Dopey actions on the part of a CRA

The Experian decision perhaps complies with the letter of the law, but I daresay many in here and elsewhere are of the opinion it's not in compliance with the spirit of the law.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcrajump.shtm
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcradoc.pdf

Rather than attempting to examine the FCRA in a lawyerly fashion, I daresay the most immediately productive action would be to contact one's Congressional rep, two U.S. Senators, and file a complaint with the FTC. Let their attornies bang on this and let's see what's shakes out.

Dopey actions on the part of a CRA might bring about Congressional sanctions on the CRAs, Experian in particular. That wouldn't be an entirely bad thing, now would it?

Here's a few places where you can complain.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/contact.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/08/01/eveningnews/main15216.shtml
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3068843
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/

Experian won’t tell consumers their credit

Squabble with creator of popular scoring model leads to a lawsuit and lack of information.

Effective Saturday – Valentine’s Day – you will no longer be able to get your FICO credit score from Experian, one of the three major credit bureaus.

The company notified Fair Isaac Corp., the firm that created the credit-scoring model most used by lenders, that it is terminating its relationship with myFICO.com, a Web site that sold FICO credit scores and other information directly to consumers. This means generally that Experian customers will not be able to see the FICO scores lenders are using in determining their credit levels.

Although there are a number of credit-scoring models available, it’s the Fair Isaac technology that is most used by lenders to make millions of credit decisions each year. According to data from Fair Isaac, more than 90 of the 100 largest financial institutions use FICO scores. The 25 largest card issuers use it, as do the 25 largest auto lenders.

Credit-scoring models apply a mathematical formula to a consumer’s credit history. For the most part they all use the same range of factors – most importantly, late payments and the amount of debt owed – to produce a three-digit score that is supposed to judge a person’s likelihood of repaying debt.

This issue isn’t about which scoring model is better. It comes down to consumers having access to what most lenders are using to grade them – and that is usually a FICO score.

“Experian’s Valentine’s Day present to 200 million American adults is to make sure they have no access at all to any Experianbased credit score that is widely used by lenders,” said Craig Watts, public relations director for Fair Isaac. “Goodbye, transparency.”

Consumers will still be able to obtain FICO scores based on data from their files at Equifax or TransUnion, the other legs of the Big Three credit bureaus.

The squabble between Experian and Fair Isaac follows a lawsuit Fair Isaac filed in 2006 against Experian, Equifax and TransUnion after the three developed a competing model called VantageScore, which uses a different scale than FICO.

VantageScore’s scale ranges from a low of 501 to a high of 990. In the case of the FICO score, it runs from a low of 300 to a high of 850.

Since filing the lawsuit, Fair Isaac has dropped Equifax from the litigation. The suit is still ongoing, alleging that the VantageScore joint venture created unfair competition and violated antitrust laws.

“We were working hard to develop a positive business relationship with Fair Isaac and the litigation has not helped in that effort,” said Experian spokesperson Susan Henson.

In defending Experian’s decision, Henson said consumers will still be able to buy credit scores from Experian based on information in their Experian credit file. In addition to offering VantageScore, the agency sells its own proprietary PLUS score, which ranges from 330 (higher credit risk) to 830 (lower credit risk).

“We did not feel this will harm consumers in the least,” she said. “There is no one credit score that all financial institutions use to make decisions and there is also no one credit score that consumers must use to help them understand and manage their credit. All of these credit scores provide prediction of a consumer’s credit risk.”

Henson’s right. The various credit-scoring models can give you an idea of how you’re viewed credit-wise. But if the other models were so great and just as useful, why did Experian renew its contract with Fair Isaac to continue selling FICO scores to its business customers?

“We value our client relationship,” Henson said. “There are clients that have Fair Isaac’s FICO built into their underwriting system and that is the score they are using.”

This only leaves me to conclude that Experian doesn’t value its individual consumers enough to work out its differences with Fair Isaac to continue allowing the same valuable access to their individual FICO scores.

So where does this all leave Experian customers?

You may still be able to get a look at your Experian FICO score by simply asking your lender. In some mortgage transactions, you are entitled to the credit score without charge.

You can also complain to the company. And you can complain to Congress, which has in its power to force transparency and make the most widely used credit-scoring system available to the public for free.

Congress has stepped in before. It amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act to open up the credit monitoring process by forcing each bureau to provide all its customers upon request a free credit report once every 12 months. (You can get your reports by calling 877-322-8228 or at www.annualcreditreport.com.)

Here’s how I see this FICO fracas. If the market has widely embraced the FICO credit score, Congress shouldn’t allow business quarrels – not now when credit is hard to get – to result in shutting down access to information that is essential to obtaining the best loan, insurance rate or even a job.

Following the progress on the Verizon case...

Today my service on both my cell phone and internet access was interrupted. I informed Verizon that this constituted breach of contract. My cell phone bill was undisputed and paid in full on time. My dispute is only with the internet access line, which is a separate line and a separate device.

Within a few hours access was restored.

I received a phone call from Karen Milbrodt and a technician named Josh who want to blame my access overages on outdated VZ Access Manager software. So I complied with their request to install the updated version, which required a download of 17.6 MB at their request. The modified VZ Access Manager conceals from the user the daily and per connection upload and download monitoring. I also learned that Verizon has total access to be able to modify the amount of usage that is displayed, in accordance with whatever suits their billing needs. In my case, I watched as my usage was modified from 1.76MB at 8:05 a.m. to 1.61MB at 5:05 p.m.

Does anybody else see anything wrong with this picture?

Yes, my reflected usage was reduced, but the fact that they can modify the reflected usage at will is a little big brotherish, wouldn't you say? They claim to not be able to monitor the specific sites a user is browsing, but they probably can and do.

