Little Guy Wins Against Hone Depot

Page 4 of 4  
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

With some very limited exceptions - which are not even exceptions since the areas in question simply never had anything in the first place - this statement is just flatly not true. It's a common bitch point that people like to throw around but it is wholy unsubstantiated and flies squarely in the face of the business practices and preferences of the competitors of retailers like HD.

This is true but only to a point. I have worked with the large credit reporting agencies for a lot of years and they do know their business. To a scarey level. They can tell you more about yourself and your tendencies than you'd really like to know. But... as accurate as their practices are with respect to your buying habits, they do not take into adequate consideration such factors as identity theft. It's a fairly recent development in our society and the credit industry is way behind the bad guys when it comes to understanding all there is to understand about this new cancer. So yes, though it is a perfectly valid part of the evaluation process, it is not a perfectly accurate part of the process. What makes it really bad is that it is the credit agencies themselves who are largely responsible for the access to your private information.
I'm not one who likes to advocate government involvement in anything (talk about screwing up what ever they touch...), but this is an industry area that needs some immediate focus and correction from some outside source. The credit agencies have had people by the short and curlies for decades and have had a free hand in effecting your life. They have been incorrect enough times to be more than just a nusance and they are very difficult to work with. All responsibility for errors in reporting falls on the shoulders of the consumer - the victim. I do advocate that the time has well come to institute some sort of liability on the companies so that people's lives are taken more seriously by them. Perhaps what's going on now will lead to an increase in responsibility and liability for the credit agencies.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interesting claim. If they offered "much better service, selection, product knowledge and comparable prices", how did the borg run them out of business? There must be some pretty stupid consumers where you live. Most that I know around here shop the Borg for price, selection (breadth, not depth) and convenience. If they had an alternative offering "much better service, selection, product knowledge and comparable prices", those alternatives would be thriving. In fact, around here, the stores run out of business were the home improvement centers (names long since forgotten) that the Borg beat in each of those categories. There has been some turnover in traditional hardware stores, and no new ones opening. But they are not all disappearing.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm sure the credit bureaus have statistics that show that persons who apply for credit without taking advantage of it are poorer credit risks than someone who has fewer credit inquiries.
Credit bureaus don't just lower credit scores for the heck of it. The credit bureau's customers (banks and finance companies) want to loan out money so they make money. Banks don't want to turn down perfectly good customers because the credit bureau screwed up.
Brian Elfert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Elfert wrote:

...
Well, personally I think the major problem isn't w/ the bureaus so much as the credit card companys that use the credit reports to manipulate their rates in favorable (to them) manners. While it is true that there may be increased risk, most of these increases are far beyond what would be required and are simply usurious. The key to observing this is to see the number of unsolicited cards particularly to those w/ poor credit history.
While I'll agree it is the ultimate responsibility of the person accepting credit to ensure they're not ripped off, many of the card companies are highly culpable in enticement and entrapment, imo, preying on uneducated and disadvantaged and elderly. I'd be for much stronger usury rules, personally.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

One reason is that the "Fair Credit Reporting Act" makes it impossible to obtain redress against a credit bureau unless you can prove it intentionally & maliciously tried to damage you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is not correct.
The FCRA provides for penalties in the case of "willful noncompliance" (Section 616) and "negligent noncompliance" (Section 617)
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#616 http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#617
and sets those sections out as _specific_exceptions_ to the "malice or willful intent" provision of Section 610(e):
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#610
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:08:01 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Section 610 gives immunity to "any consumer reporting agency, any user of information, or any person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency," etc, while 616 and 617 appear to make specific exceptions for "persons" only, so that seems to let the brueaus of the hook, no ? Or does "person" in this case also apply to corporations (since there is also a reference to "natural person").
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As I understand it, unless otherwise qualified, the word "person" in legal documents is typically used to mean either a "corporate person" (i.e. a business, group, organization, partnership, etc) or an individual (a "natural person"). However, I am not a lawyer, so take that with a grain of salt. :-)
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.