Credit Management Archive

A forum for anonymous discussion of credit, debt, and finance. No registration, no frills, just good advice.

Notice of Intent To Sue

Notice of Intent To Sue

Discussion open, post a reply
Posted in credit on Feb 03, 11 at 6:46PM
Good Afternoon: I have collected 2-3 years of FCRA & FDCPA violations on the following OC's - 1) GEMB/Home Depot 2) GEMB/JC Penney 3) GEMB/Wal Mart 4) GMAC 5) HSBC NV This is how the TL's are listed on my CR's. With respect to items 1-3, they are all GE Money Bank. I am sending formal ITS letters to each of the OC's listed above during the first week of Feburary, 2007 (and yes, I will follow through with a small claims lawsuit should they not agree to my settlement terms). What is the most effective way to get this information to the proper entity within the company? Do you send the ITS's to the OC's as listed in your CR's? Do you send the ITS's to the corporate headquarters? Do you send the ITS's to the registered agents in my state? Arkansas Small Claims allows up to $5000 in damages. The statutory violations are well in excess of this threshold, and I'm essentially looking for: 1) A letter from the Company admitting they violated my consumer rights. 2) Immediate and permanent removal of the TL from all CRA's. 3) A payment of $5000. I plan on leaving the CRA's associated with the above referenced issues to a competent NCAC attorney - the dollar amounts are much higher & punitive damages are involved. Thanks in advance for your answers/opinions!
what FDCPA violations do you have against them? you DO realize that FDCPA doesn't apply to OCs, right? Also, you're aware of the SOL on FCRA violations I assume?
 
---
 
FDCPA - "falsely representing the character of a debt; by falsely representing the legal status of a debt; by failing to note the account in dispute to the credit reporting agency"? FDCPA - yes, more to the CA's, however - do the OC's still not abide by the FDCPA in limited instances - I see reference to it all the time, and have read it in complaints - thanks (if not correct, it is easy enough to remove). FCRA SOL - yes.....2 years from discovery, or 5 years from violation, whichever is greater?
 
---
 
FDCPA only applies to to an OC who is collecting their own debts UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME. Some states may have a version of FDCPA that applies to OC as well.
 
---
 
FDCPA - "falsely representing the character of a debt; by falsely representing the legal status of a debt; by failing to note the account in dispute to the credit reporting agency"? FDCPA - yes, more to the CA's, however - do the OC's still not abide by the FDCPA in limited instances - I see reference to it all the time, and have read it in complaints - thanks (if not correct, it is easy enough to remove). FCRA SOL - yes.....2 years from discovery, or 5 years from violation, whichever is greater? It's the EARLIER of the two... so...if the violation was discovered 2 years and 1 month ago...and you haven't done anything about filing suit...it's beyond SOL...and you can't take action...
 
---
 
FDCPA - "falsely representing the character of a debt; by falsely representing the legal status of a debt; by failing to note the account in dispute to the credit reporting agency"? FDCPA - yes, more to the CA's, however - do the OC's still not abide by the FDCPA in limited instances - I see reference to it all the time, and have read it in complaints - thanks (if not correct, it is easy enough to remove). FCRA SOL - yes.....2 years from discovery, or 5 years from violation, whichever is greater? It's the EARLIER of the two... so...if the violation was discovered 2 years and 1 month ago...and you haven't done anything about filing suit...it's beyond SOL...and you can't take action... Who determines when the discovery of the violation exists? CRA's???
 
---
 
The consumer technically...HOWEVER...when did you first dispute with the CRA, or with the OC? It could even be argued (and possibly successfully) that the first time you pulled your report could be construed as you having discovered it...
 
---
 
The consumer technically...HOWEVER...when did you first dispute with the CRA, or with the OC? It could even be argued (and possibly successfully) that the first time you pulled your report could be construed as you having discovered it... Thanks - I've pulled credit reports since 1999 or 2000 or so. Didn't have any adverse until late 2002. Started to pull reports again around 2004, and didn't really start working these particular TL's until July 2004, or 2005 - I'll have to check to be sure. That was with the CRA's - didn't do anything with the OC's until July 2005....?
 
---
 
ok...so July of 2004 or 05) with the CRAs...and if they did their job, they contacted the OC, proving that you were aware of the error...and therefore it would be out of SOL for you to sue btw, I'm playing devil's advocate here...these may be the arguments you hear from the OCs... HOWEVER!!!! If they're STILL reporting inaccurate information, it COULD be argued that the SOL hasn't run...as long as you didn't sue for the OLD reporting, but rather you're suing for the more recent
 
---
 
Hey Great!!! I was just about to edit the post or hit you back.....you're exactly right. One could make the argument that a consumer became aware of a "violation" on a TL say 4 years ago - so, SOL....but, if you take your most recent CR, and look at the violation(s) - you could in theory work your way back to get the violation count. Say, you order a current copy of your CR and dispute. When a "re-aging" occurs, or mis-reported balance, or status change violation, or whatever....these in and of themselves constitute violations and you can have 2 years from that point correct? Oh BTW - no problem with the devil's advocate thing...it helps put things in perspective and I truly appreciate yout insight - good job!
 
