HSBC Watch News Release Forum Index
Forum Name: - Opinions
Topic Title: Contemptable, vindictive, and punitive
Sun Aug 08, 2004 7:15 am
In June 2003, HRS sent a monthly statement to a temporary Hawaii address that I use from January-May each year. Neither the bill nor any of the subsequent communications were forwarded to me. When I arrive in January 2004, I discovered the bill, penalties, and referral to a collection agency awaiting me. The account was paid in full the next morning.
HRS said they would advise the Credit Agencies, but as I discovered in June, they did not advise TransUnion. The matter was ultimately amended on the report, but HRS continued to insist that the report contain detrimental information ("payment after charge off/collection"--which still hurt my credit score).
On several occasions, I appealed to HRS, and indicated that I could provide corroborative witnesses/evidence to document that I was unaware of the bill, but all I received were form letters saying they would notify the credit agencies of payment. Finally, TransUnion initiated a request to HRS that they drop the statement (at my request), but HRS refused to do so.
Consequently, after an excellent payment history with the HRS account (6 years), they persevere in penalizing me for a "one-time failure to pay for a bill that I did not know existed."
I was under the impression that credit reports reflect a person's ability to handle financial acounts in a responsible manner. I have always been proud of my record in this area. The fact that HRS has chosen to ignore that there were documented grounds to show that this situation was an exceptional incident beyond my control, suggests that HRS has no interest in truth or accuracy in their credit reporting.
Consequently, I believe that their behavior is contemptable, vindictive, and punitive in nature.
Tue Aug 10, 2004 9:20 pm
Not only are your comments uninformed, but possibly slanderous as well.
Creditors can not control what is in your credit your report - it is entirely the responsibility of the CBA. Also the CBA cannot just delete a late payment off your record.
The facts are - as you admitted them - you paid the account in full after it was sent to collections. That is exactly how it is being reported by the CBA (TransUnion). It is not a creditor's fault that you failed to fulfill your obligation of repaying your loan. Failure to receive a bill does not mean you don't have to pay it for that month. Did you think the merchant just liked you and decided to forgive the loan?
You cannot blame anyone in this situation but yourself. If people have a legitimate problem with HRS or any other merchant that is fine. But don't *beep* just because you can.
Wed Aug 11, 2004 7:07 pm
Uninformed? The proper term would be libel, and neither apply here. The individual has first hand knowledge of a company through dealings with said company, and is free to express those opinions.
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message.
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression.
Libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort of making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation. When the communication is in writing, it is termed "libel". If made via the spoken word, the correct term is "slander". Both acts share a common legal history, although they may be treated differently under modern legal systems. The statement need not be derogatory in itself to be actionable, as where it constitutes invasion of privacy or portrays the person in a false light, as by calling a prominent Democrat a Republican.
Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:13 pm
ok - i'm not anywhere near a lawyer and i didn't intend to make the person feel as though they may be sued. But, As you could write several paragraphs on the difference between slander & libel, you failed to make any argument that the consumer was the one in error, not the merchant.
The consumer admittedly failed to make payments in a timely manner and it was relfected upon his/her credit report correctly.
We monitor customer trends for possible violations of Regulation Z and other possible illegal actions.