No PP Pressure Tactic

Yeah, let them know that the CRA will be "billing" them--that will enhance your credibility!! LOL

 

Not to be the devil here, but, if it is small fry it might just work. But for the bigger fish such Sears, Fleet, etc. I would think that the CRA make more money off them pulling inquires with or without a PP.

I suppose you could try to add the CRA as co-plaintiffs, but they will file a motion to bow out, they do not want to piss off their customers.

 

You can't add plaintiffs at will, you need their consent...LMAO

 

But couldn't you add the CRA's as co-defendants? Then it would be up to them to cross claim against the creditor.

 

Thank you Thank you Thank you Butch! You're my hero. I am going to use this against Elderbeerman's. They really do make me mad!

 

You could add them as a party defendant. If they choose to cross-claim, that would be up to them. Butch, I think its creative thinking, but think you would really lose credibility to try to say something like you are going to add them as plaintiffs. They have to bring their own actions or if named as a party defendant, file their own cross-claim.

This permissible purpose thing isn't as clear as it might seem on the surface when trying to make a CRA liable for reports pulled without permissible purpose. When they can show that they could reasonably have believed the report was being pulled for a permissible purpose, they seem to prevail in the cases I have read. I think it would be really hard to prove a case against a CRA in this instance.


L

 

Good idea, Butch. My 2 notes:

1. Since you can't make the CRAs sue them, I prefer the wording of the 2nd option.

2. Since FTC opinion letters are not binding, I'd cut the drama and leave out the "no less of an authority than" part


Saar

 

In my last letter to Sears regarding this, I actually thought about this, Butch, but couldn't figure out how to word it properly, LOL.

My thought, though, was that I would file a complaint with TransUnion regarding their violation of the FCRA and keep hounding TU until they did something about it. Don't know how that would work, or if it would.

Without my letter in front of me, I believe that when I gave them their deadline I said something to the effect of being forced to file a lawsuit, as well as file formal complaints with the BBB, the AGs of CA and IL, the FTC, and TransUnion. I also mentioned in another paragraph that they were subject to statutory sanctions, not only to me, but to TransUnion.

Just in case they hadn't thought of that themselves ;-)

Oh, and I can't take credit for the letter I sent, it's a spin-off from Christine's at Bayhouse merged with one I found on here.

 

Here's the 24 hour Intent to Sue letter I sent Sears, the only one that got a response, and the one that mentions having to pay TU, as well.

I only sent this because after Allen's post I realized that I never sent them any identifying information or a copy of the inquiry in question. (Also the only reason I gave them another week yesterday to get their butts in gear.)

****************************

December 11, 2002
Senior Paralegal's Name
Senior Paralegal, Law Department
Sears, Roebuck, and Co.
3333 Beverly Road, B5-205B
Hoffman Estates, IL 60179

SENT VIA FAX TO 847-286-3388

Dear Ms. Paralegal:

Attached please find copies of earlier correspondence sent to Sears with no resolution as of today, December 9, 2002. Also please find attached a copy of the inquiry in question, from my TransUnion consumer report. I attach this in the event that Sears is unable to confirm its practices regarding inquiries and the consumer reporting agencies.

I will, once again, iterate the facts: I did, indeed, have an account with Sears at one time. That account was settled and CLOSED in November 1997; therefore, Sears had no permissible purpose in May 2002 to perform an account review of my consumer report.

From the Gowan FTC Opinion letter, which can be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/gowen.htm

FORMER BORROWERS
As the previously-quoted legislative history makes clear, "review" of an account under Section 604(a)(3) refers to an EXISTING (i.e., open or current) account. A creditor has no EXISTING business relationship with consumers whose closed end credit accounts have been paid off, I.E., former borrowers. Hence, the creditor would either have to (1) obtain those consumers' written authorizations pursuant to Section 604(a)(2) to access their credit reports or (2) comply with the prescreening requirements set forth in Section 604(c) and, where applicable, Section 615(d).

This is not a matter that needs to be researched, Ms. Paralegal. Sears has obviously broken the law, and as such, is subject to statutory sanctions, not only to me but to TransUnion.

In my last letter to you, I indicated that if I had not heard from you by TODAY, December 9, 2002, I would be filing suit in small claims court in MY COUNTY, ST. Please be advised that this is now my 24 hour intent to sue; if you have not responded to me by 1:00 PM PST on December 10, 2002 via fax or telephone, I will have no choice but to file suit, at which point you will be liable not only for statutory damages but attorneys fees and court costs as well. At that time, I will also file formal complaints with TransUnion, the BBB, the California and Illinois Attorneys General, and the FTC regarding your companyâ??s disregard for the FCRA and other state and federal statutes regarding the privacy of consumer reports.

