|
|
Review 8/29/2007
|
|
As a resident of Lancaster for over 20 years, it disappoints me that this company is being allowed to even use the name "Lancaster" in its own name, inasmuch as the following, which ultimately will hopefully have a positive impact on what this institution will initiate regarding a proactive approach to no longer allow their practices to humiliate the proud name of the city of Lancaster, being as currently they certainly do not appear to be 'part of the solution' but rather, well...
As I stated, 20 years of living in Lancaster has, admittedly, made me somewhat partial to the well-being of the city and to that of it's name, almost to the point of becoming a 'personal' thing. Since day one, and literally to the end without exception, I attended school(s) in the city of Lancaster. K through 6 -- same school (in Lancaster); 7 and 8 -- same junior HS in Lancaster; high school -- a proud member of THE 1ST class to graduate, after 4 consecutive years, at a particular Lancaster high school: appropriately, Lancaster High School.
For the sake of my hopes for CB of Lancaster ("CBL") and, hopefully, its new plans of renovation to not only correct its seemingly-corrupted business practices, but also to make itself, for the first time, deemed worthy of the name it holds, I'll make every effort to refrain from continuing the above autobiography of 'My Lancaster and Me' and get to the things that really matter.
If nothing else, I can honestly say I know how difficult humility can be; especially when it relates to 'my past contributions' to society, when it comes to negativity. I also feel strongly that THE major contributor to me learning the significance of the term "accountability" was the 'tough love' and 'brutal honesty' I was blessed with and sustained. That being said...
My credit is in the tank. Has been since I was given my first piece of 'plastic' valued (in my mind) at $1500 in the form of a universal gift card. Correction -- not at the very beginning. Thus, I was given more 'gift cards' and 'free money' and the rest is history.
Then the day came where this guy named Reality introduced himself to me with a swift kick below the belt. However, he was and is a lot bigger than me, so I had no choice but to take it and smile. "Thank you sir; may I have another?" Unfair fight but hey-- play the hand that's dealt, I suppose.
After my encounter with Big R, things changed (slowly as it did) and now, the two of us usually get along OK. It gets better (from what I can tell) indefinitely, as long as just bite my tongue and keep quiet after each additional cheap-shot kick.
In English, I'm trying my best to make myself eligible for being deemed credit-worthy. Note that I say this in all earnesty: upon recent review of my credit report(s) from the three major bureaus, CBL has managed to get their name on the board a total of ten (TEN) times -- all of which are now "key derogatory" marks against me (most people don't even have 10 credit cards). Basically, each of CBL's ten submissions are a bunch of red stamps in the shape of a 'sad face'.
Ten.
I currently have 33 'issues' on my report - and yes, a third of them come from CBL. When I saw this, my first reaction was to take a swing back at Big R, but before I could, he 'kicked' in again. Rather than have a fit like many would and currently do, I decided to steer away from hypocrisy and get both sides of the story before making a judgment call. To do so, I had to dispute the CBL's reports.
If this sounds frivolous by chance, allow me to give an example of one of the many disputes. CBL reports, as a key derogatory mark on my credit profile, the I owe money to Lanc C -- I've never even heard of the name 'Lanc' and I especially don't remember borrowing money from Mr C for that matter... :)
Give this a try -- seriously: search for "Lanc C", quotes and all, and if you can make some legit interpretation, you're a better person than I. Logically, my first assumption would be LancASTER C, and further, if I had to make a brilliant guess, I'd say likely they're referring to Lancaster City. Fine. However while I do accept full responsibility for my shortcomings, one thing I won't do is let history repeat itself by making a stupid financial decision, in this case, arbitrarily paying out $X to CBL just because 'they say so' -- and I mean in terms of using ordinary common sense.
"This item was verified and updated on Aug 2007." I received THAT for a response. Now -- Big R wants me to pass something on: if the given response, (times ten, remember) is one that you feel is sufficient, he says he'll be by to see you pretty soon, so brace yourself.
GIVE ME A BREAK. That's almost insulting. It would be if I didn't remind myself that true ignorance is not a crime, nor is it ever intentional. Think about it -- I inquired and receieved, "This item was verified and updated on Aug 2007." as a response. Well, thank goodness for verification that a company's own report is true -- my mind's at ease...
Not an insult, but it didn't help; if it didn't help, it can only hurt (or at least continue to do so). Pardon the cliche, but adding actual insult to injury, not only did they give me a "sufficient response", they took the liberty of making all ten at-the-time-reports into ten KDs (key derogatory) -- subsequently, my credit score is, as of this writing, 22 points lower than it was two weeks ago.
After all this sunk in, I did a little research. Granted, no one "enjoys" credit bureaus (that I know of). But I looked at a few different reports for different agencies -- they were ALL in 'satisfactory standing' with the BBB. CBL, on the other hand, was given an "F" by the BBB itself, which reads:
"We strongly question the company’s reliability for reasons such as that they have failed to respond to complaints, their advertising is grossly misleading, they are not in compliance with the law’s licensing or registration requirements, their complaints contain especially serious allegations, or the company’s industry is known for its fraudulent business practices."
That, to me, and because of the fact that CBL has more than one issue on file against them since last century that remains open and unresolved to this day, and in combination with both hearing 'their side' of the story, which was meaningless in essence, AND with witnessing actions that appear to be nothing more than acts of malice after my inquiries, is UNACCEPTABLE and INTOLERABLE BUSINESS PRACTICE -- negatively affecting a person's personal welfare is (past) where the line should be drawn. If they think otherwise, they've got even bigger issues than those I discussed here, and I can only hope, in the interest of the general welfare of the public, as well as in that of the serving of justice, that this will not remain tolerated effective immediately.
To the reader (including affiliates of the CBL, if any) -- thank you in advance for your valuable time.
|
|
|
|