The 3/8/06 Target settlement offer, what an INSULT!!!!
I finally responded to the 3/8/06 Target settlement offer
This offer is worse than the MIS offer for $0 a couple years ago. It would actually COST me much more than the $1,000 they’re offering to pay. More than ever, I realize how important it is to publish the crap they try to pull. The audacity ... they can stick their $1,000 where the sun don’t shine!
I would certainly have settled this claim for $1,000 and the adverse action letter early during the litigation. But the longer they wait and the more they make me work and the more aggravation they cause, the higher my damages.
Here’s my response:
Dear Ms. Dioguardi:
I’m sorry for the late response, I’ve been very busy and every time I thought about the Target offer, I became very upset. This settlement offer is the most insulting offer I have ever received. So it took me a while to work myself up to a response.
An offer to settle only the remaining claim and excluding the credit limit issues is a step in the right direction. However, the terms are about as bizarre as it gets.
1) Why on earth would I close my Target accounts?
I followed my own advice and opened the Target accounts to re-establish credit as my credit reports were destroyed by entirely false collections and chargeoffs until I sued.
I’m still not clear what one needs to do to get that $11,000 Guest card credit limit on the Target exhibit, as my Guest card limit is still only $200 after 5 years. But the Visa now has a $7,000 limit and these accounts are an important part of my credit history.
Why would I close these accounts and then pay several thousand dollars to replace them with authorized user accounts?
2) Why would I return documents?
As you know, all documents are posted at my websites and I publicize the deplorable conduct of scummy outfits like Target to deter such conduct.
3) Confidentiality.
I will keep the settlement confidential for an additional $8,000.
4) My damages:
a) I still don’t have the adverse action letter.
My damages include not being able to establish damages.
We all know that I did NOT apply for a credit limit increase to $300 and that my limit was increased to only $300 due to the information contained in my Experian report.
As you know, I’m suing Experian in the related suit. As you also know, I need to document my damages. So, I need the adverse action letter.
b) Do you really think that I deserve only $1,000 for having to litigate for almost two years and getting nothing but lies and insults?
I declined a prospective client’s offer for $100/hr for 10 hours prepaid earlier this year because I was too busy. $1,000 and the adverse action letter would have been an appropriate offer when Target was first served and we talked about what was going on with that inquiry. I was extraordinarily patient and cooperative and I explained to you numerous times what it’s all about. I could have been talking to a rock and had better results.
Target chose to litigate INSTEAD of doing what’s right.
It’s most interesting that Mr. Foehl didn’t even bother to ask about the item Target advertises fraudulently at its website. He couldn’t care less until he gets the summons. I can’t get over what a scummy company Target is.
I suppose there’s nothing I can do to prevent Target from closing my accounts, but I’m certainly not going to voluntarily destroy my credit because Target has no intention to comply with the law.
Christine
c: posted at CreditSuit.org
Posted by Christine on 03/17/2006 at 02:37 AM
2004 Suit (credit limits, credit reporting - on appeal) • RNB (Target) - FINALLY reporting credit limits • (0) Comments • Permalink
