Little Guy Wins Against Hone Depot

So now we require companies to also do detective work? Companies
resposible for stolen identities? Aren't we going overboard here?



Lee Michaels wrote:
> "John T" > wrote
>
> > "only avaible to registered members".
> >
> > Give us a summary, please?
> >
>
> Credit Scam Victim Nails Home Depot
>
> Man whose identity- theft complaints were ignored wins a $1-million
> judgment.
>
> By David Haldane
> Times Staff Writer
>
> February 19, 2005
>
> Home Depot ignored Alan R. Sporn for almost two years, but a
$1-million
> court judgment got the company's attention.
>
> The Laguna Hills businessman had his Social Security number stolen,
which
> ended up in a dozen requests for Home Depot credit.
>
> The fiasco hurt Sporn's credit rating, but the home improvement giant
that
> prides itself in customer service brushed off his concerns - until he
filed
> a lawsuit, won and then tried to collect the money from a company
bank
> account.
>
> Then, Home Depot decided to act. It appealed the case, but this week
an
> appellate court in Santa Ana sided with Sporn.
>
> On Friday, the victor and his lawyer were celebrating with a bit of
humor.
> The pair joked they might just show up at one of the company's
Southern
> California stores to conduct a yard sale.
>
> "I want to sell everything for a dollar," quipped Steve Young,
Sporn's
> attorney. "I imagine the John Deere tractors will be the first to
go."
>
> "I feel vindicated," Sporn, 52, said of his nearly 3-year effort to
get Home
> Depot to respond. "They're such a huge corporation and we are just
little
> people."
>
> In a brief written statement, the Atlanta-based company said that it
was
> "disappointed in the decision . and respectfully disagrees with the
> conclusions of the court."
>
> Sporn's problems began in early 2002 when he was turned down for a
> low-interest loan to refinance his Laguna Hills home. Trying to find
out
> why, he learned that Home Depot had submitted inquiries to credit
agencies
> regarding Sporn's creditworthiness at least a dozen times over the
previous
> year.
>
> Such inquiries - especially when submitted in large numbers - lower
one's
> credit rating.
>
> "I didn't even have a credit card with Home Depot," Sporn said in a
> telephone interview Friday. Except for buying "the occasional garden
hose or
> lightbulb," he doesn't even shop there often, he said.
>
> When he asked the company's financial department why it was pulling
his
> credit reports, he was told that somebody in Virginia was using his
Social
> Security number to apply for credit, Sporn said.
>
> But Home Depot would not tell him who the culprit was. And when he
sent the
> company a certified letter asking it to stop checking his credit
rating, he
> got no response.
>
> Finally, in September 2002, Sporn filed a lawsuit demanding
compensation for
> the financial damages he says he incurred. The company continued to
ignore
> him, he says. He told Home Depot he was seeking a default judgment.
Still no
> response, he says.Nine months later, in July 2003, with nary a word
from
> Home Depot, a Santa Ana judge awarded Sporn about $930,000 in
damages.
>
> The judge ruled that Sporn suffered losses when he was forced to pay
a
> higher interest rate on his home loan and because his damaged credit
rating
> hurt his business reputation.
>
> The court also ruled that Sporn was entitled to a 10% annual interest
rate
> and other collection expenses if Home Depot continued to delay
payment.
> Sporn and his attorney estimate the current amount at $1.15 million.
>
> Home Depot didn't show up for the court hearings, they say.
>
> "After we got the judgment," said Young, the attorney, "we waited
another
> seven months expecting that they would do something. Frankly, we just
wanted
> their attention so they would clean this up."
>
> So last February, Sporn and Young contacted the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's
> Department, which sent deputies to the bank that handles Home Depot's

> payroll accounts - a Wells Fargo branch in Los Angeles - with a court
order.
>
> They didn't get any money, but they did get Home Depot's attention.
"They
> started a paper flurry that you wouldn't believe," Young said.
>
> In its appeal, the company accused Sporn of being underhanded. Home
Depot
> said in its filings that Sporn "obtained by stealth" the "excessive"
default
> judgment, which the company discovered only when Sporn "began
enforcement
> efforts after laying in the weeds for many months."
>
> In its ruling - published Wednesday - the 4th District Court of
Appeal
> disagreed.
>
> The court scolded the company for seeking "to escape the results of
its own
> carelessness."
>
> "An obvious gap appears in the evidence," acting presiding judge
William F.
> Rylaarsdam wrote.
>
> "There is no statement that the [court papers sent to Home Depot]
were lost,
> stolen, forwarded to the wrong person, or eaten by the dog."
>
> Richard S. Ruben, an Orange County-based attorney for Home Depot,
declined
> to comment on the case, saying that he had not had a chance to read
the
> appellate court's ruling.
>
> The company said it was reviewing its options to appeal the decision.
>
> But Sporn and Young said they were overjoyed.
>
> "A corporation," Young said, "doesn't have skin and blood - the only
way you
> get their attention is with the sting of the dollar."
>
> *
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Times staff writer Dan Weikel contributed to this report.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>
> It stated he had to pay a higher interest rate on his mortgage. He
> obviously has a hassle with the paperwork and repeated call to HD.
That
> does not add up to a million bucks, IMO.

Non Sequitor. To be effective, punitive dmages must be high enough
to disabuse the malefactor from a repetition of the tort. Otherwise
it may be cheaper to absord the suits as a cost of doing business and
continue to ruin the credit ratings of numerous other persons many
of whom will never find out why.

--

FF

> things I didn't even know were there while I was at it. This whole
> thing just smacks of the philosophy of trying to become a lawsuit
> millionaire because of a small problem.

Hear hear!

I guess will just have to disagree. The responsibility is not Home
Depot's. I'm betting they did what virtually every comapny would do.
Just 'cause it's the computer age, it doesn't shift the responsibility.
It's more likely to be the credit beareau or credit agency that should
have handled this.

It's sickening the way people go after deep pockets.

I can understand the hostility towards HD. When the tires on my new
garden cart went flat seven times in three weeks, their corporate
office wrote to me with, "You are abusing this cart by not using it on
level pavement."

The first tire went flat before I unloaded it from my truck. This cart
was sold by a store in Hendersonville, NC...at 2100 feet above sea
level. Has anyone here ever tried to grow vegetables in level pavement?
I can't get my Troy-built to bust it up!

Bill in WNC mountains

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:36:59 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> John <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I think the point is that ONCE someone notifies a corporate entity
>> that attempted identity thieft is happening with credit apps to THEIR
>> store, that they should have 1 - Acknowledge the notification and 2-
>> Put that SS number on a black list and not accepted NOR tried to
>> process any apps with that SS number
>>
>> No one is asking the corporate entity to do detective work, but they
>> SHOULD not ignore folks reporting this kind of stuff, apparently
>> repeatedly reporting it.
>
> My wife had her SS# stolen a couple years back. The only way we found
> out was when a collections bill arrived from a delinquent Cingular
> Wireless account - owing $2200. We eventually got it straightened out
> after 4 months of back and forth letter writing, phone calls and
> affidavits - in addition to the fact that Cingular didn't provide
> service to our home state at that time. Whew. Notified the credit
> bureaus and they put a notice on her reports. (Little did we know those
> notices expire after 3, 6 or whatever months and are removed.)
>
> Eight months later another collections bill arrives for $1200 from a
> delinquent account with... Cingular Wireless. I was livid. I wrote a
> scathing letter to the person who was our contact the first go'round,
> questioning how a company could be so inept and irresponsible as to
> allow non-paying accounts to rack up $2200 and $1200 in charges as well
> as opening a second account with the same SS# as proved to be fraudulent
> within the past year? It took another several months to get it solved
> yet again. (Note: send copies of everything to your state's attorney
> general/consumer fraud dept as well as the US Govt's consumer fraud
> division.)
>
> Quite frankly, I don't think the companies really do care. They have
> fraud and theft factored into their rates and costs. So 1 out of 100
> credit or service applications prove to be fraud... to them it's just a
> write-off on the balance sheet. To the citizen affected, it's a source
> of anxiety and stress, costing much time and effort to get their name
> cleared. Whether or not Cingular is responsible in anyway, they
> certainly have no warm spot in our hearts. If they had headed this off
> in the second instance I'd not have such animosity towards the company.


Any company can prevent a second account being opened with the same SS# by
not allowing a second account with the same SS#. A simple search of their
data base when a new account is opened is all that is required. The
software is available to do this. As implied, a lot of companies could
care less what happens to a persons credit rating. They feel it is up to
the person involved to straighten things out, not them. I feel that there
needs to be more companies lossing court cases before things will change.

P.T.

John Flatley wrote:
> --
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Home Depot isn't called the BORG for nothing. One big reason for
the
> > hostility towards Home Depot is that when they show up, many other
> superior
> > businesses go under. Go elsewhere?? What planet do you live on?
With
> Home
> > Depot and Lowes around, there is almost no place else to go.
>
> Folks are getting what they want. There are enough customers who
spend
> money to keep the 'BORGs' in business. Maybe you and me and some
others are
> not in that customer group. How many times have you seen posters in
the
> newsgroup asking where is the cheapest place to buy or the lowest
price for
> a DeWaukee Sandrill LathSaw?
>
> There is a very strong market for low price. I'm sure you found this
in
> your business research. Home Depot and Lowe's (Wal-Mart, Target,
etc.) are
> competing mainly on low price and location. They are serving their
market
> segment. I wish they would/could serve a market segment that I am
in.
>
> Go elsewhere? I do. For general hardware I go to Ace. If I'm
painting, I
> shop Sherwin Williams or Benjamin Moore. For Kitchen cabinets I went
to a
> cabinet shop. For kitchen appliances, we went to a kitchen appliance
> dealer. When we re-did our kitchen floor, we went to a tile outlet.
I used
> to drive 120 miles to go to a Woodcraft. Now we have one in town and
it's
> just 15 miles away. I also buy from Lee Valley, Amazon (Tool Crib of
The
> North), Rockler, Highland Hardware and others by mail or Internet.
There
> are choices. My wife and I are retired and we have to watch every
penny.
> With a fixed income, I can't afford to buy cheap stuff. I learned a
long
> time ago the cheapest or most expensive is seldom the best buy.


