I have the same CA reporting 3 separate collection accounts. 2 of them are paid, 1 has not. the CA is Pro Com Services. Acct 1. is for a cell phone Date open: June 99 Status: Closed remarks: Paid Collection This is all the info given. I know this one has been paid because I was garnished and I am still showing a judgment against me that has not been marked satisfied, but I have proof from the Circuit Clerk that it has been. Acct 2. is for a utility Date Open: Apr 2000 status: Open remarks: Paid collection Acct 3. medical bill Date Opened: Mar, 2000 Balance: $328 Status: Open Remarks: Placed for collection Now here's what I'm thinking. Tell me if I'm way off base. I want to send a letter to CA stating that Acct # 1 and 2 are being reported incorrectly. They may try to pull a CR to see what is being reported. They do not have PP to do this so I would have the advantage of a violation. Also, doesn't the CA have an obligation to report to the CRA that a judgment has been satisfied? They haven't done this either. Could I use this idea to try to get them to remove all 3 entries? I have not tried to validate the medical collection yet, as I was trying to kill 3 birds with one stone.
#3 is still open - so they would IMHO have a PP to pull your report. How would you go about proving it was in regards to your letter re 1 and 2, rather than #3? (except by timing). I don't believe that judgments are reported by the CA, they are reported by some mechanism thru the courts. I think they (the courts) would have the obligation of marking it satisfied.
on the judgement issue, the cra should investigate an update it to paid. my experience is they will"fake" an investigation if it has been done previosly. then you could sue the cra for failing to investigate and use that to move deletion.
all you need is the dispute and a request for procedures used to verify..... this would be enough to prove that they did or didn't. if you already know what "correct and accurate' is
For Wranglers #1 and #2 CA accounts, they have no PP because the account has been paid and closed. So if the CA was to do an inquiry based on wrangler questioning the reporting, it would be a violation. Account #3, they do have a PP inquiry because the account remains unpaid, leaving the account still open. BTW, I **think** it was quixote who sued a creditor in small claims for the same reason. It was a lengthy thread, you can do a search to find it......or I am pretty sure some cnetter has the link saved.
Cinderella that is exactly what I was thinking, I know Collection Activity is Permissable Purpose, But not on a closed tradeline. I was going to send a letter about the 2 closed accounts, and if they pulled, it would be a violation, But I would have to prove that they pulled because of my letter. Pretty tough to do. I'll probably send a validation letter on the open acount and see what that brings up. Maybe concentrate on getting the open one off first, then go for the paid off acct's.
i like your idea here though in regards to catching a CA or OC of a closed/paid account in PP violations
So, you're going to ask them to investigate their reporting of two closed/paid accounts, and when they do investigate, you'll use an intent to sue for no PP to remove the tradelines? 1. How can you be sure they'll even pull your reports? They might not... 2. Don't you think that by asking them to investigate their reporting, you are giving them PP to run an AR? I don't think it'll fly, but you might as well give it a shot, you never know what works until you try!
obviusly there's no guarantee they will pull.. but if they're lazy you might catch them doing it. there are other ways they could do this w/o shooting themselves in the foot, and i've heard they are able to view their own TL's w/o a pull.. a casual look at ones report will reveal to them whether or not OC's and CA's pull reports during disputes. i just sent off my first diputes in 2 years, so my inq's from then are all gone. I'll be looking closely at my inq's over the next few weeks
"No - Pulling a report to see what you are reporting is not a PP." So, if you ask them to investigate their reporting, and they pull an AR (to investigate their reporting, at your request), it's not PP? I don't see how this wouldn't be PP.
If I understand right, It wouldn't be PP if they are pulling your report over a CLOSED tradeline. They should (hope) know what they are reporting if they have accurate records. It's just a thought here. My main concern was, if they did pull the report over my letter about the two closed paid accounts...how would I be able to prove it since I have another active tradeline. I'm wondering if my papertrail would be enough evidence. It's just a hope that they would even pull a report. I'll take it to the next step after that. I don't think it would hurt
Re: Re: could I use this as leverage? You should read the FCRA on Permissable Purpose. It is pretty clear. They are supposed to know what they are reporting. After all, they reported it in the first place!
Re: Re: could I use this as leverage? I did read the FCRA (many times). Please point out to me where it says there is no PP for a furnisher of info to pull an AR when a consumer requests an investigation of the reporting. From the FCRA"(A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, **or review** or collection of an account of, the consumer; or" "It is pretty clear." I don't think it's clear. I think you'd need case law to back up the postion that there is no PP in the situation described in the OP. Are there any FTC opinion letters that might deal with this type of situation? I couldn't find any. "They are supposed to know what they are reporting. After all, they reported it in the first place!" True, however, they can only control what info they send to the CRA, they cannot control how the CRA uses that info, or if the CRA makes a mistake with that info, etc ad infitum.
Re: Re: could I use this as leverage? wrangler - i think your in a jam since they do have that one open account still.. PP- i can think of several ways the OC/CA of a closed account could go about doing this w/o a pull. It would not behoove anybody here to post HOW they could prevent violating the law though just like I believe it is counter productive to write a dispute letter that spells out exactly what the other party needs to do to stay in bounds of the law when what I WANT is for them to violate it. repeatedly But suffice it to say that there is NO reason at all to pull my report if i tell you that you're reporting innacurate info! think about it some...
I think that is a good idea Wrangler. Because you have three accounts with CA, they could always claim they were doing a PP on the third account. Seems kind of hard to try and prove otherwise. I would follow-up with uniondiva's suggestion for the description of the procedures used to verify accuracy with the CRA while you request validation on the third account. Who knows, maybe the CA really did verify??? You can add that violation against the CA when you later settle the third open account and try to get them to do a nonpermissible inquiry. I would take any possible ammo available, even if I have to **create** it.
Re: Re: Re: could I use this as leverage? http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/benner.htm 1. How long after a consumer terminates an account does a previous credit card issuer or lender have access to the consumer's credit file? Section 604(a)(3)(A) of the FCRA provides a consumer reporting agency ("CRA," usually a credit bureau) with a permissible purpose to provide a report on a consumer to a person who "intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer."(1) Once an account is closed because the consumer has paid the debt in full (and also, in the case of an open-end account such as a credit card account, notified the creditor to close the account), it is our view that no permissible purpose exists for a CRA to provide file information on a consumer to the creditor. Because there no longer exists any account to "review" and the consumer is not applying for credit, the FCRA provides no permissible purpose for the creditor to receive a consumer report from a CRA. I enclose a recent staff opinion letter (Gowen, 04/29/99) that discusses this issue in more detail.
Re: Re: Re: could I use this as leverage? I was going to send a letter about the 2 closed accounts, and if they pulled, it would be a violation, * But I would have to prove that they pulled because of my letter. Pretty tough to do. WranglerTJ | 32 posts since Oct 2002 ===================================== *No you wouldn't. All you have to do is show they pulled and that is on the credit report.
