[centex]

It is time to move from Alan Shore to Professor Kingsfield mode...

I'm working with someone on a matter where there is no 3rd party nor has there been one. Matter is beyond SOL and would actually fall off the reports within a matter of months...


Situation: OC has created three account numbers that are reported for what appears to be the same claim: one showing paid and positive, one charged off but paid, and one charged off with a balance. Status dates are all the same.

Disputes have been made to the respective bureaus.

In the instance of almost every online dispute, there has been at least one soft pull. A precursor to the ITS went out that contained the complete account numbers AND copies of the bureau reporting, and yet the OC still has the temerity to write back requesting additional information to aid in identifying the individual. Company in the meantime pulls the report twice and then twice more following the presumptive receive date of a letter telling them to piss up a rope on the additional information. A total of four pulls, all soft, in a span of roughly two weeks...

Purpose of litigation will basically be to f*ck with the OC. Individual cares not one whit about money, although settlement buys a new bike or more tools to play with.

Skip the usual nonsense involving federal credit statute. There is a FACTA claim at play, but that is not the card on the table that you want to follow. And yeah, Johnson gets tossed into the mix for good measure, but still...exercise your minds...

Remember also that soft pulls are not viewed by anyone else except the consumer, although there is some indication that some bureaus report how many times a report is pulled belonging to a particular SSN. And no adverse action has come from the pulls...or for that matter the reporting of the account in a derogatory manner.

If the derogatory reporting goes buh-bye, FICO probably actually dips since the age outweighs the damage of a six-plus year old negative entry. And if the consumer is actually damaged by the removal of the information, are there actual damages to be claimed?

MR. HART...WHAT SAY YOU?

[jlynn]

Ok, well in the case of a permissible pull, IMHO the federal statute is written in such away, that the pull is the infraction - not whether anyone sees it or not.

Which one of the TL's is accurate, if any of them?

Is this person in Texas?

[Gib]

Originally Posted by centex

Skip the usual nonsense involving federal credit statute. There is a FACTA claim at play, but that is not the card on the table that you want to follow. And yeah, Johnson gets tossed into the mix for good measure, but still...exercise your minds...

MR. HART...WHAT SAY YOU?

I'd say leave my Johnson out of it.

[centex]

Originally Posted by jlynn

Ok, well in the case of a permissible pull, IMHO the federal statute is written in such away, that the pull is the infraction - not whether anyone sees it or not.

I should also have included, just to eliminate confusion, that all of the entries show as closed.

Which one of the TL's is accurate, if any of them?

There is some question as to whether even the paid, closed, positive is accurate. OC has never responded to written requests pertaining to the confusion. For litigation purposes, the argument is that given the same OC, essentially the same data on open dates and high credit, that the consumer should be viewed in the light of the most favorable tradeline.

Is this person in Texas?

yes and no. Permanent residence is still claimed in Texas, although the work assignment has them elsewhere. They are not military.

[Gib]

Would invasion of privacy come into play?

[centex]

Originally Posted by Gib

Would invasion of privacy come into play?

How much fun, err...effort, would you suggest one wants to expend on the improper interception of data using interstate transmissions?

There are certainly some interesting commentaries that are tangential to many Fourth Amendment discussions that touch on the improper or inappropriate access of personal data by non-governmental third parties, especially in light of third parties turning data over to the feds.

[Felonious Monkey]

Originally Posted by centex

Purpose of litigation will basically be to f*ck with the OC. Individual cares not one whit about money, although settlement buys a new bike or more tools to play with.

I think that this is the important part of the equation. You have stated that there has been no adverse action, all the pulls were soft and the removal of the TL's might actually HURT the consumer's credit, I'd be hard pressed to come up with any actual damages to be had here.

That said, clearly FACTA & FCRA have been violated, though, from what you've indicated, even that will be pretty weak at best, so then it's on to the f*cking:

If it were me, I'd file basic, simple FCRA/FACTA violations to gain the federal venue, but would then fill the complaint up with relevant state claims, such as TX Fin. Code, and whatever state the OC is in too--I'd be willing to bet that there might be some state claims to look into there as well. Point being, really to drive up the legal costs of the OC to the point of being an obstinate ass, while, of course balancing that with the patience of the court.

Also, of course, I would make sure that nothing in my complaint could be deemed frivolous, lest the case be thrown out as harrassing and/or sanctions be brought against you.

Am I anywhere near close? If not, spill the beans and tell us what you have in mind.

[jlynn]

More damage can be done for the good of the masses, if money isn't in the equation. Someone doing this driven by the sense to see it to the end creates case law.

Edit - assuming the end up with a viable complaint that doesn't backfire.

[centex]

Originally Posted by Felonious Monkey

Am I anywhere near close? If not, spill the beans and tell us what you have in mind.

Let's just say for talking point...if the OC remedies the problem six years ago, then there is no duplicate reporting that haunts the consumer and certainly no harm that can come from a sudden drop in FICO scoring six-plus years down the road when the OC decides that the easiest fix is to simply delete the matter.