The plaintiff did shop elsewhere. Someone else was using his SS at the
BORG.


>
> Maybe my point should be: Don't expect the 'BORGs' to be something
they are
> not. We should understand who and what they are and use their
service as we
> want.

The BORG was making the credit inquiries. They should be responsible
for their own actions.


>
> The original poster that started this thread was pleased that Home
Depot was
> being penalized. I believe the plantiff in the case shoould have
gone after
> the thief for stealing his identity or gone after the credit bureau
that
> counts an inquiry as a debt for credit worthiness assessments.
>


The plaintiff did try that route. The BORG however would not provide
him with the details of the credit inquiries they were making.



> I mentioned to my wife; "I don't expect very much from Home Depot, so
I'm
> seldom disappointed."
>

Well, I bet you would be very disappointed if the BORG started issuing
credit to other people under your SS number.


> Jack
>
> (In the interest of a fair and accurate opinion I must add that my
wife
> prefers the paint and color selection at Lowe's. Since she does most
of the
> interior painting, it is her call. Sorry Sherwin. Sorry Benjamin.)

Wow. All these responses spewing venim toward Home Depot and other
companies. The venim should be reserved for the thief that stole the
identity! Everybody wants payment for their losses and they want the
deepest pockets around to pay.


Secondly, some lage companies have databases. Others do not. So shall
we get mad at those that do have databases and don't use them as we
think fit and be kind to those that don't?

I detest this railing against "big companies." I recall a time before
Home Depot. Home Depot has made life better, not worse.

Granted, the companies could do a better job and will in the
future....when the software engineers are paid to write the checks into
the databaes and the companines can afford the "new features." However
to sue the pants off the companies in the hopes of beign a catylsy for
such changes is just wrong. In some cases, not necessarily the one
discussed in this thread, the individual who lost his identity should
get a kick in the butt because he/she was so stupid for being careless
with his/her identity.

I pulled a copy of the Appellate court's opinion and read it, and the
fact is I think we all have to understand that consumer credit is
handed out blithely by retail big box outfits like HD, which
subcontract the credit extension and approval process to folks like GE
Capital (as in this case) to manage the credit process. HD outsourced
and promptly forgot about the process, and forwarded everything over to
GE to handle, 'cept in this case the lawsuit fell into some fine print
in the GE contract which likely said "this is your issue, HD." So it
got lost in the shuffle, little guy gets a judgment, and the "cost" is
not really one of lawsuit defense, but one of "outsourcing" to people
who don't give a sh*t about the HD customer, e.g., GE Capital (who IMHO
are some of the slickest characters out there and cut really sharp,
perhaps too sharp, business deals). If its not in the contract, GE
doesn't do it and doesn't tell you they aren't doing it. So the long
and the short of it is that the guy at HD who outsourced this function
then "forgot" about it ("Hey, GE will take care of it, not to worry")
is the guy who should be fired, and yes, they are lucky this was not
filed as a class action. Its a bigger problem of granting credit too
freely, and not paying attention to your business once its outsourced,
and HD is paying the price for poor management, simple as that.

Mutt

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Scrub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 21 Feb 2005 10:35:31 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Non Sequitor. To be effective, punitive dmages must be high enough
> >>to disabuse the malefactor from a repetition of the tort.
> >
> > What he said.....so eloquently.
>
> But punishing a corporation does not necessarily have to be a big
windfall
> for the person that was hurt. Sure, he should be well compensated.

You'd think so. I used to. Assuming as I do that jealousy is NOT
your motivation to object, the obvious objection is that the
possibility
of large punitives may encourage more suits than are 'necessary'.

The obvious solution is to not grant large punitives when they are
not necessary and indeed, juries and judges tend not to grant
grant large punitives unless the plaintiff shows that the defendant
has been ignoring previous smaller judgements. Some lawyers call
this the 'every dog gets one bite' principle.

The cases you hear about in the news that sound absurd usually
sound that way because they are being misreported, or if they
really are absued, because they are exceptional, not what ord-
inarily happens.

> Want to
> hurt a big store like HD? Make them close on a Sunday and lose
sales to
> the competition. Make them take full page ads in magazines telling
what
> they did wrong. Let the world know, not just a few people and the
lawyers
> get rich.

The problem with alternatives to punitives other than monetary awards
to the plaintiff is that they inevitable benifit others who

1) typically have done nothing at all to earn the benefit, at least
the plaintiff did the work necessary to obtain the judgement.
In the instant case this would be HD's competitors.

and

2) by realizing a benefit now have a motive to encourage or facilitate
such suits. This is potentially a problem if the beneficiary of the
punitives is, for example, the government. As you will recall there
was a time when property was confiscated from convicted witches.
That property went the king. Since the king was just we may be
assured that only persons who really were witches were convicted,
right?

Finally, a settlement may entail the defendant being ordered to do
something, in addition to just paying the plaintiff. This is
particularly in the settlement of the much maligned class-action
lawsuits.

--

FF

Tim Douglass wrote:
>
> ... I would suggest that punitive damages be
> treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the
> lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a
> lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make
> sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain
> procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages,
> since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.

I used to think that too. Then it was pointed out to me that if
the government is deriving revenue from punitives the government
has a strong financial motive to make it easier to obtain punitives.

Also, injunctive relief, IS pretty common, especially in class-action
lawsuits.

--

FF

Lee Michaels wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> >
> > I used to think that too. Then it was pointed out to me that if
> > the government is deriving revenue from punitives the government
> > has a strong financial motive to make it easier to obtain
punitives.
> >
> Just look at all the "civil forfeitures" that are taking place with
many
> police departments in the so called "drug war".

In some cases criminal charges are dropped in exchange for an
agreement to not contest the forfeiture. The distinction between
this and granting a license to break the law is somewhat difficult
to articulate.

--

FF

Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

> Quite frankly, I don't think the companies really do care. They have
> fraud and theft factored into their rates and costs. So 1 out of 100
> credit or service applications prove to be fraud... to them it's just
a
> write-off on the balance sheet. To the citizen affected, it's a
source
> of anxiety and stress, costing much time and effort to get their name

> cleared. Whether or not Cingular is responsible in anyway, they
> certainly have no warm spot in our hearts. If they had headed this
off
> in the second instance I'd not have such animosity towards the
company.

I disagree about it being "just a write-off to the balance sheet." The
money lost is a real cash outflow. While they expect losses, the fewer
they have, the better off they are. More cash and more profits. Plus,
in a competitive environment they can either reduce fees and attract
more customers and make even more profits or keep fees in line with
their competitors (who experience higher loss rates) and make even more
profits. Either way, there is an incentive for companies that grant
credit to consumers to reduce losses.

The problem is that the losses are the result of companies such as home
depot who somehow seem to be able to offer credit but don't have to pay
the price of their own carelessness.

Tim Douglass wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2005 12:56:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >I used to think that too. Then it was pointed out to me that if
> >the government is deriving revenue from punitives the government
> >has a strong financial motive to make it easier to obtain punitives.
>
> Which differers in no major way from the situation now where lawyers
> benefit from the results of laws that are made by elected
> representative who are mostly lawyers.
>

Oh come on now. It is the government that defines torts,
sets standards of evidence, establishes statutory damages
and so on. That is a heaping big difference from the attorneys
who may merely lobby for such things. Perhaps you missed the
witch example?

> The point has some merit, but since the cost of arguing for a
punitive
> award would be borne by the plaintiff, but they wouldn't see any
> direct benefit from it, I suspect the effect would be a net positive.
>

How would it be a net positive to reduce suits for punitive damages?

Consider a suit for a low=balled insurance claim. Wyy would anyone
sue for punitives they won't get, and therefor why would any insurance
claim NOT lowball the claims and settle out-of court for a fair
amount ONLY with those who sue?

--

FF

Of course we should sue the life out of GE capital so that HD will have
to use an Indian or Chinese company who will care even less about the
consumer.

I disagree that HD is paying the price for poor management. They are
paying (mostly) punitive damages because they have deep pockets. There
is nothing wrong with outsourcing. I outsource my lawn mowing, my car
repairs, my garbage pickup.

I hope HD's response os to stop taking credit altogether! To just say
screw it! But, of course, there's too much money involved and I ain't
King.

The reason GE cuts really sharp deals is that there are too many folks
out there itching to sue somebody and essentially "win lotto." Too many
jurors that are pre-disposed to hate the "big multi-national". Too many
judges that think they need to punish the evil capitalistic pigs. And
so it becomes a componet of why our companies are outsourcing to Indian
and China.

HD lucky it was filed as a class action. No the public is lucky --
that's who ultimately pays the bill.


