No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
If you signed the app with Cingular, they have PP. It's found in the small fine print.
rifleman wrote:
WHY DID THEY HAVE PP?
You can lose a positive TL and/or end up with a fraud alert.
ctrob wrote:
I disputed about 12 from 5 different companies. Some of these may, I say MAY have had PP. I had been dealing with a couple of different mortgage companies at the time and could not get them to verify wether or not the inq's originated from them. So I disputed.What can happen if you dispute a legitimate Inq.?
Tuscani, I have read on other forums that one can be charged with a felony for knowingly disputing accurate information being reported on CRs. Any truth to this?
Tuscani wrote:You can lose a positive TL and/or end up with a fraud alert.
ctrob wrote:I disputed about 12 from 5 different companies. Some of these may, I say MAY have had PP. I had been dealing with a couple of different mortgage companies at the time and could not get them to verify wether or not the inq's originated from them. So I disputed.What can happen if you dispute a legitimate Inq.?
I believe so. But show me a case were someone has been locked up for disputing their credit report.
fused111 wrote:
Tuscani, I have read on other forums that one can be charged with a felony for knowingly disputing accurate information being reported on CRs. Any truth to this?
Tuscani wrote:
You can lose a positive TL and/or end up with a fraud alert.
ctrob wrote:
I disputed about 12 from 5 different companies. Some of these may, I say MAY have had PP. I had been dealing with a couple of different mortgage companies at the time and could not get them to verify wether or not the inq's originated from them. So I disputed.What can happen if you dispute a legitimate Inq.?
I am suspicious of any claim about consumers being charged with a crime for knowingly disputing accurate information. The only mention of criminal penalties in FCRA is for the filing of a false claim in an identity theft report.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcradoc.pdf
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=15&sec=1681a
15 USC 1681a(q)(4)
Identity theft report. - The term "identity theft report" has the meaning given that term by rule of the Commission, and means, at a minimum, a report -
(A) that alleges an identity theft;
(B) that is a copy of an official, valid report filed by a consumer with an appropriate Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, including the United States Postal Inspection Service, or such other government agency deemed appropriate by the Commission; and
(C) the filing of which subjects the person filing the report to criminal penalties relating to the filing of false information if, in fact, the information in the report is false.
There are no criminal penalties for an OC, CA, JDB or CRA under FCRA or FDCPA, even for negligent or willful non-compliance.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=15&sec=1681n
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=15&sec=1681o
However, assuming fraud or theft could somehow be alleged, there are a number of serious obstacles a prosecutor would need to surmount.
1) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt--not just preponderance of evidence. That changes the game altogether when things go criminal. The consumer can't just "look dirty" or "seem unethical". The government needs you dead to rights.
In the last 2 months alone, my wife and I have gotten between us 3 letters in the mail from OCs stating in effect "We investigated your claim, and this account will remain on your CRs." It rather perplexed us because I know with certainty we NEVER disputed these TLs. They are positive TLs for goodness sake. Why would I dispute 'em?
From the FTC to you name it, there have been numerous published reports stating upwards of 1/3 of consumers (tens of millions of people) have inaccurate info on their CRs. Does it then seem even remotely possible to believe a CRA could transmit a dispute on the wrong consumer or for the wrong account? If so, we've arrived at reasonable doubt, gone past go, collected $200, and are fast approaching a sure thing.
2) Battling the Boogieman. The credit industry is held in very low regard. When prosecuting a consumer, the "victim" of banks and CRAs doesn't make for a very convincing victim. It's like a prostitute claiming she was raped--although that does happen. A better example might be Ike Turner claiming Tina beat him up. Jurors ain't gonna be swayed by the "loss" the credit industry endured. People fear the credit industry, even those with great credit.
3) I daresay the credit industry would be loath to cooperate with any sort of criminal investigation, and their cooperation would likely be essential. The discovery process, or even just a good detective poking around, might uncover huge numbers of negligent or willful non-compliance violations that could end up costing CRAs millions.
4) Expert testimony. I would expect at least a half dozen expert witnesses to testify on behalf of the accused, probably at charge, who could raise more than adequate reasonable doubt because of the shoddy record keeping of the credit industry.
I would prefer to move to Paris so I can bunk with la......
ctrob wrote:OK, but I'm moving to LA so I can bunk with Paris...