Consumer sues Bank One/First USA for Deliberate Violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act


http://emediawire.com/releases/2004/3/emw113432.htm
After numerous disputes with the credit bureaus, creditors and even
complaints with the OCC, Randolph Foster learned that Bank One (First USA)
intentionally reported extremely damaging incorrect data to the credit
bureaus and accessed his credit files without his permission in violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA.)

(PRWEB) March 25, 2004 -- Mr. Foster had discharged his debts through a Ch.
7 bankruptcy in 1999, but several creditors failed to update their credit
reporting to delete the discharged balances. They also did not report the
accounts as discharged, as required by the FCRA. Fair Isaac's FICO credit
scores are utilized in over 75% of all credit decisions and the scoring
software includes those incorrect balances in the score calculations.

Bank One reported a fictitious balance for the discharged account, resulting
in a dismal 623 FICO credit score. When they finally corrected the balance
and status, Bank One re-aged the First USA account. In November 2003, they
reported the incorrect Date of Last Activity of "03/2003."

The resulting FICO score was only 664, 5 years after the bankruptcy and
despite Mr. Foster's excellent credit history and no new derogatory
accounts. The FICO scores rated the account as a default in 3/03 instead of
1999, severely lowering the score.

Christine Baker publishes several credit related web sites including the
blog about her own suit at http://www.creditsuit.org/ and she spent several
years researching credit scoring and reporting. She reviewed Mr. Foster's
many futile disputes and encouraged him to file suit.

In February 2004 Ms. Baker reviewed a Trans Union credit report with a 726
FICO score only 2 years after the bankruptcy filing. Recently she posted her
affidavit in support of damages due to incorrect credit reporting after
bankruptcy at http://www.creditcourt.org/bk-affidavit.htm for use by
consumers.

Low FICO scores not only cause credit declines and higher interest rates,
but also often result in higher auto and homeowners insurance premiums.

Mr. Foster filed his suit on November 12, 2003 against the credit bureaus
Experian, Equifax and Trans Union and several former creditors in
Pittsburgh, PA, federal court, case # 03-1729. Mr. Foster is representing
himself and he recently settled with all defendants except Bank One.

To date, the Bank One legal team at Reed Smith LLP denies any wrong doing
and Mr. Foster publishes the events and even court filings at his web blog
at http://firstusa-credit-suit.us/ and at the CreditCourt forum.

Bank One submitted several motions to compel binding arbitration. Most
contracts require disputes to be resolved through arbitration not only
because arbitration is more complicated and more expensive than filing a law
suit, but it is SECRET. While there is nothing wrong with mediation and
trying to resolve disputes outside court, the binding arbitration clause
effectively deprives consumers of their right to a public trial and a jury
of their peers.

Bank One had acquired one of the accounts after it was closed and Judge
Schwab apparently agreed that the arbitration clause was not enforceable as
Mr. Foster had not used this account since Bank One owned it. He ordered on
March 18, 2004 that the FCRA violations pertaining to the other account are
to be arbitrated. Mr. Foster now has to attend to two simultaneous
proceedings in court and in arbitration.

Most likely, Bank One already spent more on legal fees for their many
motions and Mr. Foster's deposition than the $25,000 he demanded to settle
the case. Money is apparently not the issue for Bank One. They are
determined to defend their perceived right to report INCORRECT and
INCOMPLETE data to the credit bureaus.

To date, Bank One has denied any wrong doing and reports discharged accounts
as charge-offs and often with balances as a matter of policy.

Is Bank One retaliating against consumers who discharged their debts? Or are
they part of the organized effort by the credit bureaus, Fair Isaac and
Capital One Bank to artificially lower the credit scores of a large
percentage of Americans through incomplete and incorrect credit reporting?

For additional information and documentation please contact Christine Baker,
visit Mr. Foster's blog at http://firstusa-credit-suit.us/ and review the
scans of the incorrect credit reporting and the OCC communication at
http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/14/14.html.

About Christine Baker
Christine Baker maintains the web sites at http://bayhouse.com,
http://creditforum.org/, http://creditcourt.org/ and
http://creditfactors.com/. The blog about her federal suit against the CRAs,
creditors and collectors as well as the FTC, FCC and the Federal Reserve
Bank of Richmond for refusing to enforce consumer protection legislation is
published at http://creditsuit.org/.

Mr. Foster may be contacted at bandoracer@comcast.net.

Attorneys for Bank One:
Perry A. Napolitano
John M. McIntyre
Jayme Butcher
Reed Smith LLP
Tel: (412) 288-3131
Fax: (412) 288-3063

I gave this response (see below) to a different question but it also applies in this case. When Bank One corrected the information on the credit report, the credit BUREAU changes the date on the report. It is the date of the last activity on the account. If they had not contacted the bureaus to update the information, the date would have remained behind the date of the discharge of the bankruptcy and would not have affected the score.
When a creditor is (manually) reviewing a potential customer's credit information, they consider (if they are doing it right) the date the account was opened, not just the last date of activity. If they see that the original date was prior to a bankruptcy, they should assume it was included in the bankruptcy but may require evidence (such as your bankruptcy papers) to support this assumption. If a credit report is being reviewed by a creditor's computer, it may not read it correctly.

This is what I wrote earlier:
When you pay off a charged off debt and then report it to the credit bureau, it updates the date the account in question was reviewed. This is not the original date of the charge off but rather the last date that the information was confirmed or updated.
A lot of people have the misconception that paying off debt and then REPORTING it to the credit bureaus will increase their score but in fact it initially lowers it. Since the "last reviewed" date is now more recent, their scoring system reads it as a recent derogatory which lowers your score. It will eventually go back up but it will take some time.
It is always best to pay off your debt, but do not report it on your own to the credit bureaus. It is better for you to simply hang on to the evidence that the account was paid off until it drops off of your report in the event you need to show the account has been paid. This will not stop the collection company or the creditor from reporting it themselves, but they typically do not.

PS: I do not now, nor have I ever, worked for Bank One. I have been in the mortgage business for 10 years and have learned how the credit bureaus work in order to help customers with damaged reports.