Amerikaner83 vs. HSBC

[Amerikaner83 1,023]

Nothing excapes me!

[CDL 76]

Nothing excapes me!

Now you know that's not what I was saying. I was asking for an accidentally on purpose!

Now, now grammer, grammir, bettar wach that graamar! (you gotta sing it)

Now I'm getting stoopit tired or tired stoopid!

[tmac01 324]

I wanted to keep it, but I couldn't condone that.

This "mod" thing can be a blessing and a curse, y'know.

I keep forgetting your a mod Ignore my PM's please

[Amerikaner83 1,023]

lol no worries. regarding your PMs... you've got mail tomorrow (I have to reply to the last one though).

[Amerikaner83 1,023]

UPDATE

I got a letter when I came home from work today on the porch...it was from HSBC regarding my Best Buy account. In this letter was each and every billing staement for the time the account was opened, a copy of my original application (back in 2002), and a nice cover letter explaining some circumstances.

the FACTA provisions that you cite in your letters are not currenlty in effect pending comment and issuance

I think she is referring to the whole Section 623 provisions...but it doesn't make sense..."not in effect"? OK sure lady.

She also mentions that TU shows as "disputed". But not all 3.

Sorry HSBC, that's not good enough.

[cjtx 240]

I thought they didn't have any records at all with all the corporate re-organizations, mergers, buy-outs, etc. HSBC systematically ignores requests for documentation. So if they have 'em, why does it take a lawsuit to disclose those records?

Go Nail 'em.

Right now they are in my "to-do" list.

[Amerikaner83 1,023]

I didn't think so either. But they were able to dredge out records from 2002.

[nascar 961]

Now I remember why I rarely agreed with anyone's legal reasoning back when I used to spend more time on the board.

This stuff is rarely as complicated as we try to make it. Good luck 'kaner.

[cracrap 11]

its about time you said somethin again nascar..now all we need is madinks spouting his...SSEEEAAAHHHAAAWWWKKKSSSS SSSSSSSUCCCCCCCK!!!! ...just for you kaner waner

[Bigwoodystyl 451]

I didn't think so either. But they were able to dredge out records from 2002.

Allow me to clarify, as I've spent the better part of my adult life dealing with bank systems.

After a set period of time, usually 3 years, the information gets moved from the "video file" to a "hard file". This means when a CSR or even someone from legal enters your account number or your SSN or whatever ID they use to pull up your account in the mainframe, it only shows them a cursory summary, i.e., name, address, phone number, etc. This cursory repository screen will also show a list of account numbers, but there will be no account details.

This doesn't mean the files were purged! Despite the notions you may here at CIC, at larger card issuers, this is unheard of, even back in the 1980s.

What happens is: the files get moved from video file to an actual physical storage facility. There they are painstakingly transferred to tape (usually microfiche) and put on a "secondary video file". The secondary mainframe does nothing but cross-reference SSN/address/home phone numbers/account numbers to location. When I say location, I mean the physical location, mapped on a proprietary grid.

These records are kept for at least 7 years from the date the account is closed. Although, most are kept way, way longer, simply because deleting them, and actually destroying the tape is a pain in the a$$. Further, the people who do this task are usually too busy converting accounts off the video file and re-storing them on tape.

"Wait this isn't true! [insert financial institution here] couldn't verify an account, and I took them to court and won!"... Well, allow me to explain that too:

Sometimes the files aren't converted properly; sometimes, they don't get converted at all; other times they get converted, but stored in the wrong location, or labeled incorrectly. There is a human element, of course, and I can't imagine how terrible a job it must be to have to do this task. As far as I know, there are no checks/balances, and the work done in this department is not checked for errors/accuracy. Most of the workers have a production goal. So, the incentive to move fast is real.

This whole notion that "companies don't store records/information gets purged" is completely false. It's even more false today, as companies like Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo have revamped their Records Retention Department and have actually taken the tape and re-positioned a lof of the accounts back onto a digital file. Therefore, new accounts, of course aren't subject to this archaic process at all.

[Amerikaner83 1,023]

wow - this thread brought out both Nascar AND cracrap?!

nice to see you guys again!

[Bigwoodystyl 451]

It was my opinion that they wouldn't dig up the records initially. I was thinking they would just issue you a credit bureau update and delete the account from reporting. Then, I would have guessed they would send a well worded letter to you admitting no fault... Note: It wouldn't have cost them anything to do this. Perhaps, in retrospect, your letter was too harsh to warrant this type of goodwill.

I thought you would then need to move to sue them to recoup any $ for violations. That's when I thought they would pull out the records (if they had them).

I don't think you can deny that this certainly makes your job harder. Yes, the 623 violations are real, even to the point of willful noncompliance (IMHO).

But, it isn't as if they were reporting anything incorrectly. What I mean is: you weren't materially harmed by a credit inaccuracy. Your credit files probably look how they are supposed to look. They were simply late in verifying what is actually yours. Secondly, you'll need a judge willing to go out on a limb, and not just rely on Stare Decisis.

Thirdly, wherever you file, I look for them to move to Federal Court. In which case, you'll probably need $ for an attorney. I don't imagine any large firms taking this on contingency, only because, IMHO, it's plain as day that this is your account, and that you're trying to get something for nothing.