Please advise of your intentions via fax at 123-456-7890 or telephone at 987-654-3210.

Sincerely,
waalien's DH

 

In theory you COULD add the CRA as a DEFENDANT simply for the nuisance factor. They would file a motion to {what's the word} bow out of the case. But that might get a little more attention if you DID file a suit.....


just a thought.

 

waalien,

Silly question, but did they reply?

 

Yup, basically they said "look, we want to take your complaint seriously but out of 60 million customers and former customers, we have you narrowed down to one of 16. Can you please help us figure out who you are? Oh, and please don't file a FCRA violation suit against us, we REALLY don't like those."

well, not in those words, LOL, but that's the gist of it. They wanted DH's SSN and our addresses for the last 5 years. I responded with the account number (doh! I still can't believe i shot off a letter without that) and told them I didn't feel comfortable giving them my SSN and previous addresses; after all, whoever pulled the AR already had that information, right?

so i so generously gave them til the 17th to answer. this is one i really don't want to have to litigate over because DH could care less about "this credit stuff" and I can't sue on his behalf til he goes out to sea, LOL.

 

LOL...general POA, huh?? Anyway, sounds like they are buying time for some reason. If they pulled an AR they would have to have the SSN and with that I am sure that they could find the associated account number. Sounds like a stall tactic. maybe so they could get their legal dept involved. HMMMMmmm....

 

hahahaha! No, I'll have a general POA as well of course, but in Cali, there's a form you can fill out with the small claims stuff that's just for service members who are deployed but were in-state when the injury occurred. I'll have to use that to my fullest advantage. DH is very smart when it comes to things that interest him, and as far as aircraft weapons are concerned but this stuff bores him to tears... "just get it done and let me know when I can buy a new car" is his way of thinking.

this is their legal department who is trying to get more time. i don't think they'd need a ssn to do an AR, just a name and address, maybe an account number. oh and i think they're trying to buy time because the legal department didn't actually get my letter until the day before my original deadline, or 2 days before my 10 day intent to sue.

i dunno, maybe i'm just being too nice ;-)

 

Doesn't sound like there is anything wrong with DHs thinking...LOL...Mine might be the same if my other half was here with me. She is still in GA right now. I am leaving this Sunday to go pick her and the kids up and everything we have and move to TX. We are moving ourselves as opposed to having the Gov't move us. it's hard work, but pays pretty well.

Anyway I hope your "being too nice" doesn't come back to haunt you. Seems to me that big business kind of preys on that. Nonetheless, it sounds like you have a pretty good case as long as the documentation is there. And make sure that you have written down the conversation, should you need that for a possible court date.

 

Good idea, fave Butch growling dude!!!!!!

Ok THE Stan, why haven't you been banned yet? Don't answer it's a rhetorical question -- you are now on iggY as you choose, yet again, to add nothing productive or thought-producing to any thread!!!!!!

Sorry to get distracted, fave Butch growling dude ;-)

I'm wondering as well, regarding permissable purpose, this came up in a previous thread, if it wouldn't be beneficial to check each report and how the inquiry is listed to establish the lack of purpose as well as the lack of accurate coding. For those companies pulling from more than one CRA; it could be a way to have a papertrail, evidence, and establish responsibility.

Sassy

 

Oh, I know all about that. In 8 years of marriage to a military man, we let the USN move us ONCE. Took 8 months and lots of hissy fits on my part to get all the stuff fixed that they BROKE.

This last move, from New Orleans to CA, we netted almost 4K. Not bad at all ;-)

But moving from LA to CA with a just turned a year old toddler in a U-Haul was not not not not fun.

Hope you have safe travels between GA and TX.

Oh, and all of my conversations w/ Sears have been via fax, I can't impersonate DH very well on the phone ;-)

 

I agree, Sassy. Unfortunately, TU seems to be my worst culprit as far as non-PP inquiries go. I don't have any on EXP or EQ, neither does DH. We both have one on TU.

I keep thinking naming the CRA as a defendent might be precedent-setting; after all, they're the ones just relying on the company's word that they have PP. Do they do anything like random purpose checking to ascertain that these big companies aren't abusing the system? They should be.

 

yeah, you should be able to set a precedent (See Waalien v. Trans Union, Sup Ct. 114......) LMAO