Mutt wrote:
> I pulled a copy of the Appellate court's opinion and read it, and the
> fact is I think we all have to understand that consumer credit is
> handed out blithely by retail big box outfits like HD, which
> subcontract the credit extension and approval process to folks like
GE
> Capital (as in this case) to manage the credit process. HD
outsourced
> and promptly forgot about the process, and forwarded everything over
to
> GE to handle, 'cept in this case the lawsuit fell into some fine
print
> in the GE contract which likely said "this is your issue, HD." So it
> got lost in the shuffle, little guy gets a judgment, and the "cost"
is
> not really one of lawsuit defense, but one of "outsourcing" to people
> who don't give a sh*t about the HD customer, e.g., GE Capital (who
IMHO
> are some of the slickest characters out there and cut really sharp,
> perhaps too sharp, business deals). If its not in the contract, GE
> doesn't do it and doesn't tell you they aren't doing it. So the long
> and the short of it is that the guy at HD who outsourced this
function
> then "forgot" about it ("Hey, GE will take care of it, not to worry")
> is the guy who should be fired, and yes, they are lucky this was not
> filed as a class action. Its a bigger problem of granting credit too
> freely, and not paying attention to your business once its
outsourced,
> and HD is paying the price for poor management, simple as that.
>
> Mutt

You can outsource, but have to supervise what is being done in your
name. If the garbage company spilled your garbage in the street and it
blew on neighbor's property, you'd more than likely pick it up and then
call the garbage company to complain. If the lawn service insisted on
cutting the lawn while your children or grandchildren were playing
kickball on the lawn, you'd likely get the kids off the lawn or tell
the mower guy to cut it later. That's my point. You can't avoid
liability by simply outsourcing.

By the way, I wonder how you, me, or for that matter, anyone else would
feel about having your credit trashed by repetitive credit checks
fraudulently submitted over and over after you brought the situation to
the credit card company and they refused to even consider what they
might do to make it right. This guy was not trying to win the "lotto"
- he just wanted to clear his good name after having done absolutely
nothing wrong. I don't see anything sinister, greedy or litigious
about that. HD simply ignored the guy's calls, ignored his lawsuit,
ignored the judgment and in the end has to sleep in the bed they made
for themselves.

Everybody blames those who simply enforce the law, which has been
around for a long time and at it's base is designed to protect people
from the wrongs of others. The problem is not judges, juries or
litigants, its just that nowadays corporate america too often wants to
ignore owning up to their responsibilities when their actions directly
affect someone else. Then they hire corporate spin doctors to make
themselves out to be the victims. Reminds me of this totally obscene
medical malpractice insurance debate, which has nothing to do with jury
verdicts and a whole lot more to do with the insurance companies's
mismanagement of their investment portfolios, and if the yield isn't
there to generate profits then they raise the premiums. So, we limit
recovery for med-mal plaintiffs - tell that to the brain damaged guy
with 4 kids who went in for elective surgery and the anethesia went
bad. Oh, gee, I forgot, his family can go on welfare! But that's
another debate and entirely symptomatic of the weak minded (or on the
take) politicians who happen to be in control of the country right now.

<spleen now fully vented - time to return to making my cherry chairside
chest>

Mutt

CW <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm going to register to see something that is probably a lame story.
> Yeah...right.


http://www.bugmenot.com

A great place to get bogus log-in names and passwords. You can't get
one for every site, but many newspapers are listed. All you do is enter
the URL for the site, and if the site is listed, it comes back with
log-in name and password.


Joe

aka 10x

"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Punitive damages are one of the most ridiculous things in our legal
> system. They are intended to function as a fine, forcing a change in
> behavior, but they have become nothing more than another enriching
> option for the lawyers. I would suggest that punitive damages be
> treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the
> lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a
> lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make
> sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain
> procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages,
> since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.
>

Your proposal Tim, leaves out the valid restitution to the victim. No way I
would consider that fair and equitable.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:13:05 -0500, "John Flatley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>The article does not contain a single word criticizing the credit bureaus
>that award credit scores on the number of inquirers rather than on a
>person's financial obligations. Why hasn't someone taken them to court?


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.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:54:03 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-homedepot19feb19,1,122151.story?coll=la-news-state&ctrack=2&cset=true
>

I always have to wonder in stories like this just how hard the person
tried to resolve the problem before resorting to court. He wrote a
letter, but did he follow up with a phone call to the HD credit
department? Home Depot didn't respond to a lawsuit that was filed? I
find that hard to believe unless the papers were served on HD by
taking them to the local Borg and handing them to a sales clerk. I
wouldn't be surprised if the lawyer did something like that just to
try to ensure that they didn't make it to court.

I don't think HD should be absolved of all responsibility, but almost
a million bucks is pretty extreme unless he can demonstrate
*intentional* damage and not just incompetence.

There are a lot of holes in the story. Was credit issued based on any
of the fraudulent applications? Did the credit checks reveal them to
be fraudulent? How much effort did he put into cleaning his credit
rating when he discovered the problem?

I played a similar game a couple years ago after a stolen credit card.
A few hours on the phone ended up resolving everything with no
permanent impact on my credit rating - in fact I cleaned up a couple
things I didn't even know were there while I was at it. This whole
thing just smacks of the philosophy of trying to become a lawsuit
millionaire because of a small problem.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Brian Elfert wrote:
>
...
> 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.
>

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.

"John Flatley" <[email protected]> writes:

>The article does not contain a single word criticizing the credit bureaus
>that award credit scores on the number of inquirers rather than on a
>person's financial obligations. Why hasn't someone taken them to court?

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

"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:47:50 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>
> >> Punitive damages are one of the most ridiculous things in our legal
> >> system. They are intended to function as a fine, forcing a change in
> >> behavior, but they have become nothing more than another enriching
> >> option for the lawyers. I would suggest that punitive damages be
> >> treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the
> >> lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a
> >> lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make
> >> sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain
> >> procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages,
> >> since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.
> >>
> >
> >Your proposal Tim, leaves out the valid restitution to the victim. No
way I
> >would consider that fair and equitable.
>
> Restitution for loss is always valid and obviously should remain
> unchanged. The subject of my comments was punitive damages, which are
> unrelated to any real loss but are directly tied to the amount of cash
> the defendant has.
>

I understand. but in cases such as we're speaking of here there is little or
no tangible loss, yet there is indeed significant loss. What we know of as
punitive damages are the only way to compensate for those losses. I agree
that punitive loss seems to be tied to the depth of the offender's pockets,
and to some degree that may even be appropriate since it could be argued
that a certain amount of that success was likely the result of years of the
same behavior that wound them up in court. I guess as I plow through this,
I find that I am a believer in punitive judgments. Not as out of hand as
they have gotten over the years, but certain as a matter of course. Then
again, we hear about the outrageous awards that juries issue, but we don't
hear as much about the reduced awards that the judges pass down.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"John T" > wrote

> "only avaible to registered members".
>
> Give us a summary, please?
>

Credit Scam Victim Nails Home Depot

Man whose identity- theft complaints were ignored wins a $1-million
judgment.

By David Haldane
Times Staff Writer

February 19, 2005

Home Depot ignored Alan R. Sporn for almost two years, but a $1-million
court judgment got the company's attention.

The Laguna Hills businessman had his Social Security number stolen, which
ended up in a dozen requests for Home Depot credit.

The fiasco hurt Sporn's credit rating, but the home improvement giant that
prides itself in customer service brushed off his concerns - until he filed
a lawsuit, won and then tried to collect the money from a company bank
account.

Then, Home Depot decided to act. It appealed the case, but this week an
appellate court in Santa Ana sided with Sporn.

On Friday, the victor and his lawyer were celebrating with a bit of humor.
The pair joked they might just show up at one of the company's Southern
California stores to conduct a yard sale.

"I want to sell everything for a dollar," quipped Steve Young, Sporn's
attorney. "I imagine the John Deere tractors will be the first to go."

"I feel vindicated," Sporn, 52, said of his nearly 3-year effort to get Home
Depot to respond. "They're such a huge corporation and we are just little
people."

In a brief written statement, the Atlanta-based company said that it was
"disappointed in the decision . and respectfully disagrees with the
conclusions of the court."

Sporn's problems began in early 2002 when he was turned down for a
low-interest loan to refinance his Laguna Hills home. Trying to find out
why, he learned that Home Depot had submitted inquiries to credit agencies
regarding Sporn's creditworthiness at least a dozen times over the previous
year.

Such inquiries - especially when submitted in large numbers - lower one's
credit rating.

"I didn't even have a credit card with Home Depot," Sporn said in a
telephone interview Friday. Except for buying "the occasional garden hose or
lightbulb," he doesn't even shop there often, he said.

When he asked the company's financial department why it was pulling his
credit reports, he was told that somebody in Virginia was using his Social
Security number to apply for credit, Sporn said.

But Home Depot would not tell him who the culprit was. And when he sent the
company a certified letter asking it to stop checking his credit rating, he
got no response.

Finally, in September 2002, Sporn filed a lawsuit demanding compensation for
the financial damages he says he incurred. The company continued to ignore
him, he says. He told Home Depot he was seeking a default judgment. Still no
response, he says.Nine months later, in July 2003, with nary a word from
Home Depot, a Santa Ana judge awarded Sporn about $930,000 in damages.

The judge ruled that Sporn suffered losses when he was forced to pay a
higher interest rate on his home loan and because his damaged credit rating
hurt his business reputation.

The court also ruled that Sporn was entitled to a 10% annual interest rate
and other collection expenses if Home Depot continued to delay payment.
Sporn and his attorney estimate the current amount at $1.15 million.

