This question needed a little bit more focus. I received two solicitations reportedly based on CRA pre-screening reports, despite the fact that my files are supposed to be PRM Blocked. Since the two companies were not showing up on any of my CRA reports as having received a PRM inquiry, I sent a letter demanding to know from whom they received my information. In the letter that I received from one of the two companies, they stated that they "contacted __, which was the credit reporting agency who supplied your name for the solicitation. According to __, you contacted them by phone on __/__/04 at 07:04 AM, CST to opt-out of credit solicitations." Now, number one, I should have been optted out since Sept 23, 2002 (in fact, if anything this should be when they may have re-set the PRM-BLOCK, because they re-set the fraud alert on my credit file, when THEY processed the one dispute which they received by MAIL a week earlier). Does the CRA have the right to disclose even this type of information about a consumers credit file without a PP?
Hi Jam from what I understand the CRA sells your info to third parties for pre-sceening offers and they don't always block your file. I also have a fraud alert on my CR but I still experience the same thing, funny thing is it specifically says do not extend credit without first verifying with me personally. but I recieved a CC in the mail with the pre-approval no one will disclose how they were able to obtain my info or authorize such an acct. so makes we ponder what civil action can be taken to protect ourselfs . I need to dig for case law to see if this has ever been addressed before. let me know if you find out anything I 'm curious to know.
The promotional disclosures themselves is not what has my blood boiling the most. It's the fact that the CRA, knowing that this company did not have a permissible purpose, disclosed how and when they were CLAIMING that I had requested the promotional block on my account. I would consider any information regarding communications to and from the CRA to be 'below the fold' information, and yet, knowing that I was disputing that the company even had a right to obtain a promotional inquiry on me, they would openly discuss information regarding allegedly how I requested the promotional block on my file.
I'm either a genius, or have way too much time on my hands to read legalese... The situation is a double catch-22. Read my explaination at the bottom. Posted so I can actually remember this myself when it comes time to ITS, if I need to ITS. (i appologize for any spelling errors, i retyped this) Now under 604(c)(2)(C) technically they may be able to provide the status under 604(c)(1)(A)(iii), if the consumer hadn't elected 604(c)(1)(A)(iii) status; however since the consumer elected 604(c)(1)(A)(iii) status, that information shouldn't be able to be revealed without a PP. Since the CRA revealed 604(c)(1)(A)(iii) status to the company knowing that the company didn't have a PP, I would believe that they both violated for obtaining a report (without a PP), and since the 604(c)(1)(A)(iii) was what was disclosed, they knew that a 604(c)(1)(A)(iii) election was made so a PRM inquiry would be prohibited. So the CRA knowingly and willingly provided to the company without a PP the information that they couldn't provide to the company a PRM because of the consumer invoking 604(c)(1)(A)(iii). Not only that but they knowingly and willingly provided to the company without a PP the information about the exact time and date that they were alledging that the 604(c)(1)(A)(iii) election occurred. Now, the company, when they were informed by the CRA of those two things, instead of keeping mum, instead made the fatal flaw of documenting that their company made the non-PP inquiry of the CRA of the 604(c)(1)(A)(iii) status on my credit file, which would not have been able to be provided to them without a PP, because as was indicated by the 604(c)(1)(A)(iii) status which they disclosed, a PRM purpose was prohibited by 604(c)(1)(A)(iii). Even better, when the CRA updated to show the 'THREE' MISSING PRM disclosures in their previous report, guess what wasn't disclosed, their subsequent disclosure to the same company of the 604(c)(1)(A)(iii) status.
Taking out the legalese... They can't provide the status of whether or not there is a PRM block. Without a permissible purpose. Because the only way to do that without a permissible purpose is with a PRM. And with a PRM block they can't do a PRM without violating. -- The company is relying on the C part of the PRM limit, as long as no account information was transferred, no PP is needed, unfortunately, the only way that the PRM status can be transferred with a PRM BLOCK is with a PP, because with a PRM BLOCK, it's an illegal PRM; and in this case they were pre-advised that PRMs were illegal, and still requested a PRM specifically on me after being advised that a PRM was illegal.
You're giving me a headache When you go to court, would you tape record what the judge's response is...
Jlynn: You're not the only one... I felt like Rodney Dangerfield in "Back To School" when he says "I feel like I gave birth... to an accountant." BTW: all the 604(c)(1)(A)(iii)'s should be 604(c)(1)(B)(iii)'s in the commentary, didn't notice that I typed the wrong letter when I typed it the first time, then copied and pasted the same each time it came up... At least I was consistent...
I just wanted to post an update (and maybe BUTCH could chime in.) The company is claiming that they believe that they can call up the CRA and play 20 questions about the contents of a CRA's files, without it being considered a request for the consumers credit file. My counter is that the FCRA specifically says that *ANY INFORMATION*, which the CRA has on their systems, and any method disclosure, including an ORAL disclosure is a CONSUMER REPORT, and therefore governed by Section 604. -- (I dumbed down PRM to 'lesser disclosure') Specifically, the Fair Credit Reporting Act defines a "consumer report" to mean any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency, and is only permissible if allowed under Section 604, which your inquiry of _CRA_ of my Section 604(e) status was not. Therefore, the release of any information held by _CRA_ is subject to Section 604 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and requires a permissible purpose; even lesser disclosures of information than a complete credit file requires a permissible purpose under Section 604, which your company did not have in this matter. -- I then better summarized the logic about whether a lesser disclosure can be used to obtain Section 604(e) status. -- Your company can not legally request any credit reporting agency for a disclosure of Section 604(e) status without a permissible purpose, because the provision of a lesser disclosure is dependent upon the consumer's Section 604(e) status, and still even if a lesser disclosure was a valid vehicle for the disclosure of Section 604(e) status, your company still did not have a permissible purpose under Section 604 for a lesser disclosure. -- This is the biggie, their first letter admits that I am being taken off of their solicitation list, therefore, they could not be making a firm offer of credit or insurance after they requested the secondary disclosure from the CRA, and none of the other lesser disclosure conditions of 604(c) apply.
TU thought they could sell a subset of their information to marketers, claiming it was not a credit report. FTC disagreed. TU lost.
Might be worth looking at what agreement TU might be under due to their loss. It may include both general requirements to follow applicable FCRA rules, as well as requirements to document to ensure auditability. FTC might be interested if they are "accomodating" a customer in a manner that gets around both the customer's PP requirement, and TU's duty to show consumers all inquiries.
Well, I am waiting for a response from them. I played dumb at current, if need be, when their corporate office responds... Then I can get 'educated'... But I phrased my correspondence to give them an 'easy out' way to offer me a settlement without directly claiming liability. And of course, I am going to make sure that any settlement includes providing testimony/evidence/affidavets against the company which requested the information as well.
