ChexSystems...Violates Debtor rights! Conflict of interest raises eyebrows!

The company is a mysterious entity that wields a lot power - and for the most part - has the capacity to ruin the personal lives of thousands of U.S. citizens struggling day-in and day-out to make ends meet.

Of course, I'm referring to ChexSystems, which is a debt reporting agency (a giant in the industry) that willfully and wrongfully engages in highly illegal despicable conduct in direct Violation of the rights of the individual pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

But, it is doubtful that ChexSystems (or the owners) will ever be prosecutied for their illegal acts, for obvious reasons.

Either the Government (The Federal Trade Commssiion) or Law Enfforcement Agencies don't care - or in the alternaive - Officials may be on the take looking the other way.

How else would it be possible for ChexSystems to become one of the most influential data reporting agencies in America (with an obvious monopoly on the territory) if that were not the case?

Notwithstanding, ChexSystems Violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act on a daily basis.

For example, although the mammoth corporation is required to verify if a "returned" (bad) check is the responsiblity of a specific individual on file, ChexSystems willfully refuses to contact the alleged debtor to allow the individual his-or-her right to dispute the records on file.

Instead, they rubber-stamp the check NSF, and proceed to summarily post a negative notation on the U.S. resident's credit bureau file.

The Fair Credit Report Act stipulates with particularity that pursuant to due process of Law, the consumer must be contacted first, and be allowed to dispute the item orbe given the chance to provide a defense on their behalf.

Consequently, many Americans remain in the dark about negative item seriously affecting their credit rating, until they are denied an account by a creditor such as US Bank, Citibank, or Wells Fargo.

Failure to abide by the law - which is recognized on both State and Federal levels, would entitle the consumer to stututory penalties (money award) for the damages sustained.

In addition, ChexSystems also engages in highly unethical conduct which ends up adversely affecting the complaining consumer.

For instance, although ChexSystems is a data reporting agency, they also double as a collection agent.

Subsequently, their involvement in the recovery of debt, amounts to a conflict of interest.

ChexSystem should report the consumer information without bias, prejudice, or motivating self-interest.

Because ChexSystems receives a percentage on debts collected, it is in their best interest to actively deny debtor claims.

In sum, ChexSystems is an unethical, dishonest company, that willfully and wrongfully violates the rights of consumers - and ultimately - is guilty of criminal conduct which warrants review and appropriate disciplinary (and criminal) action.

Consumers wiho have encountered the aforementioned dishonest conduct - and suffered violations of their rights - should file a complaint against ChexSystems with the Federal Trade Commssion, Law Enforcement Agencies such as the FBI and the State Attorney General's Office, and the Better Business Bureau.

If necessary, consumers are urged to file a lawsuit to recover statutory penalties ($1,000.00 ) they are entitled to with the aim of compensating losses suffered due to a denial of credit, housing, or job opportunities and to deter such heinous conduct in the future.

News at 11!

http://www.thetattler.biz

Experian Credit Bureau...violates consumer rights! Thumbs nose @ Federal Trade Commission watchdog!

In spite of being dinged with a class action lawsuit for Violations of Consumer Rights pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act – and agreeing to an out-of-court settlement to compensate Plaintiffs for damages suffered - Experian Credit Bureau (and the staff employed at the credit reporting agency) continues to thumb its nose at the Federal Trade Commission (the Government Agency which brought the lawsuit).

Post: 03/22/2011
http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2011/03/experian-transunion-equifaxsettle-class.html

For example, if a U.S. resident spies a delinquent account on their credit report – and seeks to delete it – they are given the run-around.

Once contact has been made, Experian proceeds to exacerbate the complainant’s suffering by making excessive endless demands for proof of identity in a deceitful bold-faced effort to stall-and-delay the process (and ultimately cover-up) their wrongful illegal conduct.

If a debtor points out that pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement with the court of jurisdiction, Experian is required to make the corrections quickly in a prompt professional manner, employees snicker and laugh off the notion.

One telephone operator scoffed in response.

“I can't discuss that lawsuit, Sir! It's pending."

Not!

Experian settled to avoid further scrutiny!

