Phoenix Federal Court Rules for Target -- Credit Limits Need Not Be Reported to Credit Bureaus
Consumer litigant Christine Baker sued Target after her Target Guest Card credit limit was not reported on her credit reports despite her disputes with Equifax and Experian, lowering the credit scores. Target claims that it always reported the credit limits, but the limits were not on the credit reports.
(PRWEB) February 2, 2006 -- On 6/10/04, credit consultant and consumer litigant Christine Baker filed suit against Target, Capital One and Equifax in Phoenix Federal Court, case # CIV-04-1192-PCT-NVW, for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
In 2002 Ms. Baker began disputing the missing credit limits for the Target and Capital One accounts, but according to the credit bureau (CRA) investigation results and court filings, Target failed to report the credit limit. Screenshots are posted at http://fight-back.us/forum/index.php?showforum=79
Ms. Baker has been recommending the Target Guest Card to establish or re-establish credit. However, especially when a consumer has no or few other accounts, the correct reporting of a small $200 credit line is critical for credit scores as the utilization of the available revolving credit (Balance/Limit Ratio) is a major Fair Isaac credit score factor. According to Fair Isaac, its scores are used in over 75% of all credit applications.
When the Credit Limit for a revolving account is not on the credit report, Fair Isaac’s scoring software substitutes the amount reported as High Credit, the highest amount ever owed on the account. If the High Credit is $20 and the current balance is $10, the B/L Ratio is 10/20 or 50%. If the balance is $20 and the High Credit is $20, the B/L Ratio is 100% and the account appears “maxed out”, while in fact the true B/L Ratio is only 10% with a $200 credit limit.
The difference in credit scores can easily exceed 50 points. While the overall B/L Ratio is less affected by missing Credit Limits on reports with other open revolving accounts, scores are also lowered by individual “maxed out” accounts.
On 1/24/06, Judge Neil Wake granted the Target motion for summary judgment and his decision is posted at http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/4781/4875.html along with the other court filings.
Notably, Judge Wake did not consider the credit reports Ms. Baker submitted with her objection because recipients of the reports can not authenticate credit reports and they are therefore not admissible evidence, as decided in Capital Funding v. Chase, Eastern District of PA, case 2:01-CV-06093-LDD. Capital Funding appealed this ruling and the 2/2/06 hearing is scheduled in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, docket # 04-4355. The dockets and more information about this case are posted at http://creditlitigation.org/resources/index.php?showforum=8
How can a consumer have the credit reports authenticated by the credit bureaus prior to discovery?
How can Ms. Baker prevail against Capital One and Equifax?
Target is represented by Jennifer Hadley Dioguardi and Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier with Snell & Wilmer in Phoenix. Target never apologized to Ms. Baker, made no attempts to resolve this matter outside court and Target ignored the requests for comments to be included in this release.
Ms. Baker is not an attorney and she has no legal skills, so it is not surprising that she does not prevail against the nation’s largest corporations with unlimited funds for corporate lawyers. However, she intends to file a motion for reconsideration and to appeal this decision, mainly because nobody else is taking any action on behalf of consumers.
Most consumer attorneys have a working relationship with the creditors and credit bureaus who write their settlement checks. Often the attorneys’ fees are larger than the consumers’ checks and the attorneys encourage their clients to sign settlement agreements with confidentiality clauses, thereby ensuring that illegal practices are not exposed and repeat business is assured.
Legislators, regulators and the so-called consumer “advocate” attorneys have known for many years that the failure to report the credit limits causes enormous harm to many millions of consumers.
In 2003, Ms. Baker sued the FTC, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Capital One’s regulator) and its Senior Vice President and General Counsel James McAfee in Phoenix Federal Court, case CIV-03-525-RCB, after they refused to act on her complaints and they did nothing to enforce the FCRA. Of course they were all dismissed, but the point of naming them as defendants was to document that they are fully aware of this problem and that they continue to protect the bankers’ profits.
Why does the American government allow the exploitation of the disadvantaged and not one legislator stands up against the banks?
The media also greatly disappointed Ms. Baker. After wasting many hours on interviews, explaining the calculations and the devastating effect of the missing credit limits, nothing of substance was ever published and Ms. Baker no longer grants interviews. While the reporters appeared sincere, apparently the editors refused to print anything that could negatively impact on their advertisers and one reporter claimed that the calculations are too complicated.
The corruption of the American media, legislators, regulators and the legal system exceeds Ms. Baker’s worst expectations. She tries to distance herself emotionally from the litigation by focusing on documenting and publicizing her legal ventures so that other consumer litigants can learn from her mistakes and will hopefully be more successful.
Any punitive damage awards will be donated to an organization dedicated to truly representing consumers. Nobody should ever have to go to court pro se, but fewer than 1% of consumers with serious credit reporting problems can find an attorney. Ms. Baker has only about $15,000 for legal expenses, not enough to retain a competent consumer attorney in Arizona.
Ms. Baker is convinced that a consumer organization with a few staff attorneys could be entirely self sufficient and help many thousands of consumers who have their credit destroyed by incorrect or incomplete reporting as well as home owners in foreclosure despite having made all payments, as outlined at http://fight-back.us/forum/index.php?showtopic=931
The main problem is finding attorneys willing to work for consumers. Ms. Baker welcomes inquiries from interested attorneys or law students.
More information about credit litigation, reporting and FICO credit scores is at Ms. Baker’s web sites http://creditsuit.org/, http://fight-back.us/forum/ and http://creditfactors.com/
###
|
