Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. No credit transaction? Dollar is extending a $20,000 car in exchange for a $100 payment. Dollar has already won these cases. They have a PP to pull the report. Search LN for background.
Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. SEND A $500 + DELETE THE HARD LETTER...AND YOU WILL GO AWAY...or we can do it the HARD WAY IN COURT!!! $1,000 + COSTS (YOUR TAB--NOT MINE)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. I guess the question is: What is the definition of "credit transaction?" The FTC has determined that the rental of property is not considered a credit transaction (FTC Staff Opinions Riddle and Long). If loaning one's house in exchange for money does not constitute a credit transaction, then I doubt that loaning one's vehicle in exchange for money does either. Realistically, they are not checking your credit in order to determine your ability to pay them their money. Rather (as you've already mentioned) they are assessing their risk exposure. This does not meet the permissible purpose standards. Could you please cite some of the cases that Dollar has already won? (I am not trying to be argumentative. Rather, I am interested in reading the opinions in preparation for my own PP case.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. YOU GET "HOME COURT ADVANTAGE" Are they going to APPEAR in your county to save THAT HARD AND $500??? I DON'T THINK SO!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. You'e talking about the opinion related to an after-the-fact inquiry that was pulled, correct? The FTC has stated numerous times that it is completely acceptable for a business to pull a hard inquiry prior to a rental relationship commencing. For example - "Section 604(a)(3)(F)(i) is clearly inapplicable in the fact situation presented, where the tenant has vacated the apartment when the landlord's attorney obtained the report. Certainly, this provision would permit a landlord to procure a consumer report to evaluate a consumer's rental application (that is, when the lease "transaction . . . is initiated by the consumer"). However, it does not give any business the right to obtain a report on a customer long after the transaction commenced. Given that Congress (1) amended the FCRA in 1996 so that this purpose is contingent on the consumer initiating the transaction, and (2) conspicuously omitted the "review" purpose allowed in the case of credit and non-credit accounts by Sections 604(a)(3)(A) and (F)(ii), it would not be consistent with the legislative scheme to interpret Section 604(a)(3)(F)(i) to provide a permissible purpose for a landlord or attorney to obtain a consumer report to consider suing a former tenant. " Obviously, landlords are well within their rights to request a credit report prior to renting to you. The same holds true for Dollar Rent a Car. In essence, the rental car agency is doing a debit card customer a favor by renting them a car. The inquiry is a small price to pay, considering the other option - no car to rent. Later in the opinion - "Section 604(a)(3)(F)(i) provides a permissible purpose on behalf of a party who has a legitimate business need for a report "in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer." Thus, for example, a merchant may procure a report on a consumer who offers to pay for goods with a personal check." A debit card transaction is much like a check transaction, because there needs to be some amount of faith placed in the customer that they will not close or empty their account prior to the rental car transaction being completed. Rental car agencies don't expose themselves to this risk when a CC is presented, since an authorization is received for the full amount of the rental at the time the car is rented. Contrary to what some people may believe, it is possible to drain a bank account even if a hold has been placed on a portion of their funds. This is the type of situation the car rental agency is trying to avoid. If you search Lexis Nexis, you can find a few cases relating to this type of situation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. Where do you get these ideas? Yes, they will appear in your local court. Some courts even allow an out of town defendant to appear via telephone. Why are you trying to encourage the person to file a case that they are going to lose? Do you want them to throw away money on court costs? George's opinions appear to involve a lot of wishful thinking and flying off the handle.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. THEY ACT LIKE THEY PAY A "FINE" OF $5,000 IF THEY REMOVE A "HARD"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. IS THE [] WANT-A-BE SPOUTING OFF AGAIN??? [IGNORE]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. You going for the EASY $500.00 + REMOVAL??? Or you going ALL THE WAY???
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. I've prepared a demand letter and conferred with one of the couple hundred attorneys who employ me. The faulty premise here (sorry, gottago) is that this was somehow a common sense PP. In other words: "isn't it common sense that someone loaning you a $30,000 vehicle for $100 is a credit transaction?" But that's what contracts are for. And a re-review of the contract that I signed does not provide for nor authorize a credit check. Even if there was a well-hidden provision of the contract, Dollar/Thrifty would be hard pressed to distinguish its conclusion that CC customers were credit worthy, while DC customers were a potential credit risk. In my case I have both. See where the rationale gets shaky? At this point, I'm gonna be the nice guy and demand deletion. If it doesn't happen then I sue under the FCRA (California's PP statute appears kinda weak).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. I believe so. Wanna be the guinea pig? Do you think that you can just keep applying for credit over and over again until your scores reaches 350?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. Kickman - As much as I am hate to admit that I might actually be incorrect, I think gottago is right in pointing out that this wouldn't fall under 604(a)(3)(A) as a "credit transaction" but rather under 604(a)(3)(F)(i) as a "business transaction." It's probably worth looking into any opinions that attempts to define a "business transaction." After all, in its broadest sense this would allow for a check of credit every time you go to the grocery store. However, the business transaction is coupled with "a legitimate business need for the information." If their policy is to take the full amount of the rental from a debit account (+ 10% I think someone mentioned) or if someone else (in your case, the car repair shop) is responsible for payment, I don't see where a legitimate business need continues to exist. At that point, why are they checking your credit-worthiness? To your point, they don't check the credit of those who pay with a credit card -- why not? Are debit card payers more likely to steal or destroy the car? I understand gottago's point that you are driving away with a $20,000 vehicle, but am I to believe that someone who pays with the only credit card that they have, say a Cap 1 card with a $500 limit, is a better risk solely because they paid with a credit card. We all know why a person would only have a $500 Cap 1 card (at least generally). Is it even relevant that they don't apply their policy equitably? Does this somehow dilute the "legitimate business need?" I'm very interested in any thought CNetters might have as I'm in the middle of my own PP case. I'd much rather say "oops! I hadn't thought of that" here than in front of a judge!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. You hit the nail on the head. Gottago only gave half the rationale 'cuz he only knows half the rationale. The legitimate business need argument breaks down when Dollar no longer has a compelling business need when the transaction is completed with a CC with a $250 limit, rather than a DC with thousands of dollars linked to it. There's no way to explain the dichotomy, other than seeing my profile to get a snapshot as to who I am and how I spend. That would be a promotional inquiry. I'm curious though, about Dollar's credit criteria. Is it FICO driven? What if I have lots of lates and a BK? COs? What if one of their facilities is in an ethnic neighborhood and most of the people have poor to mediocre credit? That policy is more trouble than it's worth. IMO, it's worth a class action lawsuit.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. LCHB. Also a Hung Gar Kuen practitioner.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. That's a stretch. A non-verifiable person can no more obtain a debit card than they can a credit card. Moreover, I think that Dollar and other rental care companies are estopped from suddenly classifying their car rentals as credit transactions on the one hand, but no on the other. An example would be a prepaid MC or Visa where there is no credit check, but other verifying factors. In that situtation, it's not a DC per se, but a CC (unless prepaids actually say "Prepaid" on them). I can see though, where you might say that it's a fair assumption that the person has established credit. But all this is moot if Dollar and the others give consumers a reasonable and fair opportunity to opt out, use a CC or go elsewhere.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dollar Rent-a-Car Ran a Hard Inq. NO 50 POINTS MAX... Originally posted by faztcobra Or not. There are 500 available points (possible FICO score of 350-850). Only 10% goes towards inquires, so you have a MAX loss of 50 points...assuming you didn't have ANY other HARDS on there to begin with. 700-50=650
