank???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I was just confused because it's headed disputing an item with the origional creditor. They say Citibank is the origional creditor, but Citibank isn't reporting anything, it's all being reported by the CA who says they bought the account from Citibank. For purposes of requesting an investigation, since the CA is reporting, they really are the OC and not Citibank???
If the account was in default and Citibank SOLD the account, then what you're dealing with is a "junk debt buyer". No, they are NOT the OC...and never will be. You can sue a JDB who is reporting incorrect info...and I'm not sure you need the FCRA to do it.

If you haven't already, see if there is a www.naca.net lawyer in your area that will at least discuss the case with you. They might even take it on contingency. (I don't know all the details, but if you actually got a case, they might be interested).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FACTA legislation passed recently allows the consumer to go directly to the original creditor and dispute information which the original creditor (called the information furnisher) in the FCRA, has supplied to the credit bureaus.

FROM:

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/repair/DisputingWithOriginalCreditor.shtml

Pinnacle Collection Services is reporting it to the CB. Pinnacle Collection Services lists Citibank as the OC. Citibank isn't/hasn't reported anything.

To me I am thinking Citibank is the original creditor. However, if Pinnacle is the "information furnisher" I assume I can still apply the page which deals with DisputingWithOriginalCreditor and send such a letter to Pinnacle and as the "information furnisher" they would be required to reply under the FCRA?

Or is Pinnacle now somehow exempt as an information furnisher because they are not the OC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.