In fact, any bold-faced efforts to discuss the litigation titled  – White, et al vs. Experian Information Services, et al - may result in a hang-up!

Although Experian is supposed to simply report credit data, it is evident from their highly questionable business practices, that they are in “cahoots” with credit grantors (and doing their bidding).

Just try to erase an account one of their “clients” alleges is true and correct!

And, in spite of the fact an individual who is denied credit is entitled to a copy of their credit report for free - Experian attempts to foist a fee ($7.00) on unsuspecting victims who are not familiar with the binding laws of the land in respect to credit reporting practices.

Experian is also guilty of “damaging” an individual’s credit rating by virtue of a fraud alert system they have instituted which confuses Credit grantors.

For instance, if a debtor has been a victim of Identity Theft, they may instruct Experian (and the other two credit bureaus) to post a FRAUD ALERT on their credit report which requires a company double-check the applicant’s request for credit by contacting the individual personally.

However, there are two problems with this practice.

In the event an individual applies for a credit card online, the Bank may generate a “pop up” questionnaire which splashes up on the computer screen with a list of questions for the applicant to answer.

For instance, if the individual has a car loan, they may be asked who financed the vehicle, what the monthly payments are, etc.

Unfortunately, on occasion, the credit bureau has the name of the Corporate entity in their records which may be unknown (and not readily available) to the individual.

In that event, the question will be answered incorrectly, and their credit request will summarily be denied.

But, there is a bigger problem which often arises, which is more sinister.

Credit grantors often misconstrue that a FRAUD ALERT on a credit report signals that the applicant has committed “fraud”, at which point, the credit application is not only denied – but, quite possibly – reported to a law enforcement agency!

What a dilemma for the innocent victim to be embroiled in through no fault of their own!

Notwithstanding, it should be noted, that getting a FRAUD ALERT deleted at any one of the three major credit bureaus is next to impossible (in spite of the fact the individual is entitled to have it removed without questions asked pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The nightmare is further heightened when the consumer is forced to deal with incompetent hateful employees (rude, stupid losers, with all the personality of a worm) who have been instructed by upper level management to - “deny” “deny” “deny” - with the specific aim of mitigating their liability for damages (and prevent prosecution for rights violations).

Bottom line?

In view of the fact the three major credit bureaus are continuing to ignore the Fair Credit Reporting Act – and consumer rights – it is obviously that the Federal Trade Commission has no teeth.

A slap in the wrist just doesn’t cut it in the final analysis.

Maybe some heads will have to roll at the Federal Trade Commission before justice is served and the appropriate companies (and individuals) are duly punished.

There outta be a law, Mr. President!

http://www.thetattler.biz



Consumer watchdog has no bite!

TransUnion...Violates Consumer Rights! Thumbs nose @ Federal Trade Commission!



In spite of being dinged with a class action lawsuit for Violations of Consumer Rights pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act – and agreeing to an out-of-court settlement to compensate Plaintiffs for damages suffered – TransUnion Credit Bureau (and the staff employed at the credit reporting agency) continues to thumb its nose at the Federal Trade Commission (the Government Agency which brought the lawsuit).

Post: 03/22/2011

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2011/03/experian-transunion-equifaxsettle-class.html

For example, if a U.S. resident spies a delinquent account on their credit report – and seeks to delete it – they are given the run-around.

Once contact has been made, TransUnion proceeds to exacerbate the complainant’s suffering by making excessive endless demands for proof of identity in a deceitful bold-faced effort to stall-and-delay the process (and ultimately cover-up) their wrongful illegal conduct.

If a debtor points out that pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement with the court of jurisdiction, TransUnion is required to make the corrections quickly in a prompt professional manner, employees snicker and laugh off the notion.

One telephone operator scoffed in response.

“There was no lawsuit, Sir!"

When a consumer points out they have a copy of the legal paperwork – White, et al vs. Experian Information Services, et al – they quickly change the subject.

Although TransUnion is supposed to simply report credit data, it is evident from their highly questionable business practices, that they are in “cahoots” with credit grantors (and doing their bidding).