---
 
was there reaging? Or just the Date of Status changed? I would say yes...you'd have 2 years from that date...but again, they may argue that you didn't do anything about it before then, even though you were aware of the problem, therefore, they had no reason to believe that they were in error
 
---
 
Sorry...need to clarify: These accounts were all IIB (10/2002) with reporting errors. Worked with CRA's at first, then started to contact the OC's in 2005 for assistance. Almost every single time that I would write to the OC and point out the error....the TL would get a date of status change, a balance change, a date of IIB change, a High Balance change, a current balance change.....you name it. Seriously, the more that I contacted them, the worse it got. Finally, I started to request verification of the debt, contracts, creditors matrix, BK discharge orders, billing statements, or any other instrument that validated the debt - nothing (except GMAC). GMAC was the "ONLY" OC that had any paperwork what so ever regarding these accounts - I had to go through the AG to get that? However, then they reported the date of status (petition for BK 05/2006)...so it's still screwed up. In short, the OC's do not have any paperwork and will settle - IMHO.
 
---
 
WHOAA!!!!! These were IIB and they're still reporting a balance, etc? Have you tried the IIB letter in the sample letter forum? BK violations are MUCH worse than FCRA
 
---
 
That's right.... My earlier posts (October 2006, when I joined) gave an overview of where I stood and what all I had gone through. I made a tone of mistakes - PERIOD!!! I did it the hard way, believe me.... CB has given me a lot of new, and accurate information to go on. Before, I'd use books and examples I found on the Internet to work these things? But, In spite of myself, managed to get 90+ adverse accounts (between mine and my wife's CR's) down to 28 total (mine EQ,EX,TU and hers EQ,EX,TU) and 680-690 FICO composite scores. I mostly focused on judgments, and CA's - the other easy OC's fell off. But these have remained "glued" - and they are full of mistakes, even as of 01/2007. I'm going for it! I really didn't involve the OC's until July 2005. In short, they do not have any documentation (I think) or it would have flushed out by now. These accounts still get "verified by OC as accurate" when I dispute with the CRA's. And no, I have not tried the BK letters or the BK stay orders - first I learned of these techniques were on CB. Really been a long road though! Any insight you have would be appreciated!
 
---
 
I'd go the IIB letter route then... since you have them cold (they WERE notified of the BK by the courts, right?), you should be able to get them deleted easily...worst case, file against them and force deletion and payment that way
 
---
 
Pryan: I feel sure that they were notified when filing, and they are on my creditors matrix. They did not contest anything at the creditors meeting (no one did for that matter). I'll search the BK letters you referenced (unless you have the link handy) and see what that yields. Our intent now is pretty simple - ITS for $5000 from each OC for each CR 5 statutory violations x 5 OC's = 25 violations @ $1000 each 6 CRA's x 25 violations = 150 possible statutory violations I would settle for less + deletion (of course) Any thoughts?
 
---
 
Pryan: I feel sure that they were notified when filing, and they are on my creditors matrix. They did not contest anything at the creditors meeting (no one did for that matter). I'll search the BK letters you referenced (unless you have the link handy) and see what that yields. Our intent now is pretty simple - ITS for $5000 from each OC for each CR 5 statutory violations x 5 OC's = 25 violations @ $1000 each 6 CRA's x 25 violations = 150 possible statutory violations I would settle for less + deletion (of course) Any thoughts? something like this...modified of course: 150k is pretty steep...but if you can find an attorney to go for it, I say do it
 
---
 
also, if they're on the matrix, they WERE notified
 
---
 
Pryan: I feel sure that they were notified when filing, and they are on my creditors matrix. They did not contest anything at the creditors meeting (no one did for that matter). I'll search the BK letters you referenced (unless you have the link handy) and see what that yields. Our intent now is pretty simple - ITS for $5000 from each OC for each CR 5 statutory violations x 5 OC's = 25 violations @ $1000 each 6 CRA's x 25 violations = 150 possible statutory violations I would settle for less + deletion (of course) Any thoughts? something like this...modified of course: 150k is pretty steep...but if you can find an attorney to go for it, I say do it Oh agreed - $150K is very steep - won't happen..... but, if I sue for $5000, and settle for $1000 (all plus deletion, of course) - then "we" would stand to pickup $30K over the summer. We plan on taking this thing in "small" bites and litigating "pro-se" - don't laugh. Remember, it's "sue for $5K + delete (settle for $1k + delete) times the 5 OC's times the 6 CR's. All of these entries are on the 3 CR's for both me and my wife (although her GEMB/Home Depot is GEMB/Dillards, and we "each" had different JC Penney accounts, and "each" had Wal-Mart accounts). Your thoughts?
 
---
 
I think I'd talk to a good consumer attoreny...NACA.net is where I'd start... you COULD get that 150k...if you get the right attorney
reply to post
Your reponse:

Your email (optional, if you want to receive notifications of replies):

 

Search