NON Permissible Purpose.....

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by hiding90, Apr 22, 2004.

  1. hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    LOL

    Just got this from my attorney after I ran this by him:

    "The permissible purpose for collection of a debt hinges upon the CA being able to proove that they even legally hold a debt that you owe. If that proof falls apart, the PP is no longer there.
    "

    Just wondering what you think of this statement?? :)

    The scenerio was a collection agency pulled a consumers report for a debt that was charged off in 1995.

    The arguement is that if a collection agency DOES NOT send validation, and instead stops collecting the debt, does this mean their inquiry "becomes" impermissible somehow?

    Also, does a debt which is "time barred" for suit, also make an inquiry impermissible if the debt collector is trying to collect the debt it cant legally sue on?

    "



    Disagree in practice and the way most judges would interpret permissible purpose, but I agree in theory.

    If they pull hiding90 credit report on a debt owed by Jane, no good. But if they pull report on HIDING901 for the debt of another HIDING90, I think that it is so close that the court will find a permissible purpose.

    You need to read the statute: in connection with collection of a debt. It does not say in connection with collection of a debt owed by the consumer whose credit they pulled.

    I laughed at first...then thought.......wait..he is right!! LOL
     
  2. fun4u2

    fun4u2 Well-Known Member

     
  3. hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    EXACTLY!

    Thats why I laughed......but even if they did...say in your case, they were collecting for someone else...they pulled yours...

    REGARDLESS OF WHO'S report they pull...as long as it is in connection with the collection of a debt.....in other words...all they have to say in defense of a non permissible purpose lawsuit is....

    we were collecting a debt....dont even matter WHO they were attempting to collect from LOL


    I think this was kinda a "hypothetical" answer...but it makes sense as the plain language of the act says:)

    It is something more to "think about" rather than take as the letter of the law.

    I take it at non-permissible purpose is hard to prove and not worth a whole lot of effort unless it is a slam dunk.

    If you compare your case to LK's cases for instance :)

    In his cases, they never responded. This doesnt tell ya anything!

    In your case, they responded, admitted liability, THEN pulled your report. :)
     
  4. fun4u2

    fun4u2 Well-Known Member

    in this case if they pulled your report say but actually intended to pull mine for the purpose of debt collection are they/ or not required to remove the inquiry at that point because it is innacurate,

    i understand the arguement of excuse for not being liable for the pull if it was made in error and was corrected

    but say for arguements sake if they didnt correct it can they then be held liable then?

    otherwise they could be snoopy and pull anyones report and say oops oh well sorry, you cant sue, too bad how sad 4 u lol
     
  5. fun4u2

    fun4u2 Well-Known Member

    oh yeah forgot to mention with my other post with the CA collecting with no proof and pulled the inq.

    remember I said I was joint holder on the acct, funny thing is they never pulled the main acct holders report I called and asked and they have a current copy of their report and its not on there no pull no Tl nothing.

    what do u think about that? wouldnt they pull both to pursue both for collection why 1 and not the other ?

    hmmm
     
  6. hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    Based on the letter of the law, that is true :

    "otherwise they could be snoopy and pull anyones report and say oops oh well sorry, you cant sue, too bad how sad 4 u lol
    "

    As long as they said "its in connection with the collection of a debt"

    At some point though someone would ask...well..show me the account you are collecting on.

    Its kinda like the "procedures request" cases...they just dont seem to be very prevelant.

    Which says to me that consumers are not very sucessful with these.
     
  7. fun4u2

    fun4u2 Well-Known Member

    thats scary


    I should write congress and get a petition going as my full time job to change these credit laws, unfortunately I can not make the time right now too much on my plate maybe Ill write a letter though.
     
  8. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member


    I wish I woulda said that:

    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by Butch

    Once the validity is disputed, and remains unproven, they lose their right of presumption, RETRO-ACTIVELY, and must delete their CR activity. Including ALL the activity which originated from the [now disputed, and yet unproven] collection account.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    When that happens, PP has vanished retroactively as well.

    :)
     
  9. fun4u2

    fun4u2 Well-Known Member

    ok now do you guys see why I always request validation from the CA AFTER I disputed the acct with the CRA.

    hiding remember when we argued about the laws and consumer right to sue and the CA or OC not having to send anything out of the 30 day period and I said yes they do.

    this is to prove that furnisher has the right to legally collect the debt if they have no proof they can not collect or report it and you said 623 a was not actionable but section b was.

    under 1692 according to my attorney the furnisher must always respond there is no time barred and the courts recognize this as not admission to the debt if the consumer fails to request this outside the 30 day time period.

    as some crooked CA try to pull they sent notice and claim the consumer failed to reqest within the time limits then they slap it on your CR.

    so i found most of the accts this way on my CR so AFTER the CA verifies the info to the CRA I requests that they verify with me, otherwise the law does not allow the furnisher/CA to continue to report inaccurate unverirfied info.


    ok do we agree or am I just on a hopeless mission for my out of the box thinking as someone once said .
     