Just try to erase an account one of their “clients” alleges is true and correct!

And, in spite of the fact an individual who is denied credit is entitled to a copy of their credit report for free – TransUnion attempts to foist a fee ($7.00) on unsuspecting victims who are not familiar with the binding laws of the land in respect to credit reporting practices.

Trans Union is also guilty of “damaging” an individual’s credit rating by virtue of a fraud alert system they have instituted which confuses Credit grantors.

For instance, if a debtor has been a victim of Identity Theft, they may instruct TransUnion (and the other two credit bureaus) to post a FRAUD ALERT on their credit report which requires a company double-check the applicant’s request for credit by contacting the individual personally.

However, there are two problems with this practice.

In the event an individual applies for a credit card online, the Bank may generate a “pop up” questionnaire which splashes up on the computer screen with a list of questions for the applicant to answer.

For instance, if the individual has a car loan, they may be asked who financed the vehicle, what the monthly payments are, etc.

Unfortunately, on occasion, the credit bureau has the name of the Corporate Entity in their records which may be unknown (and not readily available) to the individual.

In that event, the question will be answered incorrectly, and their credit request will summarily be denied.

But, there is a bigger problem which often arises, which is more sinister.

Credit grantors often misconstrue that a FRAUD ALERT on a credit report signals that the applicant has committed “fraud”, at which point, the credit application is not only denied – but, quite possibly – reported to a law enforcement agency!

What a dilemma for the innocent victim to be embroiled in through no fault of their own!

Notwithstanding, it should be noted, that getting a FRAUD ALERT deleted at any one of the three major credit bureaus is next to impossible (in spite of the fact the individual is entitled to have it removed without questions asked pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The nightmare is further heightened when the consumer is forced to deal with incompetent hateful employees (rude, stupid losers, with all the personality of a worm) who have been instructed by upper level management to - “deny” “deny” “deny” - with the specific aim of mitigating their liability for damages (and prevent prosecution for rights violations).

Bottom line?

In view of the fact the three major credit bureaus are continuing to ignore the Fair Credit Reporting Act – and consumer rights – it is obviously that the Federal Trade Commission has no teeth.

A slap in the wrist just doesn’t cut it in the final analysis.

Maybe some heads will have to roll at the Federal Trade Commission before justice is served and the appropriate companies (and individuals) are duly punished.

There outta be a law, Mr. President!

http://www.thetattler.biz



 

 

TransUnion thumbs nose at Consumer Watchdog!

 

Experian, TransUnion & Equifax...settle class-action lawsuit! Violations of FCRA persist!



Claimants in a class-action lawsuit (filed by the Federal Trade Commission on their behalf) received notices by U.S. Post this week requesting that supporting documentary evidence be submitted to the Court (by a March 31st deadline) with the express purpose of calculating "Actual Damage Awards" for individual Plaintiffs named in the pending legal action now that an out-of-court settlement has been reached.

As I reported in a prior post a few months ago, the Federal Trade Commission brought the litigation against the defendants - Experian, TransUnion & Equifax - to compensate aggrieved parties for damages they suffered due to flagrant Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act at the three major credit bureaus.

Post: 10/10/2009

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2009/10/experiantrans-union-equifax-nts.html

In the moving papers - "White, et al v. Experian Information Solutions - the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants posted false, misleading, and erroneous data on their credit profiles which resulted in - a denial of credit, loss of potential employment, right to tenancy on rental properties, rejection of car loan applications, and poor credit ratings - all to their damage.

In spite of being "noticed" of the errors - all of the three defendants not only failed to delete the false information - but proceeded to willfully and wrongfully engaged in a conspiracy to cover-up their Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Ultimately, the legal rights of Americans around the country were violated at whim and with little regard for the law of the land (or any remorse for their misdeeds, either).

Pursuant to the out-of-court settlement agreement, the dollar amount that will be paid for "Convenience" and "Actual Damage Award" claims will depend on the total number of claims validated by the office of the Settlement Administrator (appointed by the Court). 

The amount of the awards to be paid with respect to each category of "Actual Damage" claims will be increased or decreased, pro rata, to reflect the number of valid claims in each category.

