Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old Well.... I think I may have found a case on point.... The court ruled that a someone can pull your credit report in connection with a lawsuit. So, if you filed a suit against impermissibe access, and the collection agency pulled another credit report, THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE. SPENCE v TRW http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=960264p "The filing of the lawsuit obviously gave TRW reason to believe that MichCon had a "legitimate business need" for the report, such a need having arisen in connection with the preparation of MichCon's defense to the lawsuit. See Ippolito v. WNS, Inc. , 864 F.2d 440, 450-452 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. dismissed , 490 U.S. 1061 (1989); Matthews v. Worthen"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old Well.... I think I may have found a case on point.... "BUT, IT MAY CAUSE THEM TO PULL ANOTHER report, leaving you with ANOTHER inquiry. THIS TOO would be permissible. " The court ruled that a someone can pull your credit report in connection with a lawsuit. So, if you filed a suit against impermissibe access, and the collection agency pulled another credit report, THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE. SPENCE v TRW http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=960264p "The filing of the lawsuit obviously gave TRW reason to believe that MichCon had a "legitimate business need" for the report, such a need having arisen in connection with the preparation of MichCon's defense to the lawsuit. See Ippolito v. WNS, Inc. , 864 F.2d 440, 450-452 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. dismissed , 490 U.S. 1061 (1989); Matthews v. Worthen"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old There is also case law that a lawsuit is NOT permissible purpose in and of itself. The case involved a dispute between a stock brokerage and a customer, where the brokerage's attorney pulled the customer's report to help them decide on whether to go to trial or negotiate a settlement. The brokerage was NOT deciding whether to do business, which would have allowed PP, instead they were pulling to obtain information to give themselves an (unfair) negotiating advantage, hence no PP. If you MAY have some unpaid, or even paid, account somewhere, should you just assume that all pulls have PP? The CA does not have to reply to your request for PP, but they do have to reply to your suit. Regardless of case law, the statutory basis for your suit would presumably be: 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. �§ 1681b] �§ 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. �§ 1681n] �§ 617. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [15 U.S.C. �§ 1681o] �§ 618. Jurisdiction of courts; limitation of actions [15 U.S.C. �§ 1681p] There are CAs that pull reports when they have no PP. For example, we have accounts on this board of more than one CA trying to collect on the same account, of a new CA pulling a report and attempting to collect after the debt was paid to an earlier CA, and of CAs pulling a report months after a new CA has sent a letter attempting to collect the same account. They can't both have PP. There was an FTC opinion letter regarding a CA that wanted to pull reports that matched profiles of low scores looking for individuals with outstanding debt so they could solicit creditors for business in collecting the debt. Although this might be "efficient" for the CA, it is not a PP. Whether willfull, negligent, or incompetant, what should we as consumers tolerate?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old "There is also case law that a lawsuit is NOT permissible purpose in and of itself. The case involved a dispute between a stock brokerage and a customer, where the brokerage's attorney pulled the customer's report to help them decide on whether to go to trial or negotiate a settlement. The brokerage was NOT deciding whether to do business, which would have allowed PP, instead they were pulling to obtain information to give themselves an (unfair) negotiating advantage, hence no PP" -Whats the case cite>> I have read it, just cant recall what is was called LOL -I also recall this was a wholely seperate set of circumstances....but I will wait for the reply so I can read it again. Thanks in advance Ontrack Another issue that has not been raised. There are two "types" of non-permissible access : 1. There WAS at one time a "relationship" with the consumer and the puller (creditor or collection agency vicariously through the creditor) and 2. NO relationship. -Non permissible pulls under #2 are almost slam dunk. -Non-permissible pulls under #1 ARE MUCH harder to prove.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old hey hiding sounds like deja Vu lol man you must get drained going over the same posts but it is worth the purpose educating others to help themselfs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old Im glad to see someone noticed this---->> ""Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime" " lol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old problem with this senerio I have recently found that not all judges follow the law they base their decisions on their interpretations and opinions. thus, leaving the consumer with hopeless outcome. the judges have too many dockets on their calendars and no time to hear all the arguements, therefore dismissal and mediation are becoming more common practice. how is it that you have been so successful in court?
Hard pull from CA for old, old Thats not how I'm reading it. The Court ruled that TRW (a CRA) had reason to believe that MichCon had pp, and weren't found liable for a violation. It doesn't sound like they actually ruled whether MichCon had pp. BTW - the case ontrack is referring to in re the brokerage-thats an FTC Opinion letter.