Later I would receive the following email:

Your Verizon Wireless Account Number ending with 9485-00001

This email is to confirm that your requested credit/adjustment has been processed. Your current balance is $1547.58, which includes credits/adjustments totaling $190.00.

Thank you for using Verizon Wireless.

I feel like I am winning the battle but losing the war.

Taking Verizon Wireless to Texas Small Claims Court

When you file a suit on a corporation in Texas, you need to call your Secretary of State office (512-463-5555) or State Comptroller (1-800-252-5555) and find out the name and address of the Registered Agent, President or Vice President of the corporation before you begin your suit. You will be filing suit against the corporation and having the notice or citation served on the officer of the corporation.

This is how I learned that Verizon Wireless is not a corporation in good standing in the State of Texas, and has failed to maintain a registered agent in the State of Texas. Good news is, I can perform service of process on the Secretary of State in Texas and they will handle getting it to the correct registered party/address. Cost: $55.00 + the cost of certified mail to the SOS.

Here is a copy of the demand notice I sent:

Office of the Secretary of State
Statutory Documents Section - Citations Unit
P. O. Box 12079
Austin, Texas 78711-2079

Monday, February 02, 2009

To Whom It May Concern:

After due diligence, I have determined that Verizon Wireless has failed to maintain a registered agent within the state of Texas. Therefore, I am serving this demand notice on the Texas Secretary of State Office pursuant to the Texas Business Corporation Act - Article 2.11., paragraph B, Service Of Process On Corporation, which states:

“Whenever a corporation shall fail to appoint or maintain a
registered agent in this State, or whenever its registered agent
cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the registered office,
then the Secretary of State shall be an agent of such corporation
upon whom any such process, notice, or demand may be served.
Service on the Secretary of State of any process, notice, or demand
shall be made by delivering to and leaving with him, or with the
Assistant Secretary of State, or with any clerk having charge of the
corporation department of his office, duplicate copies of such
process, notice, or demand. In the event any such process, notice,
or demand is served on the Secretary of State, he shall immediately
cause one of the copies thereof to be forwarded by registered mail,
addressed to the corporation at its registered office. Any service
so had on the Secretary of State shall be returnable in not less
than thirty (30) days.”

Enclosed you will find my check payable to the Secretary of State in the amount of $55.00 for maintaining a record and for forwarding the demand and for issuance of a Certificate of Service. Duplicate copies of the demand are provided for service upon the known registered office of the defendant corporation.

The Corporation Trust Company
F/B/O Verizon Wireless, LLC and/or D/B/A Verizon Wireless (“Verizon Wireless”)
Corporation Trust Center
1209 Orange St
Wilmington, DE 19801


Regards,



==============================================
==============================================
Follows is a copy of the actual demand letter:


Verizon Communications, Inc. and/or
Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC
D/B/A Verizon Wireless (“Verizon Wireless”)
c/o The Corporation Trust Company
Corporation Trust Center
1209 Orange St
Wilmington, DE 19801

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Reference account number: xxxxxxxxx-00001
Invoice number: xxxxxxxxxx

DEMAND and NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE

To Whom It May Concern,

As you were previously notified, I fully intend to litigate the disputed unpaid balance on this account in my local small claims court. Despite my efforts to work with Karen Milbrodt (Verizon Wireless Executive Relations 1-800-760-4658 x5941) to resolve this matter, it remains unresolved. The “previous unpaid balance” remains disputed, yet now I have received another outrageous bill from Verizon Wireless, and it is starting to look like you think this is some kind of joke.

I am writing to formally dispute the $1,279.20 overcharge for data usage on my broadband service account for the period from 12/27/08 to 01/26/09, as well as late fees ($5.00) and excessive taxes and fees charged corresponding to the disputed amount.

I was arbitrarily billed $1,279.20 for 10,236 megabytes of usage for the billing period when, in fact I only used 1,798.7 megabytes, which is less than the allowance covered by my monthly access fee.

For the period from 11/27/08 through 12/26/08, I was billed $190.00 for 10,427 MB of data usage when in fact I only used 1,447.8 MB of data usage during that time period.

For the period from 10/27/08 through 11/26/08 I was billed $23.50 for 5,214 MB of data usage when in fact I only used 1,331.1 MB of data usage.

I have printed the logs of my account usage from the VZAccess Manager usage meter that proves the amount is an overcharge, and I would appreciate very much if the disputed amount would be credited to my account.

I am prepared to pay the approximate undisputed amount of $140.42 before the due date, however unless you make adjustment to my total bill in the amount of $1,597.16 within the next 10 days, I will simply be forced to litigate this matter in my local small claims court in Polk County, Texas. This is my final demand.


Regards,



Cc: Verizon Wireless
Customer Service Department
Post Office Box 105378
Atlanta, GA 30348

Cc: Lowell C. McAdam, President & CEO
Verizon Wireless - Corporate Office
133 Calkins Road
Rochester, NY 14623

Cc: CT Corporation Systems
For the benefit of Verizon Wireless, LLC
350 N. St Paul St
Dallas, TX. 75201

CC: The Corporation Trust Company (certified mail)
For the benefit of Verizon Wireless, LLC
Corporation Trust Center
1209 Orange St
Wilmington, DE 19801

Cc: Donald Clark, Secretary
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington D.C. 20580

Cc: Kevin J. Martin, Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554

(It should be noted that I have an allowance of 5120 MB of data usage under my current $59.99 Data Access plan, and that amount is prepaid monthly on my cell phone bill.)





Click here to get automated online help with your small claims case.