Given the response rate to the prior "Notice of Settlement" (mailed by U.S. Post), and the number of Class Members who may qualify for Actual Damage Awards, and depending on the number of claimants who file claims that meet the criteria, Actual Damage Awards are estimated to range between $150 and $750 for denial of employment claims, between $100 and $500 for mortgage or rental denial claims, and between $30 and $150 for claims based on other credit-related claims. 

Depending on the number of claimants who file claims that meet the criteria for Actual Damage Awards, Convenience Awards are estimated to range between $15 and $35.

Claimants (plaintiffs in the class action suit) may elect to "opt out" of the settlement offer and pursue their own personal litigation in the appropriate court of jurisdiction.

For those Class Members who previously made a claim for an Actual Damage Award, the Court has extended the deadline to opt out (request exclusion from) or object to the settlement (including Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and costs which may be found on the settlement-offer website:

 www.bankruptcydischargesettlement.com

To opt out, parties must send a written request to:

White, et al v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
Attn: Exclusion Requests
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 9517
Dublin, OH
43017-4817

All requests must include the plaintiff's full name, address, telephone number, signature, and a specific statement noting the request to "opt out".

Detailed instructions on how to prepare a "Notice" to opt out are provided on the website also.

Claimants may be well-advised to "opt out" and pursue their own litigation to avoid being bound by the terms of the agreement - especially in the event future violations persist - which may warrant additional recovery of damages.

For example, in recent days, claimants have lamented that - in spite of the out-of-court settlement - all three defendants (Experian, TransUnion & Equifax) have continued to post false, misleading, and/or erroneous information on their credit reports (in spite of promises to the court to refrain from doing so in the future).
Undoubtedly, the big brass at the credit bureaus are not unlike giant corporations around the country - who, when push comes to shove - elect to take the easiest route out to save their precious a**es!

Obviously, the FTC settlement is a mere slap on the wrist, in the overall scheme of things.

I say, haul 'the culprits into the town square, and string 'em up by the balls.

And, I'll be standing in line to tar 'n feather the deceitful low-life bastards, alongside the rest of 'ya!

Mr. President, there outta be a law!

http://www.thetattler.biz



FTC filed class-action suit on behalf of consumers!

Twitter...settles with FTC on privacy issues! Tweeters can sleep nights!





If you recall, in recent months Twitter was accused of flagrantly disregarding the privacy rights of its members on their ever-popular burgeoning website.

In the wake of a full-scale investigation, Twitter, Inc. has agreed to discontinue questionable practices, with the specific aim of resolving the issues - and ultimately - avoid further scrutiny (and possible prosecution) by the Government.

Inside sources have informed me that according to the terms of the agreement, Twitter is barred from misleading consumers about the extent to which the company protects their security, privacy, and the confidentiality of nonpublic consumer information for at least twenty years.

Because Twitter had a tendency to pooh pooh the potential dangers of their negligent acts, hackers were able to - not only take control of Twitter - but also access nonpublic user information and messages that consumers had designated as private.

On the heels of carrying out the wrongful acts, hackers proceeded to send out bogus tweets from accounts, without much detection.

It has also been disclosed that hackers took advantage of the vulnerabilities on at least two occasions - between the months of January and May of last year - respectively.

Congrats to the Feds!

Now tweeters can sleep at night, or can they?

News at 11!

http://www.thetattler.biz/

But, leave my privacy alone!

Advertisers...demands skirt FTC Rules & Regulations!

Occasionally, the gall of some individuals boggles the mind!

The other day, a potential advertiser zipped off an e-mail to me, expressing an interest in posting a link on “The Tattler” site.

In my response, I quoted the fee due and the terms and conditions of the advertising agreement.

When I received a reply back, I was a little startled by the advertiser's  request.

For starters - the individual countered with a rate offer which was bit lower than my going ad fees -  but I was willing to work with the company to bring them into the fold (so-to-speak).

But, the stipulations for the the text ad - and links - were a little off-putting.

For example, the female liaison was quite adamant that I rustle up a post to promote their product  (300 words in length) to include a couple of links to their client's web site.