Hard pull from CA for old, old So what should I do? Send them them non pp letter, or a validation letter. Which brings me to my next question. What if they dont respond to my validation letters?
Hard pull from CA for old, old Here's my opinion - If you send the validation letter, they don't have to answer it, right? Ok - before Hiding says anything, they don't have to answer the pp letter either. LOL Your really in the clear in that it is past SOL for collections (utilizing an affirmative defense). Geez, I'm beginning to watch every word I say now...makes for some long posts where long isn't necessary. If it were me, I would go straight to no pp and see if I could shake the trees a bit. After all, you really just want the inquiry deleted.
Hard pull from CA for old, old jlynn, you are correct. This is the FTC opinion letter: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.htm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old I am sorry if this is a little off subject here. Hiding, can you elaborate on #1 and what makes it harder to prove the no pp. If the account is close and paid in full, they no longer have pp right? Thank you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old They may have no PP, but if the origin of the "debt" is that the OC's records are messed up, and the payments are not properly credited, the OC likely could still provide the CA an original signed application or other documentation supporting PP. The OC may be negligent, but the CA may not be, which may limit their liability if and when you can prove no balance is owed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old I have a question on this. What if there is no CA involved and the account is reporting on your credit report as closed since Nov. 02 and they suddenly pull your report in 01/04?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old If you know from your own records an account is paid and closed, you will likely minimize the damage by forcing the issue sooner rather than later. Since an inquiry implies your account is not in the state you believe it is, challenge it. If instead you had to deal with it 3 or 4 years from now, your records and bank check photocopies may no longer be available.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old "Thats not how I'm reading it. The Court ruled that TRW (a CRA) had reason to believe that MichCon had pp, and weren't found liable for a violation. It doesn't sound like they actually ruled whether MichCon had pp. " -You are correct -It can be "inferred" however, that if TRW assumed it was permissible, and they are the ones who have to assure that the puller is getting it for permissible purposes, that it was permissible -This of course is just my opinion on this part
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old If you HAD a relationship with a puller...and they pulled the credit report after the account was closed....it could be a "bona fide error" which is a HUGE safe harbor for pullers....as Ontrack was saying.. But, if you NEVER had a relationship with the puller, and out of the blue they pull your credit...it is much easier to show it was not permissible. and not an error.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old Ontrack wrote: " There is also case law that a lawsuit is NOT permissible purpose in and of itself. The case involved a dispute between a stock brokerage and a customer, where the brokerage's attorney pulled the customer's report to help them decide on whether to go to trial or negotiate a settlement. The brokerage was NOT deciding whether to do business, which would have allowed PP, instead they were pulling to obtain information to give themselves an (unfair) negotiating advantage, hence no PP. " -This is a TOTALLY different scenerio. -The puller (broker) pulled the customers credit reports BEFORE ANY LEGAL ACTION WAS STARTED. -In addition, this focuses on "obtaining a consumers report UNDER FALSE PRETENSES" "If the brokerage firm misrepresents to a consumer reporting agency that it is requesting consumer reports pursuant to Section 604(a)(3)(F), however, and instead uses the reports in connection with the settlement discussions you describe, the firm is in violation of the FCRA" -It does not address whether pulling a credit report IN RESPONSE or DURING LEGAL PROCEDINGS as the case I cited dealt with. -There is no question that the broker had no permissible purpose in this case. There was no business purpose, and the customer never said anything was wrong with the way the broker was reporting anything, and the customers hadnt FILED suit yet.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old -I would tend to disagree. -Judges have to follow ESTABLISHED law. If there isnt a case cite (points and authority) then they have to decide on "rough justice", or interpretation. -I have been able to bring to court all the case law and points and authority that applies to each of the lawsuits I have filed. This causes the judge to have to go by the ESTABLISHED law and not just their opinion etc. -That is the problem with "breaking new ground" with some of the suits discussed lately. If you run into a judge that uses only opinion, and the defendent is a "smooth talker", then chances are the judge will not agree with the consumer. -BUT, if you have "paper" to show the judge which supports your side, it tilts the odds in your favor. -I have had the judge leave the bench and return with the Ca Civil code in this case, and open it to the relevent section, read it, then say "this is what it says, I cant agrue with that!" -But if I had never referenced the Ca Civil Code, it would have all been decided on who had a better "sales pitch."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old I would agree with you there, if your case is not presented properly like I said a consumer has an unfair disadvantage. you have to know your stuff and prove up in court thsi is the area wher most consumers may not have the knowledge or feel intimidated like me I work better with written declarations citing codes when I have to testify I get tonque tied and blow it.