Home Depot didn't show up for the court hearings, they say.

"After we got the judgment," said Young, the attorney, "we waited another
seven months expecting that they would do something. Frankly, we just wanted
their attention so they would clean this up."

So last February, Sporn and Young contacted the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department, which sent deputies to the bank that handles Home Depot's
payroll accounts - a Wells Fargo branch in Los Angeles - with a court order.

They didn't get any money, but they did get Home Depot's attention. "They
started a paper flurry that you wouldn't believe," Young said.

In its appeal, the company accused Sporn of being underhanded. Home Depot
said in its filings that Sporn "obtained by stealth" the "excessive" default
judgment, which the company discovered only when Sporn "began enforcement
efforts after laying in the weeds for many months."

In its ruling - published Wednesday - the 4th District Court of Appeal
disagreed.

The court scolded the company for seeking "to escape the results of its own
carelessness."

"An obvious gap appears in the evidence," acting presiding judge William F.
Rylaarsdam wrote.

"There is no statement that the [court papers sent to Home Depot] were lost,
stolen, forwarded to the wrong person, or eaten by the dog."

Richard S. Ruben, an Orange County-based attorney for Home Depot, declined
to comment on the case, saying that he had not had a chance to read the
appellate court's ruling.

The company said it was reviewing its options to appeal the decision.

But Sporn and Young said they were overjoyed.

"A corporation," Young said, "doesn't have skin and blood - the only way you
get their attention is with the sting of the dollar."

*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writer Dan Weikel contributed to this report.

"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Well, the point that many are making is that that is difficult or
>>> impossible depending on where you live. Due to the predatory business
>>> practices of many retailers, HD is certainly not the only one,
>>> selection, choice and competetion are reduced to the minimum or
>>> eliminated entirely in many markets.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>"Flatly not true"
>
>The lighting store I used to frequent up the street went out of biz when the
>borg came to town. Along with three lumber yards, a plumbing supply store
>and a an electrical supply store. All of them offering much better service,
>selection, product knowledge and comparable prices.

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.

"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> Well, the point that many are making is that that is difficult or
> >> impossible depending on where you live. Due to the predatory business
> >> practices of many retailers, HD is certainly not the only one,
> >> selection, choice and competetion are reduced to the minimum or
> >> eliminated entirely in many markets.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> "Flatly not true"
>
> The lighting store I used to frequent up the street went out of biz when
the
> borg came to town. Along with three lumber yards, a plumbing supply store
> and a an electrical supply store. All of them offering much better
service,
> selection, product knowledge and comparable prices.
>
> It ain't bitchin' if it is true.
>

Lee, I'd bet good money that these stores did not cater to the same
clientele that the BORGs do, and that the only reason people bought there
before the BORGs came around was because there was no alternative. With all
that you describe them offering, it is just not the case that businesses
like that fold up when the big box stores come to town. You are describing
a situation that has been borne out by cities and towns across America
without like experience. Like I posted in another post, ACE Hardware itself
says the best thing that can happen to one of their stores is for a Wal-Mart
or HD to plop down right across the street. This is proven by sales volume.
Those stores that truly offer better service, better selection, better
product knowledge and comparable prices simply do not go out of business
because a big box store comes to town. With all of that supposedly on their
side, just why would anyone go to the big box stores?
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Never Enough Money" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I guess will just have to disagree. The responsibility is not Home
> Depot's. I'm betting they did what virtually every comapny would do.
> Just 'cause it's the computer age, it doesn't shift the responsibility.
> It's more likely to be the credit beareau or credit agency that should
> have handled this.
>
> It's sickening the way people go after deep pockets.

Somewhat agree. If the person had a stolen ID and kept applying for a HD
card and HD was notified of the fraud, they have some hand in the matter,
but the credit bureau is not without some guilt in the mess from what I can
see. Sounds like neither did much to help the situation.

"Never Enough Money" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wow. All these responses spewing venim toward Home Depot and other
> companies. The venim should be reserved for the thief that stole the
> identity! Everybody wants payment for their losses and they want the
> deepest pockets around to pay.

To a point, I agree with your observation about the mentality towards big
companies here. Sometimes this place looks like most of the folks are an
angry lot who simply resent anything and anyone more successful than them.

>
>
> Secondly, some lage companies have databases. Others do not. So shall
> we get mad at those that do have databases and don't use them as we
> think fit and be kind to those that don't?

All large companies today have "databases", though that is not really a
meaningful term. More properly, they all have some amount of deep knowldege
about their customer base.

>
> In some cases, not necessarily the one
> discussed in this thread, the individual who lost his identity should
> get a kick in the butt because he/she was so stupid for being careless
> with his/her identity.
>

These days your identity is so widely distributed that you no longer have
any control at all over it. You can be as diligent as possible to protect
your personal information and it won't matter one hoot. Everything there is
to know about you is available and for sale. Your health records, your
financial records, your internet habits, you name it. The safeguards that
surround information as sensitive as this are almost non-existent. They're
in place to protect against honest people, but there really is not much in
place to protect against the clever mind of the criminal, as evidenced by
the recent news.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:08:01 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
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.
>
>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


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").

Let's sock it to the big nasty corporation, they have deep pockets! Don't
blame or sue any individuals just because they are at fault, they don't have
enough money. Sue the big box. Just remember, if the big box loses, the
judgement will become a business expense.

A business expense! Selling prices = expenses + profits. When expenses go
up, prices go up. (prices will go up to maintain profits/stock value) Who
pays for higher prices. Bingo! The consumer. All the customers at Home
Depot pay the price. The offended customer gets relief and the plaintiff's
lawyers build another seven-figure income.

As an occasional Home Depot customer, my wallet should be grateful this
didn't turn into a class action lawsuit.

And when the legal dust and smoke clears, what happens to the Home Depot
employees at fault? Those that didn't do anything to resolve the
plaintiff's credit problem?

Sue the %$&#*s, we can afford it. Can't we?

Jack
--
If we can't teach our children the 3 Rs, how can we teach them economics?


"AAvK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:inhSd.109274$mt.46085@fed1read03...
>
> > "A corporation," Young said, "doesn't have skin and blood - the only way
you
> > get their attention is with the sting of the dollar."
> >
> >
> ...yeah, and that amount of $ for HD is a nickel in a bucket of them, just
about
> nothing. Thanks for pasting it.
>
> --
> Alex
> cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
> not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:13:05 -0500, "John Flatley" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>
>>The article does not contain a single word criticizing the credit bureaus
>>that award credit scores on the number of inquirers rather than on a
>>person's financial obligations. Why hasn't someone taken them to court?
>
> 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.

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?

"Mutt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I pulled a copy of the Appellate court's opinion and read it, and the
> fact is I think we all have to understand that consumer credit is
> handed out blithely by retail big box outfits like HD, which
> subcontract the credit extension and approval process to folks like GE
> Capital (as in this case) to manage the credit process. HD outsourced
> and promptly forgot about the process, and forwarded everything over to
> GE to handle, 'cept in this case the lawsuit fell into some fine print
> in the GE contract which likely said "this is your issue, HD." So it
> got lost in the shuffle, little guy gets a judgment, and the "cost" is
> not really one of lawsuit defense, but one of "outsourcing" to people
> who don't give a sh*t about the HD customer, e.g., GE Capital (who IMHO
> are some of the slickest characters out there and cut really sharp,
> perhaps too sharp, business deals). If its not in the contract, GE
> doesn't do it and doesn't tell you they aren't doing it. So the long
> and the short of it is that the guy at HD who outsourced this function
> then "forgot" about it ("Hey, GE will take care of it, not to worry")
> is the guy who should be fired, and yes, they are lucky this was not
> filed as a class action. Its a bigger problem of granting credit too
> freely, and not paying attention to your business once its outsourced,
> and HD is paying the price for poor management, simple as that.
>

And because of an expensive settlement and PUBLIC EMBARASSMENT, maybe they
will get off their lazy asses and do something to correct problems like
this.

They certainly have no incentive to do so otherwise.

That's funny. I'm not registered and I was able to see it.

--
Jeff P.

A truck carrying copies of Roget's Thesaurus over-turned on the
highway. The local newspaper reported that the onlookers were
"stunned, overwhelmed, astonished, bewildered, and dumfounded."

Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com


"John T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "only avaible to registered members".
>
> Give us a summary, please?
>
> John
>

"Philip Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> writes:
>>The judgment is too high, IMO, but HD should not have ignored the guy.
> I might agree with you, but i don't have enough information to make
> that judgement... do you?
>
> The article posted here did not indicate what actual damages were
> incurred. Not to mention all the time hassle of dealing with it.
>
> --

It stated he had to pay a higher interest rate on his mortgage. He
obviously has a hassle with the paperwork and repeated call to HD. That
does not add up to a million bucks, IMO.

--
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Home Depot isn't called the BORG for nothing. One big reason for the
> hostility towards Home Depot is that when they show up, many other
superior
> businesses go under. Go elsewhere?? What planet do you live on? With
Home
> Depot and Lowes around, there is almost no place else to go.

Folks are getting what they want. There are enough customers who spend
money to keep the 'BORGs' in business. Maybe you and me and some others are
not in that customer group. How many times have you seen posters in the
newsgroup asking where is the cheapest place to buy or the lowest price for
a DeWaukee Sandrill LathSaw?