“I don’t care about editorial control,” she wrote, just before hurling the communication my way over the Internet at lightning speed by e-mail.

Of course, the ignorance of the woman astounded me.

For example, in recent months the Federal Trade Commission became concerned that bloggers were flogging products “for pay” on web sites without proper legal disclosure.

So, the Government watch-dog agency implemented a set of rules and regulations to prevent abuses (such as deceptive business practices and potential fraud) on the Internet.

Bottom line?

Was a blogger promoting a product because he or she backed the item or service one-hundred percent or simply because it was a case of pay-to-play?

In my reply, I noted - rightly so - that when it came to my writing (and the Tattler) I endeavored to maintain integrity in my personal and professional affairs ( it's called journalistic ethics).

I am always seeking subjects to pen a feature on that may be of interest to my readers, though, so it is wholly possible that on occasion I might act on a tip or allow for a post touting a product based on my belief in its value or potential interest to readers.

But, in the specific situation aforementioned, I felt a full disclosure (or disclaimer) - posted in plain view - would be required to satisfy FTC concerns.

Shortly after the FTC regulation kicked in last September, I posted one such disclaimer when I raved about a  local gym - 24 hour fitness - in West Hollywood.

Because my review was glowing - it occurred to me that readers or new visitors to the site unfamiliar with my policies - might assume I benefited (got paid, received a free membership, etc.) from publishing the plug.

I didn’t.

Nonetheless, I posted a notice disclosing that I was not influenced by any incentive, payment, etc.

Once I made a decision on the post noted herein above, I notified the advertiser that - based on the subject matter - I was going to give the green light on the ad.

At this point, I instructed the party to make their payment in advance (in full), and also be sure to include background information on the web site to facilitate the penning of the article.

At this juncture, the advertiser started to play games, which didn’t set well with me.

For starters, the rep noted that her client  preferred to pay only half the sum up-front, with a promise to send on the balance after the material was reviewed and "approved".

Uh-huh.

Initially, the PR office assured me there was “no interest” in editorial control.

When it came time to close the deal, however, they changed their tune.

Or,  were they playing games all along?

Notwithstanding, because I discounted the ad space fee - and they were a first-time advertiser - I could not accept their demands to pay half up front, preview the material, then pay the balance after “copy” approval.

Did they honestly think I have stupid written on my forehead?

Golly, I wasn't born yesterday!

http://www.thetattler.biz

Federal Trade Commission...seeks stricter content guidelines on web! Young audiences targeted...

Uncut Director's Editions on Internet concerns FTC!

The FTC recently cautioned that entertainment companies need to restrict violent content which may be accessible to young children who access the Internet without parental controls in check.

The Government agency (which recently expanded its reach into the World-Wide-Web) noted for the record recently- that while a handful of film and video-game companies have been more mindful of establishing a ratings system that is effective in this regard - more effort needed be made to self-police the industry-at-large..

The FTC alleges that parents have a difficult time monitoring content since there is a proliferation of unrated (director's cut versions) films on the Internet that are difficult to weed out among the mainstream fodder that is less worrisome.

According to the FTC, one of out every three parents, is unaware of the existence of these "uncut" releases spinning out-of-control on the blogosphere - and elsewhere on the net - unmonitored (or even identified for the most part).

In response to the criticism, a spokesperson at the Motion Picture Association of America (a ratings forum in the film industry arena) assured concerned FTC officials - and parents alike - that they are committed to ensuring that films are marketed truthfully  with the ultimate aim of providing parents with concise information about content so that educated decisions may be made about film choices for their young ones.

On the heels of that issue, the content watchdog duly noted that PG-13 movies were also aco ncern.

Apparently, youths under thirteen years of age are screening the films on the sly on the Internet without adult supervision.

One has to wonder if the FTC's concerns about explicit content in music biz product wasn't perhaps triggered by the recent brouhaha over Adam Lambert's raunchy live! performance on the American Music Awards just a scant few weeks ago.

Enquiring minds want to know!

Adam Lambert risque stage conduct rankled some!

http://www.julianayrs.com