By allowing the consumer to remain twisting in the wind, however, the OC has engaged in a pattern of conduct that one may reasonably infer, by and through the OC's regular use of FICO scoring, was designed to have a harmful impact upon the consumer.

The regularity with which the soft pulls took place are further indicia of the OC "checking up" on the consumer despite the lack of any further business relationship. And the OC is left in the position of not being able to articulate that the consumer even owes anything given that they have reported AND VERIFIED TO THE CRA's ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS that the positive tradeline was correct. At the same time, they have verified that the charged off, but paid in full TL was correct as was the charged off and unpaid TL.

And, even if one presumes that PP still exists in light of the reporting of one TL as CO/unpaid, is it reasonable for there to be four pulls in a span of two weeks? Absent a claim later being advanced by the OC that they were trying to BullsEye the account, arguments may be made under DTPA.

Of course, the consumer also benefits from the Texas residency by virtue of the fact that Texas laws provide some interesting little provisions as they pertain to furnishing of reports. Oh, and gee...a violation of TFC is also a deceptive trade practice

[centex]

And yes...a little caffeine can be a dangerous thing I can be dangerous when I get bored...

[jlynn]

If this all occured 6 years ago, and the consumer knew about it, isn't he SOL?

[Qtip]

Originally Posted by centex

It is time to move from Alan Shore to Professor Kingsfield mode...

I'm working with someone on a matter where there is no 3rd party nor has there been one. Matter is beyond SOL and would actually fall off the reports within a matter of months...


Situation: OC has created three account numbers that are reported for what appears to be the same claim: one showing paid and positive, one charged off but paid, and one charged off with a balance. Status dates are all the same.

Disputes have been made to the respective bureaus.

In the instance of almost every online dispute, there has been at least one soft pull. A precursor to the ITS went out that contained the complete account numbers AND copies of the bureau reporting, and yet the OC still has the temerity to write back requesting additional information to aid in identifying the individual. Company in the meantime pulls the report twice and then twice more following the presumptive receive date of a letter telling them to piss up a rope on the additional information. A total of four pulls, all soft, in a span of roughly two weeks...

Purpose of litigation will basically be to f*ck with the OC. Individual cares not one whit about money, although settlement buys a new bike or more tools to play with.

Skip the usual nonsense involving federal credit statute. There is a FACTA claim at play, but that is not the card on the table that you want to follow. And yeah, Johnson gets tossed into the mix for good measure, but still...exercise your minds...

Remember also that soft pulls are not viewed by anyone else except the consumer, although there is some indication that some bureaus report how many times a report is pulled belonging to a particular SSN. And no adverse action has come from the pulls...or for that matter the reporting of the account in a derogatory manner.

If the derogatory reporting goes buh-bye, FICO probably actually dips since the age outweighs the damage of a six-plus year old negative entry. And if the consumer is actually damaged by the removal of the information, are there actual damages to be claimed?

MR. HART...WHAT SAY YOU?

I would love to take a stab at this but I am barelly now beggining to comprehend FCRA and the FDCPA. You are throwing FACTA in the equation ouch my head hurts lol

[centex]

Originally Posted by jlynn

If this all occured 6 years ago, and the consumer knew about it, isn't he SOL?

Although the SOL element is contemplated to come from the defendant, the reality is that they have continued to pull as recently as yesterday. Thus there is an ongoing element of action, and while certain of their actions may beyond the SOL for sanction purposes, they are still admissible for the purpose of showing pervasiveness of the conduct, and ergo...gross negligence within the scope of DTPA.

[centex]

Are some of you beginning to see why opposing counsel in credit matters has often declined my invitation to come see me

I put stuff out there that makes people actually have to work to earn their fees...

[jlynn]

Originally Posted by centex

Although the SOL element is contemplated to come from the defendant, the reality is that they have continued to pull as recently as yesterday. Thus there is an ongoing element of action, and while certain of their actions may beyond the SOL for sanction purposes, they are still admissible for the purpose of showing pervasiveness of the conduct, and ergo...gross negligence within the scope of DTPA.

So you suspect that they will raise SOL on the correctness of the TL's but you will continue to prevail on the pp issues?

Quit using big words - I haven't had a drink today.

[centex]

Originally Posted by jlynn

So you suspect that they will raise SOL on the correctness of the TL's but you will continue to prevail on the pp issues?

Quit using big words - I haven't had a drink today.

I am also expecting that they will forget that Texas has a four-year SOL that would apply to State claims Thus they will not prevail on their expected MSJ on SOL issues.

I would also anticipate that they would hope it was not noticed that a new CoA accrued each time they responded to a dispute. Thus their own actions prevent a successful doctrine of laches defense as the consumer was continuing to try and resolve the matter outside of litigation. In effect, the OC's own actions had the effect of resetting the SOL.

As to the drink...better hurry- 9PM grows near

[Pale Rider]

Have the OC arrested.

§ 391.002. FURNISHING FALSE INFORMATION; PENALTY. (a) A
person commits an offense if the person knowingly furnishes false
information about another person's creditworthiness, credit
standing, or credit capacity to a credit reporting bureau.

c) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor ...

[Felonious Monkey]