There is a very strong market for low price. I'm sure you found this in
your business research. Home Depot and Lowe's (Wal-Mart, Target, etc.) are
competing mainly on low price and location. They are serving their market
segment. I wish they would/could serve a market segment that I am in.

Go elsewhere? I do. For general hardware I go to Ace. If I'm painting, I
shop Sherwin Williams or Benjamin Moore. For Kitchen cabinets I went to a
cabinet shop. For kitchen appliances, we went to a kitchen appliance
dealer. When we re-did our kitchen floor, we went to a tile outlet. I used
to drive 120 miles to go to a Woodcraft. Now we have one in town and it's
just 15 miles away. I also buy from Lee Valley, Amazon (Tool Crib of The
North), Rockler, Highland Hardware and others by mail or Internet. There
are choices. My wife and I are retired and we have to watch every penny.
With a fixed income, I can't afford to buy cheap stuff. I learned a long
time ago the cheapest or most expensive is seldom the best buy.

Maybe my point should be: Don't expect the 'BORGs' to be something they are
not. We should understand who and what they are and use their service as we
want.

The original poster that started this thread was pleased that Home Depot was
being penalized. I believe the plantiff in the case shoould have gone after
the thief for stealing his identity or gone after the credit bureau that
counts an inquiry as a debt for credit worthiness assessments.

I mentioned to my wife; "I don't expect very much from Home Depot, so I'm
seldom disappointed."

Jack

(In the interest of a fair and accurate opinion I must add that my wife
prefers the paint and color selection at Lowe's. Since she does most of the
interior painting, it is her call. Sorry Sherwin. Sorry Benjamin.)

How did the plaintiff's SSN get stolen? Where else did it end up? Did he
get an annual credit report, and dispute the "funny" entries?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Tim Douglass <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:54:03 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-
homedepot19feb19,1,122151
>>.story?coll=la-news-state&ctrack=2&cset=true
>>
>
> I always have to wonder in stories like this just how hard the person
> tried to resolve the problem before resorting to court. He wrote a
> letter, but did he follow up with a phone call to the HD credit
> department?

He sent them a letter by certified mail. They clearly received the
letter and filed to act, even so much as to respond with a form letter.
A written request sent by certified mail with return receipt is always
the correct means of correspondence when you expect to need to be able
to document your actions. A phone call has little or no value in this
regard.

Home Depot didn't respond to a lawsuit that was filed? I
> find that hard to believe unless the papers were served on HD by
> taking them to the local Borg and handing them to a sales clerk. I
> wouldn't be surprised if the lawyer did something like that just to
> try to ensure that they didn't make it to court.

If lawyers served summons this would maybe be possible. Summons are
served by process servers and/or sheriffs deputies. None of them takes
direction from private attorneys.

>
> I don't think HD should be absolved of all responsibility, but almost
> a million bucks is pretty extreme unless he can demonstrate
> *intentional* damage and not just incompetence.

Why? Is his damage less if they were merely imcompetent? The
purpose of punitive damages is to punish and deter. The judge is clearly
aware of that. If the judgement were for some inconsequential amount of
money do you think anyone at HD would care? Do you think it would deter
them from being similarly negligent in the future?


>
> There are a lot of holes in the story. Was credit issued based on any
> of the fraudulent applications?

I'm not sure it matters. His score was reduced as a result of the
numerous inquiries. His score would in fact not have suffered or would
have suffered less had the inquiries resulted in new lines of credit.


Did the credit checks reveal them to
> be fraudulent? How much effort did he put into cleaning his credit
> rating when he discovered the problem?
>
> I played a similar game a couple years ago after a stolen credit card.
> A few hours on the phone ended up resolving everything with no
> permanent impact on my credit rating
- in fact I cleaned up a couple
> things I didn't even know were there while I was at it. This whole
> thing just smacks of the philosophy of trying to become a lawsuit
> millionaire because of a small problem.
>
> Tim Douglass
>
> http://www.DouglassClan.com

"John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I must admit I just don't understand the hostility against Home Depot.
> If you don't like the way they do business or you don't like the way
> you perceive they do business, don't do business with them!

Well, the point that many are making is that that is difficult or
impossible depending on where you live. Due to the predatory business
practices of many retailers, HD is certainly not the only one,
selection, choice and competetion are reduced to the minimum or
eliminated entirely in many markets.
>
> I went back and re-read the LA Times story. The reporter continuously
> used the name Home Depot, but never identified any person at the
> store, which store or anyone at the home office or at what, if any,
> management points in between. The Times story, like many newspaper
> articles today, is short on information and long on pinning the tail
> on the donkey, I mean business.
>
> There is no mention how the $1.15 million award and interest will be
> split between the plaintiff and his attorney.
>
> The article does not contain a single word criticizing the credit
> bureaus that award credit scores on the number of inquirers rather
> than on a person's financial obligations. Why hasn't someone taken
> them to court?
>

Because this is a perfectly valid part of the credit evaluation process.
A large number of inquiries in a short period of time, or a large number
of inquiries which do not result in new lines of credit is an indication
that there is a problem.


> There are just too many gaps in the newspaper story to form a
> responsible opinion on whether the award is or is not justified. But
> still I am amazed at the level of anti-business emotion in this
> discussion.
>
> Jack
>
> My two cents, your mileage may vary.
>
> --
> "Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Tim Douglass <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:54:03 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
>> > <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-
>> homedepot19feb19,1,122151
>> >>.story?coll=la-news-state&ctrack=2&cset=true
>> >>
>> >
>> > I always have to wonder in stories like this just how hard the
>> > person tried to resolve the problem before resorting to court. He
>> > wrote a letter, but did he follow up with a phone call to the HD
>> > credit department?
>>
>> He sent them a letter by certified mail. They clearly received the
>> letter and filed to act, even so much as to respond with a form
>> letter. A written request sent by certified mail with return receipt
>> is always the correct means of correspondence when you expect to need
>> to be able to document your actions. A phone call has little or no
>> value in this regard.
>>
>> Home Depot didn't respond to a lawsuit that was filed? I
>> > find that hard to believe unless the papers were served on HD by
>> > taking them to the local Borg and handing them to a sales clerk. I
>> > wouldn't be surprised if the lawyer did something like that just to
>> > try to ensure that they didn't make it to court.
>>
>> If lawyers served summons this would maybe be possible. Summons
>> are
>> served by process servers and/or sheriffs deputies. None of them
>> takes direction from private attorneys.
>>
>> >
>> > I don't think HD should be absolved of all responsibility, but
>> > almost a million bucks is pretty extreme unless he can demonstrate
>> > *intentional* damage and not just incompetence.
>>
>> Why? Is his damage less if they were merely imcompetent? The
>> purpose of punitive damages is to punish and deter. The judge is
>> clearly aware of that. If the judgement were for some inconsequential
>> amount of money do you think anyone at HD would care? Do you think it
>> would deter them from being similarly negligent in the future?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > There are a lot of holes in the story. Was credit issued based on
>> > any of the fraudulent applications?
>>
>> I'm not sure it matters. His score was reduced as a result of the
>> numerous inquiries. His score would in fact not have suffered or
>> would have suffered less had the inquiries resulted in new lines of
>> credit.
>>
>>
>> Did the credit checks reveal them to
>> > be fraudulent? How much effort did he put into cleaning his credit
>> > rating when he discovered the problem?
>> >
>> > I played a similar game a couple years ago after a stolen credit
>> > card. A few hours on the phone ended up resolving everything with
>> > no permanent impact on my credit rating
>> - in fact I cleaned up a couple
>> > things I didn't even know were there while I was at it. This whole
>> > thing just smacks of the philosophy of trying to become a lawsuit
>> > millionaire because of a small problem.
>> >
>> > Tim Douglass
>> >
>> > http://www.DouglassClan.com
>>
>
>
>

Never Enough Money wrote:
> So now we require companies to also do detective work? Companies
> resposible for stolen identities? Aren't we going overboard here?
>

Not only no, but hell no! Identity theft is a serious problem precisely
because companies do a pathetically inadequate job of checking before
granting credit and then ignore the injured parties for as long as they
possibly can.

In this case the store received a dozen credit applications from the
same person. That alone would have raised red flags in a reasonably run
business. Then even when the problem was brought to their attention,
they not only refused to do anything about it, they couldn't even be
bothered to show up in court!

This kind of behavior is utterly outrageous and well deserving of a
million-dollar judgment.

--RC

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Scrub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 21 Feb 2005 10:35:31 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Non Sequitor. To be effective, punitive dmages must be high enough
>>>to disabuse the malefactor from a repetition of the tort.
>>
>> What he said.....so eloquently.
>
> But punishing a corporation does not necessarily have to be a big windfall
> for the person that was hurt. Sure, he should be well compensated. Want
> to hurt a big store like HD? Make them close on a Sunday and lose sales
> to the competition. Make them take full page ads in magazines telling
> what they did wrong. Let the world know, not just a few people and the
> lawyers get rich.
>
I am a traditionalist.

I think public floggings of Home Depot excutives would be most appropriate.

<[email protected]> wrote
>
> 2) by realizing a benefit now have a motive to encourage or facilitate
> such suits. This is potentially a problem if the beneficiary of the
> punitives is, for example, the government. As you will recall there
> was a time when property was confiscated from convicted witches.
> That property went the king. Since the king was just we may be
> assured that only persons who really were witches were convicted,
> right?
>
Now THAT is an idea!!

Do you think we could pursue witchcraft charges against Home Depot? ;-)

On 21 Feb 2005 20:20:03 -0800, "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill in WNC mountains

Hi, Bill. I didn't know you were a "wrecker."