  10. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    I think that's great that there is at least one atty. out there who agrees with our old interpretation.

    I just wish we could fiind some case law on it.

    Think you could ask him if he knows any cases FUN?

    Specifically on point. 1692g (FDCPA §809) requires a response regardless of the time frame of the DV.


    :)

    Now btw Fun you did say "requests that they verify with me, otherwise the law does not allow the furnisher/CA to continue to report inaccurate unverirfied info".

    Furnisher / CA

    The furnisher part is a function on FCRA.
    The CA part is FDCPA.

    :)
     
  11. fun4u2

    fun4u2 Well-Known Member

    yes butch I will contact my Attorney tommorrow by e-mail that way I will get a quicker response from him he is very buzy. just finished a huge trial in LA

    BTW my attorney specializes in consumer law/ debt collection/ FCRA/ FDCPA and was a former judge for over 20 yrs.

    he has tried lots of cases in both fed and us supreme courts i am studing up now on writs of certiori. :) that is the fun part.


    some of the laws he has been giving me to study for my own knowledge relate to the state CC hiding was sharing with me so I can say hiding knows what he is talking about.

    and yes I know I used both the FCRA and FDCPA but dont forget the FCBA comes into play on somethings too.

    thx for your help BTW I am doing well with my 1st lawsuit, it looks to settle out of court then I actually say Im 1 for 1 lol
     
  12. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: NON Permissible Purpose.....


    Oh my Gawd - WHY?

    lol
     
  13. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: NON Permissible Purpose.....


    You mean state UCC?

    :)

    .
     
  14. fun4u2

    fun4u2 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: NON Permissible Purpose.....

    actually I ment state civil codes :)

    BTW just e-mailed my attorney now waiting 4 his reply will post when he answers.
     
  15. fun4u2

    fun4u2 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: NON Permissible Purpose.....

    Im a law student thats why And thats part of my current assignment, too bad its on criminal law some of these cases are horrible YUK

    I actually have to prepare a writ myself on a mock case what a fun trip NOT !!
     
  16. hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    Re: Re: Re: NON Permissible Purpose.....

    LOL

    What a misunderstanding!!!

    The quote about the "hinging" was from a post a found on here....


    I asked my attorney about it...and he DISAGREED!!! :)

    I think the way I presented it was all wrong!!

    He is of the opinion that non-permissible is WAY hard to prove because all the puller has to say is that they pulled it on connection with the collection of a debt..as the statue says...



    And FUN4U2 is referrring to the Ca Civil Code which allows US to dispute with the furnisher direclty....and after a dispute to the reporting agency...Ca residents can dispute the results of the dispute with the furnisher requiring them to conduct an investigation.


    I originally thought she was misquoting the FCRA, but it is the Ca Civil Code which she was referring to.'


    :)
     
  17. keebo

    keebo Member

    Re: Re: Re: NON Permissible Purpose.....

    All of these posts have dealt with 'the collection of a debt'. Let's turn the tables a little, and say a non-PP puller claims they pulled the report of hiding90 in reference to a credit application but meant to pull the report of hiding901. What then?

    I have had two car dealerships who have pulled my report without a PP. In both cases, they claim the report was pulled in error because they meant to pull the report of another 'keebo'. In reality, these bottom feeders are pulling and sending out sales solicitations to those who recently had a BK discharge. With the promise of 'helping you rebuild your credit' they are trying to lure you to the lot so they can sell you an auto at 20%+ interest.

    One of these dealerships will get a summons from me within the next few weeks.

    BTW, my first non-PP case was settled this week, and I will be depositing my $1,000 check very soon.

    keebo
     
  18. ontrack

    ontrack Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: NON Permissible Purpose.....

    Did they have a PRM pull before the full report pull? They are required to keep the criteria used for their PRM pulls for a period of time (maybe 3 years) to ensure compliance with various laws. The full picture of their activities may be available by discovery.
     
  19. ontrack

    ontrack Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: NON Permissible Purpose.....

    The last thing you need if you have marginal credit scores and are trying to rebuild, is additional inquiries for accounts you don't even want.
     
  20. hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    Re: Re: Re: Re: NON Permissible Purpose.....

    -Keebo...this is a regular tactic by car dealers :)

    -IT IS non-permissible..YOU NEVER had a relationship with them....

    -Here is another difference though....they pulled the credit report....THEN THEY USED the credit report to solicit of other business...

    -This is far different than pulling a report...then not replying to a request for the purpose...(and not using the info)

    -SUE them car dealers...they are buttheads LOL
     

Share This Page