The intent of the law is to protect those from fraud and basic inaccuracies. This is neither. What are you going to say if they ask you what you were trying to gain by sending numerous disputes, and the 623 letters? You, Mr. "Johnny on the spot" with your record-keeping, dgreen cards and numerous well-worded letters versed in relevant case law... are you going to tell them you didn't know it was your account and believed it was an inaccuracy, even while such damning evidence is in front of you?? Or, that you have no recollection of this account? I don't think that dog hunts.

Again, JMHO. I thought you'd get a deletion, but $0. Now, maybe, I think, you'll get neither.

Keep in mind, I'm an Engineer who works with credit mainframes, and by extension, I dabble in the areas of law and business finance. It is not the other way around; I'm certainly not an attorney. You and a lot of others here have a better grasp of the law. The only law that I know these days is the basic compliance tests that I need to pass in order to complete competent systems analysis.

In any event, if you do decide to them, then I will still bexpopcornx

[Amerikaner83 1,023]

yes, bigwoodystyl - you are correct.

I'm honestly surprised that they "found" and sent me the records. And yes, perhaps my ITS was a bit too "in your face"...but that was after 3 failed attempts at anything substantive.

BUT: This account is still not listed as "disputed" with EX or EQ - only TU (and the HSBC lady specifically mentions TU showing as disputed but not the other two)...

I have no intentions of going before a judge and saying "this isn't my account"... I never have. It has always been my intent to remove the inaccurate reporting. When they didn't bother to respond to my investigation requests, then it became the FCRA violation and I noticed the lack of "disputed by customer" status.

EDIT: IF I do sue, I'll probably drop any Counts that are FCRA related and go strictly on State-law violations. Let's see them try and remove THAT to federal Court.

My State AG Complaint is still out there though...I need to amend it.

[cjtx 240]

BWS:

Thanks for the post. I only had a general idea of the whole "old record" storage process.

Still, back in the mid 90's when I opened this account, it was under Benefitial. After several mergers, internal re-organizations, etc. Benefitial turned into HSBC.

The whole archival process as you described it, sounds very vulnerable. In addition to tapes being (routinely) misplaced, mislabeled, etc., some of the warehouses may be flooded, or damaged by fire or they may be lost during one of the transitions or re-organizations.

I don't think it's a myth when people talk about purged records, particularly when it comes to old accounts. Even those banks you mentioned have merged or taken over other banks whose records may not be as good as the big banks'.

[Bigwoodystyl 451]

BWS:

Thanks for the post. I only had a general idea of the whole "old record" storage process.

Still, back in the mid 90's when I opened this account, it was under Benefitial. After several mergers, internal re-organizations, etc. Benefitial turned into HSBC.

The whole archival process as you described it, sounds very vulnerable. In addition to tapes being (routinely) misplaced, mislabeled, etc., some of the warehouses may be flooded, or damaged by fire or they may be lost during one of the transitions or re-organizations.

I don't think it's a myth when people talk about purged records, particularly when it comes to old accounts. Even those banks you mentioned have merged or taken over other banks whose records may not be as good as the big banks'.

Certainly, it's a vulnerable system. They know that. It's not quite as vulnerable as you make it sound. I would estimate that about 10%-20% of all accounts are lost 3-4 years after their close date... accounts closed before 2000 anyway...

Which is why the bigger banks have permanently fixed this problem starting in about 2003-2004... One of the companies most responsible for fixing it would be SAS (http://www.sas.com/)

My point is: just because they haven't produced the records when you asked for them doesn't mean they don't have them. A lot of companies do have your records, all of them. Sometimes it just isn't worth the hassle of looking them up. Sometimes it is. Other times they probably don't have them. Roll the dice at your own peril...

A related side note:

This is another reason why old credit card statements cost a good bit ($3.00-$15.00 depending on your issuer). Also, conventionally a statement request older than three months is billed to your account as a "research fee". In case you ever wondered where the term came from, it comes from them actually searching for your statement in a warehouse...

[Lecasbas 176]

You guys spend an inordinate amount of time bating the hook for a fruitless argument.

[Lecasbas 176]

psssssst...(I mispelled something).

[Bigwoodystyl 451]

psssssst...(I mispelled something).

LOL!

[tmac01 324]

psssssst...(I mispelled something).

Its great to see that people can disagree on this forum yet still have sense of humor and respect for one another !!!!!

[Bigwoodystyl 451]

psssssst...(I mispelled something).

You misspelled two things if you count your second post... (but who's counting?)

[trich701 50]

OMG! You guys killed me with this one.

As usual, thanks for the infor AK!

[LeslieR 783]

Any updates??

[Amerikaner83 1,023]

I've got a few things in the mail....I'll update when and if I get replies.

Going a bit covert at this point.

[momof5 992]

Sorry I joined this a little late....

When I have sent corporations my intent to sue, I have included the filing as well....without a case number. I think they get the jist that I really mean to file if I have it drafted already.

I don't know how HSBC will respond, but in my case I actually got a phone call from the folks at Chase Manhattan Mortgage within 2 days! They were in a panic about it.

I did not get my deletion. But, although I had genuinely been late numerous times, THEIR reporting was not accurate in any TL and was different across all 3! Ultimately, they changed it to only 1 30 day late. My score jumped, so I guess it was worth it.

[nascar 961]

They were in a panic about it. ...

I did not get my deletion.

So ... how much of a panic do you think they were really in?