Rod Peterson from WoodCentral.

- -
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

"Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Well, the point that many are making is that that is difficult or
> impossible depending on where you live. Due to the predatory business
> practices of many retailers, HD is certainly not the only one,
> selection, choice and competetion are reduced to the minimum or
> eliminated entirely in many markets.

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.

> > The article does not contain a single word criticizing the credit
> > bureaus that award credit scores on the number of inquirers rather
> > than on a person's financial obligations. Why hasn't someone taken
> > them to court?
> >
>
> Because this is a perfectly valid part of the credit evaluation process.
> A large number of inquiries in a short period of time, or a large number
> of inquiries which do not result in new lines of credit is an indication
> that there is a problem.
>

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-
[email protected]

On 21 Feb 2005 10:35:31 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>>
>> It stated he had to pay a higher interest rate on his mortgage. He
>> obviously has a hassle with the paperwork and repeated call to HD.
>That
>> does not add up to a million bucks, IMO.
>
>Non Sequitor. To be effective, punitive dmages must be high enough
>to disabuse the malefactor from a repetition of the tort. Otherwise
>it may be cheaper to absord the suits as a cost of doing business and
>continue to ruin the credit ratings of numerous other persons many
>of whom will never find out why.

Punitive damages are one of the most ridiculous things in our legal
system. They are intended to function as a fine, forcing a change in
behavior, but they have become nothing more than another enriching
option for the lawyers. I would suggest that punitive damages be
treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the
lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a
lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make
sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain
procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages,
since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I must admit I just don't understand the hostility against Home Depot. If
> you don't like the way they do business or you don't like the way you
> perceive they do business, don't do business with them!
>

Home Depot isn't called the BORG for nothing. One big reason for the
hostility towards Home Depot is that when they show up, many other superior
businesses go under. Go elsewhere?? What planet do you live on? With Home
Depot and Lowes around, there is almost no place else to go.

I remember once when I was in CompUSA. I asked a simple question of the
manager. He blew me off and said for me go elsewhere. I informed him that I
used to go down the street. Until they bought them out and shut them down.
He got all pissed off at me.

The biggest problem with the big box stores is that they work to constantly
reduce my choices as a consumer. Not to mention the brain dead employees
they hire to torment me when I go into their store.

.It ain't being antibiz. I work in business research. I just know when I am
being screwed is all. And the big boys just don't care.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Well, the point that many are making is that that is difficult or
>> impossible depending on where you live. Due to the predatory business
>> practices of many retailers, HD is certainly not the only one,
>> selection, choice and competetion are reduced to the minimum or
>> eliminated entirely in many markets.
>
> 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.
>
"Flatly not true"

The lighting store I used to frequent up the street went out of biz when the
borg came to town. Along with three lumber yards, a plumbing supply store
and a an electrical supply store. All of them offering much better service,
selection, product knowledge and comparable prices.

It ain't bitchin' if it is true.

I think the point is that ONCE someone notifies a corporate entity
that attempted identity thieft is happening with credit apps to THEIR
store, that they should have 1 - Acknowledge the notification and 2-
Put that SS number on a black list and not accepted NOR tried to
process any apps with that SS number

No one is asking the corporate entity to do detective work, but they
SHOULD not ignore folks reporting this kind of stuff, apparently
repeatedly reporting it.

John

On 21 Feb 2005 08:44:56 -0800, "Never Enough Money"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>So now we require companies to also do detective work? Companies
>resposible for stolen identities? Aren't we going overboard here?
>
>
>
>Lee Michaels wrote:
>> "John T" > wrote
>>
>> > "only avaible to registered members".
>> >
>> > Give us a summary, please?
>> >
>>
>> Credit Scam Victim Nails Home Depot
>>
>> Man whose identity- theft complaints were ignored wins a $1-million
>> judgment.
>>
>> By David Haldane
>> Times Staff Writer
>>
>> February 19, 2005
>>
>> Home Depot ignored Alan R. Sporn for almost two years, but a
>$1-million
>> court judgment got the company's attention.
>>
>> The Laguna Hills businessman had his Social Security number stolen,
>which
>> ended up in a dozen requests for Home Depot credit.
>>
>> The fiasco hurt Sporn's credit rating, but the home improvement giant
>that
>> prides itself in customer service brushed off his concerns - until he
>filed
>> a lawsuit, won and then tried to collect the money from a company
>bank
>> account.
>>
>> Then, Home Depot decided to act. It appealed the case, but this week
>an
>> appellate court in Santa Ana sided with Sporn.
>>
>> On Friday, the victor and his lawyer were celebrating with a bit of
>humor.
>> The pair joked they might just show up at one of the company's
>Southern
>> California stores to conduct a yard sale.
>>
>> "I want to sell everything for a dollar," quipped Steve Young,
>Sporn's
>> attorney. "I imagine the John Deere tractors will be the first to
>go."
>>
>> "I feel vindicated," Sporn, 52, said of his nearly 3-year effort to
>get Home
>> Depot to respond. "They're such a huge corporation and we are just
>little
>> people."
>>
>> In a brief written statement, the Atlanta-based company said that it
>was
>> "disappointed in the decision . and respectfully disagrees with the
>> conclusions of the court."
>>
>> Sporn's problems began in early 2002 when he was turned down for a
>> low-interest loan to refinance his Laguna Hills home. Trying to find
>out
>> why, he learned that Home Depot had submitted inquiries to credit
>agencies
>> regarding Sporn's creditworthiness at least a dozen times over the
>previous
>> year.
>>
>> Such inquiries - especially when submitted in large numbers - lower
>one's
>> credit rating.
>>
>> "I didn't even have a credit card with Home Depot," Sporn said in a
>> telephone interview Friday. Except for buying "the occasional garden
>hose or
>> lightbulb," he doesn't even shop there often, he said.
>>
>> When he asked the company's financial department why it was pulling
>his
>> credit reports, he was told that somebody in Virginia was using his
>Social
>> Security number to apply for credit, Sporn said.
>>
>> But Home Depot would not tell him who the culprit was. And when he
>sent the
>> company a certified letter asking it to stop checking his credit
>rating, he
>> got no response.
>>
>> Finally, in September 2002, Sporn filed a lawsuit demanding
>compensation for
>> the financial damages he says he incurred. The company continued to
>ignore
>> him, he says. He told Home Depot he was seeking a default judgment.
>Still no
>> response, he says.Nine months later, in July 2003, with nary a word
>from
>> Home Depot, a Santa Ana judge awarded Sporn about $930,000 in
>damages.
>>
>> The judge ruled that Sporn suffered losses when he was forced to pay
>a
>> higher interest rate on his home loan and because his damaged credit
>rating
>> hurt his business reputation.
>>
>> The court also ruled that Sporn was entitled to a 10% annual interest
>rate
>> and other collection expenses if Home Depot continued to delay
>payment.
>> Sporn and his attorney estimate the current amount at $1.15 million.
>>
>> Home Depot didn't show up for the court hearings, they say.
>>
>> "After we got the judgment," said Young, the attorney, "we waited
>another
>> seven months expecting that they would do something. Frankly, we just
>wanted
>> their attention so they would clean this up."
>>
>> So last February, Sporn and Young contacted the Los Angeles County
>Sheriff's
>> Department, which sent deputies to the bank that handles Home Depot's
>
>> payroll accounts - a Wells Fargo branch in Los Angeles - with a court
>order.
>>
>> They didn't get any money, but they did get Home Depot's attention.
>"They
>> started a paper flurry that you wouldn't believe," Young said.
>>
>> In its appeal, the company accused Sporn of being underhanded. Home
>Depot
>> said in its filings that Sporn "obtained by stealth" the "excessive"
>default
>> judgment, which the company discovered only when Sporn "began
>enforcement
>> efforts after laying in the weeds for many months."
>>
>> In its ruling - published Wednesday - the 4th District Court of
>Appeal
>> disagreed.
>>
>> The court scolded the company for seeking "to escape the results of
>its own
>> carelessness."
>>
>> "An obvious gap appears in the evidence," acting presiding judge
>William F.
>> Rylaarsdam wrote.
>>
>> "There is no statement that the [court papers sent to Home Depot]
>were lost,
>> stolen, forwarded to the wrong person, or eaten by the dog."
>>
>> Richard S. Ruben, an Orange County-based attorney for Home Depot,
>declined
>> to comment on the case, saying that he had not had a chance to read
>the
>> appellate court's ruling.
>>
>> The company said it was reviewing its options to appeal the decision.
>>
>> But Sporn and Young said they were overjoyed.
>>
>> "A corporation," Young said, "doesn't have skin and blood - the only
>way you
>> get their attention is with the sting of the dollar."
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Times staff writer Dan Weikel contributed to this report.

"only avaible to registered members".

Give us a summary, please?

John

In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:08:01 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>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.
>>
>>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
>
>
> 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").

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?

On 22 Feb 2005 12:56:42 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Tim Douglass wrote:
>>
>> ... I would suggest that punitive damages be
>> treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the
>> lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a
>> lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make
>> sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain
>> procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages,
>> since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.
>
>I used to think that too. Then it was pointed out to me that if
>the government is deriving revenue from punitives the government
>has a strong financial motive to make it easier to obtain punitives.

Which differers in no major way from the situation now where lawyers
benefit from the results of laws that are made by elected
representative who are mostly lawyers.

The point has some merit, but since the cost of arguing for a punitive
award would be borne by the plaintiff, but they wouldn't see any
direct benefit from it, I suspect the effect would be a net positive.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

<[email protected]> wrote in
>
> Tim Douglass wrote:
>>
>> ... I would suggest that punitive damages be
>> treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the
>> lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a
>> lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make
>> sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain
>> procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages,
>> since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.
>
> I used to think that too. Then it was pointed out to me that if
> the government is deriving revenue from punitives the government
> has a strong financial motive to make it easier to obtain punitives.
>
Just look at all the "civil forfeitures" that are taking place with many
police departments in the so called "drug war".

I'm going to register to see something that is probably a lame story.
Yeah...right.
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-homedepot19feb19,1,122151.story?coll=la-news-state&ctrack=2&cset=true
>
>
>
>

> "A corporation," Young said, "doesn't have skin and blood - the only way you
> get their attention is with the sting of the dollar."
>
>
...yeah, and that amount of $ for HD is a nickel in a bucket of them, just about
nothing. Thanks for pasting it.

--
Alex
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

Frankly, for the GROSS negligence of HD in this case, I am surprised
that they did NOT hit them for MORE in punitive damages. Big
Corporate entities like HD ONLY respond when the cost gets big enough

And if they do it again, I would love to see them hit with damages in
the 10s of Millions OR MORE. If they think they are above the law,
maybe put them out of business via lawsuit would NOT be excessive

If you have a total woth of $100k, would someone suing you for $25 or
$100 dollars actually make you change your actions?? Same idea when
you talk about BIG corporate entities. Frankly, I would rather see
damage issued in PERCENTAGE of the company woth rather than a set
dollar amount. That would make things fair across the board from the
low income individual to the MultiBillion dollar folks like MicroSoft
and Bill Gate

John

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:24:55 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Philip Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>The judgment is too high, IMO, but HD should not have ignored the guy.
>> I might agree with you, but i don't have enough information to make
>> that judgement... do you?
>>
>> The article posted here did not indicate what actual damages were
>> incurred. Not to mention all the time hassle of dealing with it.
>>
>> --
>
>It stated he had to pay a higher interest rate on his mortgage. He
>obviously has a hassle with the paperwork and repeated call to HD. That
>does not add up to a million bucks, IMO.
>

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:47:50 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Punitive damages are one of the most ridiculous things in our legal
>> system. They are intended to function as a fine, forcing a change in
>> behavior, but they have become nothing more than another enriching
>> option for the lawyers. I would suggest that punitive damages be
>> treated like fines are - they go into the public coffers and the
>> lawyers and plaintiffs don't get any of it. I think you would see a
>> lot smarter settlements on lawsuits in that case. It would also make
>> sense to tie punitive damages to performance - if they put certain
>> procedures in place they are off the hook for the punitive damages,
>> since the ostensible goal of them was to create a change in behavior.
>>
>
>Your proposal Tim, leaves out the valid restitution to the victim. No way I
>would consider that fair and equitable.

Restitution for loss is always valid and obviously should remain
unchanged. The subject of my comments was punitive damages, which are
unrelated to any real loss but are directly tied to the amount of cash
the defendant has.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On 21 Feb 2005 10:35:31 -0800, [email protected] wrote:


>Non Sequitor. To be effective, punitive dmages must be high enough
>to disabuse the malefactor from a repetition of the tort.

What he said.....so eloquently.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:31:23 -0600, the inscrutable John T
<[email protected]> spake:

>"only avaible to registered members".
>
>Give us a summary, please?

The LAT article was much better, but here's another take
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050221/1042055.asp

--
***********************************************************
"Boy, I feel safer now that Martha Stewart is behind bars!
O.J. is walking around free, Osama Bin Laden too, but they
take the one woman in America willing to cook and clean
and work in the yard and haul her ass to jail."
--Tim Allen
***********************************************************

I must admit I just don't understand the hostility against Home Depot. If
you don't like the way they do business or you don't like the way you
perceive they do business, don't do business with them!

I went back and re-read the LA Times story. The reporter continuously used
the name Home Depot, but never identified any person at the store, which
store or anyone at the home office or at what, if any, management points in
between. The Times story, like many newspaper articles today, is short on
information and long on pinning the tail on the donkey, I mean business.

There is no mention how the $1.15 million award and interest will be split
between the plaintiff and his attorney.

The article does not contain a single word criticizing the credit bureaus
that award credit scores on the number of inquirers rather than on a
person's financial obligations. Why hasn't someone taken them to court?

There are just too many gaps in the newspaper story to form a responsible
opinion on whether the award is or is not justified. But still I am amazed
at the level of anti-business emotion in this discussion.

Jack

My two cents, your mileage may vary.

--
"Secret Squirrel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim Douglass <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 23:54:03 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> > <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-
> homedepot19feb19,1,122151
> >>.story?coll=la-news-state&ctrack=2&cset=true
> >>
> >
> > I always have to wonder in stories like this just how hard the person
> > tried to resolve the problem before resorting to court. He wrote a
> > letter, but did he follow up with a phone call to the HD credit
> > department?
>
> He sent them a letter by certified mail. They clearly received the
> letter and filed to act, even so much as to respond with a form letter.
> A written request sent by certified mail with return receipt is always
> the correct means of correspondence when you expect to need to be able
> to document your actions. A phone call has little or no value in this
> regard.
>
> Home Depot didn't respond to a lawsuit that was filed? I
> > find that hard to believe unless the papers were served on HD by
> > taking them to the local Borg and handing them to a sales clerk. I
> > wouldn't be surprised if the lawyer did something like that just to
> > try to ensure that they didn't make it to court.
>
> If lawyers served summons this would maybe be possible. Summons are
> served by process servers and/or sheriffs deputies. None of them takes
> direction from private attorneys.
>
> >
> > I don't think HD should be absolved of all responsibility, but almost
> > a million bucks is pretty extreme unless he can demonstrate
> > *intentional* damage and not just incompetence.
>
> Why? Is his damage less if they were merely imcompetent? The
> purpose of punitive damages is to punish and deter. The judge is clearly
> aware of that. If the judgement were for some inconsequential amount of
> money do you think anyone at HD would care? Do you think it would deter
> them from being similarly negligent in the future?
>
>
> >
> > There are a lot of holes in the story. Was credit issued based on any
> > of the fraudulent applications?
>
> I'm not sure it matters. His score was reduced as a result of the
> numerous inquiries. His score would in fact not have suffered or would
> have suffered less had the inquiries resulted in new lines of credit.
>
>
> Did the credit checks reveal them to
> > be fraudulent? How much effort did he put into cleaning his credit
> > rating when he discovered the problem?
> >
> > I played a similar game a couple years ago after a stolen credit card.
> > A few hours on the phone ended up resolving everything with no
> > permanent impact on my credit rating
> - in fact I cleaned up a couple
> > things I didn't even know were there while I was at it. This whole
> > thing just smacks of the philosophy of trying to become a lawsuit
> > millionaire because of a small problem.
> >
> > Tim Douglass
> >
> > http://www.DouglassClan.com
>

"John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Let's sock it to the big nasty corporation, they have deep pockets! Don't
> blame or sue any individuals just because they are at fault, they don't
> have
> enough money. Sue the big box. Just remember, if the big box loses, the
> judgement will become a business expense.

The judgment is too high, IMO, but HD should not have ignored the guy.
There should be a penalty.



>
> As an occasional Home Depot customer, my wallet should be grateful this
> didn't turn into a class action lawsuit.

Perhaps if it did they would mend their ways.

>
> And when the legal dust and smoke clears, what happens to the Home Depot
> employees at fault? Those that didn't do anything to resolve the
> plaintiff's credit problem?


They should be fired. Take their annual salary and that is what the
plaintiff should be awarded.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:50:57 -0500, "John Flatley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>(The track record of jury awards in this country does not
>impress me.)

What *is* the "track record" of jury awards in this country ???

I don't want to get into a pissing contest here about who said what...But
please see my comments made in reply.

--
"A.M. Wood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> John Flatley wrote:
> > --
> > "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > Home Depot isn't called the BORG for nothing. One big reason for
> the
> > > hostility towards Home Depot is that when they show up, many other
> > superior
> > > businesses go under. Go elsewhere?? What planet do you live on?
> With
> > Home
> > > Depot and Lowes around, there is almost no place else to go.
> >
> > Folks are getting what they want. There are enough customers who
> spend
> > money to keep the 'BORGs' in business. Maybe you and me and some
> others are
> > not in that customer group. How many times have you seen posters in
> the
> > newsgroup asking where is the cheapest place to buy or the lowest
> price for
> > a DeWaukee Sandrill LathSaw?
> >
> > There is a very strong market for low price. I'm sure you found this
> in
> > your business research. Home Depot and Lowe's (Wal-Mart, Target,
> etc.) are
> > competing mainly on low price and location. They are serving their
> market
> > segment. I wish they would/could serve a market segment that I am
> in.
> >
> > Go elsewhere? I do. For general hardware I go to Ace. If I'm
> painting, I
> > shop Sherwin Williams or Benjamin Moore. For Kitchen cabinets I went
> to a
> > cabinet shop. For kitchen appliances, we went to a kitchen appliance
> > dealer. When we re-did our kitchen floor, we went to a tile outlet.
> I used
> > to drive 120 miles to go to a Woodcraft. Now we have one in town and
> it's
> > just 15 miles away. I also buy from Lee Valley, Amazon (Tool Crib of
> The
> > North), Rockler, Highland Hardware and others by mail or Internet.
> There
> > are choices. My wife and I are retired and we have to watch every
> penny.
> > With a fixed income, I can't afford to buy cheap stuff. I learned a
> long
> > time ago the cheapest or most expensive is seldom the best buy.
>
>
> The plaintiff did shop elsewhere. Someone else was using his SS at the
> BORG.
>

My shopping elsewhere comment is a response to a post by Lee Michaels.
It was NOT a comment on the original poster!

>
> >
> > Maybe my point should be: Don't expect the 'BORGs' to be something
> they are
> > not. We should understand who and what they are and use their
> service as we
> > want.
>
> The BORG was making the credit inquiries. They should be responsible
> for their own actions.
>

I understand your point. Home Depot's credit inquiries were a routine
business
activity.


>
> >
> > The original poster that started this thread was pleased that Home
> Depot was
> > being penalized. I believe the plantiff in the case shoould have
> gone after
> > the thief for stealing his identity or gone after the credit bureau
> that
> > counts an inquiry as a debt for credit worthiness assessments.
> >
>
>
> The plaintiff did try that route. The BORG however would not provide
> him with the details of the credit inquiries they were making.
>

Again, I ask you re-read a previous post of mine. I made the point that the
LA Times
newspaper article fails to identify who at Home Depot (Borg) the plaintiff
talked to.
Neither is there any mention of a Better Business Bureau contact or
involvement. Nor
is there record of any police department involvement at any location. My
position is/was
Home Depot may have been a factor in the problem. They may have been the
whole
problem. However, with the lack of information in the Times article, there
is not sufficient information for a reasonable person to state the Borg
screwed up. (The track record of jury awards in this country does not
impress me.) Folks are very quick to verbally tar and feather the Borg. I
apologize if my response to Mr. Michaels led you to believe I was responding
to the original poster


>
>
> > I mentioned to my wife; "I don't expect very much from Home Depot, so
> I'm
> > seldom disappointed."
> >
>
> Well, I bet you would be very disappointed if the BORG started issuing
> credit to other people under your SS number.
>
>
> > Jack
> >
> > (In the interest of a fair and accurate opinion I must add that my
> wife
> > prefers the paint and color selection at Lowe's. Since she does most
> of the
> > interior painting, it is her call. Sorry Sherwin. Sorry Benjamin.)
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Never Enough Money" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Wow. All these responses spewing venim toward Home Depot and other
> companies. The venim should be reserved for the thief that stole the
> identity! Everybody wants payment for their losses and they want the
> deepest pockets around to pay.

Believe me I have much venom for the ID thieves. But why don't you tell
me who they are and where to find them. They use your name and SS# to
open an account and provide a bogus billing address. The closest you
might come to finding them is the state in which they live. Those cell
phone stands are in every mall in the country. Just apply and 5 minutes
after running *your* name and SS# through a clearing house, the thief
walks away with a new phone and service.

> Secondly, some lage companies have databases. Others do not. So shall
> we get mad at those that do have databases and don't use them as we
> think fit and be kind to those that don't?

If they cared about theft then they'd put in the software and personel
to protect their profits. (I believe they already have extensive
capabilities, they just have so many "reps" selling their products that
they accept the theft as a fact of doing business.)

> I detest this railing against "big companies." I recall a time before
> Home Depot. Home Depot has made life better, not worse.

I couldn't care less if any of the big box stores existed. I rarely go
to any of them and frankly can find the same or better products and
service elsewhere.

> Granted, the companies could do a better job and will in the
> future....when the software engineers are paid to write the checks into
> the databaes and the companines can afford the "new features." However
> to sue the pants off the companies in the hopes of beign a catylsy for
> such changes is just wrong. In some cases, not necessarily the one
> discussed in this thread, the individual who lost his identity should
> get a kick in the butt because he/she was so stupid for being careless
> with his/her identity.

Did you attend public school? College? Ever go to a doctor or dentist?
Do you carry health insurance? Ever applied for utility service? Got a
driver's license? Do you have a credit report?

If you answered yes to any single question above then you are at risk
for ID theft. All it takes is for one dishonest employee at any of these
record holders to sell your info to those just waiting in the wings. You
know those college students working in the registrar's office... do you
think it could be possible one of them might need a little crack money?
You have zero control of the info out there. All you can do is regularly
pull credit reports to try to stop anything before it gets too far along.

Oh, yes, you heard about the company last week that mistakenly put out
thousands upon thousands of inividuals' information for all to see?
Maybe your's is one of them... if that's the case I expect you to bend
over to receive your kick in the butt.

--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article <[email protected]>,
John <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think the point is that ONCE someone notifies a corporate entity
> that attempted identity thieft is happening with credit apps to THEIR
> store, that they should have 1 - Acknowledge the notification and 2-
> Put that SS number on a black list and not accepted NOR tried to
> process any apps with that SS number
>
> No one is asking the corporate entity to do detective work, but they
> SHOULD not ignore folks reporting this kind of stuff, apparently
> repeatedly reporting it.

My wife had her SS# stolen a couple years back. The only way we found
out was when a collections bill arrived from a delinquent Cingular
Wireless account - owing $2200. We eventually got it straightened out
after 4 months of back and forth letter writing, phone calls and
affidavits - in addition to the fact that Cingular didn't provide
service to our home state at that time. Whew. Notified the credit
bureaus and they put a notice on her reports. (Little did we know those
notices expire after 3, 6 or whatever months and are removed.)

Eight months later another collections bill arrives for $1200 from a
delinquent account with... Cingular Wireless. I was livid. I wrote a
scathing letter to the person who was our contact the first go'round,
questioning how a company could be so inept and irresponsible as to
allow non-paying accounts to rack up $2200 and $1200 in charges as well
as opening a second account with the same SS# as proved to be fraudulent
within the past year? It took another several months to get it solved
yet again. (Note: send copies of everything to your state's attorney
general/consumer fraud dept as well as the US Govt's consumer fraud
division.)

Quite frankly, I don't think the companies really do care. They have
fraud and theft factored into their rates and costs. So 1 out of 100
credit or service applications prove to be fraud... to them it's just a
write-off on the balance sheet. To the citizen affected, it's a source
of anxiety and stress, costing much time and effort to get their name
cleared. Whether or not Cingular is responsible in anyway, they
certainly have no warm spot in our hearts. If they had headed this off
in the second instance I'd not have such animosity towards the company.

--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> writes:
>It stated he had to pay a higher interest rate on his mortgage. He
But it doesn't say how much of a mortgage it is. Over the life of a
loan that can be a lot.

It also mentioned damage to his business's reputation, IIRC.
How do you quantify that?

>a hassle with the paperwork and repeated call to HD.
...And attorney fees, time off work, and... well you get the picture.

We simply do not know enough facts to make a call to the legitimacy of
the claim.

--
be safe.
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
Remove origin of the word spam from address to reply (leave "+")

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> writes:
>The judgment is too high, IMO, but HD should not have ignored the guy.
I might agree with you, but i don't have enough information to make
that judgement... do you?

The article posted here did not indicate what actual damages were
incurred. Not to mention all the time hassle of dealing with it.

--
be safe.
flip
Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?
Remove origin of the word spam from address to reply (leave "+")

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:32:43 -0500, "John Flatley" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Let's sock it to the big nasty corporation, they have deep pockets!

Let's suck up to the big nasty corporation, they have....

>Don't
>blame or sue any individuals just because they are at fault, ...

... especially when the big nasty corporation refuses to do
anything to help you *identify* the individual responsible (you
*did* see that in the HD article, didn't you ? Or were the pages
so drenched with your tears for poor HD that the lines were
washed out ? :-)

>they don't have
>enough money. Sue the big box. Just remember, if the big box loses, the
>judgement will become a business expense.
>
>A business expense! Selling prices = expenses + profits. When expenses go
>up, prices go up. (prices will go up to maintain profits/stock value) Who
>pays for higher prices. Bingo! The consumer.

So the decision is yours: support HD's actions by paying the
higher prices resulting from its behaviors, or shop somewhere
else.

(Where does the myth that HD's prices are lower come from ?
It's advertising ?)

>All the customers at Home
>Depot pay the price. The offended customer gets relief and the plaintiff's
>lawyers build another seven-figure income.
>

A few "build another seven-figure income." Most don't. The
majority of the lawyers that I know make a small fraction of
that.

>And when the legal dust and smoke clears, what happens to the Home Depot
>employees at fault? Those that didn't do anything to resolve the
>plaintiff's credit problem?
>

You should ask HD that. If it took no action, you can assume that
there will be another suit like this one in the not-too-distant
future. And wouldn't that be the correct outcome ? Or do you feel
that HD is not responsible for what its employees do on the job?

"Scrub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 21 Feb 2005 10:35:31 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>Non Sequitor. To be effective, punitive dmages must be high enough
>>to disabuse the malefactor from a repetition of the tort.
>
> What he said.....so eloquently.

But punishing a corporation does not necessarily have to be a big windfall
for the person that was hurt. Sure, he should be well compensated. Want to
hurt a big store like HD? Make them close on a Sunday and lose sales to
the competition. Make them take full page ads in magazines telling what
they did wrong. Let the world know, not just a few people and the lawyers
get rich.

In article <[email protected]>, "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:

>I am a traditionalist.
>
>I think public floggings of Home Depot excutives would be most appropriate.

Talk about "punitive damages"... probably more effective, too, and certainly
*much* more entertaining.

--
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?