Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old "-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 " The CRAs do not routinely check beyond the CA's certification to them. Nor do CA's routinely provide separate certifications for the reason for each pull, such as a specific OC and account number they are collecting. Since the CRA does at least require certification by the CA, they are probably off the hook if the CA has no permissible purpose, unless some CA eggregiously pulls without PP and it comes to the CRA's attention. The CRA has NOT checked or even seen anything supporting the CA's PP for the pull. This leaves nothing additional to support the CA's blanket claim of PP for pulls.
Hard pull from CA for 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 jlynn =================== Here is another angle : Even if they don't have to reply to a letter it may not necessarily follow that they do not have to act on it.
Hard pull from CA for old, LOL I love your train of thought Lbrown......good point. BUT, just found this case- Case for LK... Lusk v. TRW, Inc., No. 97-4127, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 4, 1999, Filed "Third, FAB had a permissible purpose for requesting Lusk's credit report--collection of money possibly due Lusk's landlord for damage in Lusk's apartment. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(3)(A) (current version at 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681b(a)(3)(A) (West 1998)). Lusk cited to no controlling authority for his proposition that a collection agency ceases to have a permissible purpose for requesting a credit [*4] report after a debtor contests the debt in writing." IF THIS DOESNT ANSWER THE QUESTION..I DONT KNOW WHAT WILL.
Hi 800, By law, the FCRA dictates that the negative ramifications are to be expired, when DOD is beyond 7 years ago. A TL must not antedate the report by more than 7 years. When law is interpreted, 3 things are considered; 1) The letter of the law 2) The intent of the law 3) The spirit of the law. With this in mind we know that hard inqs. do reduce ones score, make it obvious that there is a CA out there somewhere, and may certainly be looked upon negatively by any potential creditor. A HARD INQ, BEYOND THE 7 YEAR REPORTING PERIOD, BY VIRTUE OF THE DAMAGE IT DOES AS NOTED ABOVE, DEFEATS, IF NOTHING ELSE, THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. Moreover, just because there's no controlling authority on an issue, doesn't mean it's right. It just means courts have not decided the issue yet. That doesn't mean it's right. YOU might be that first person to develop the precedent. I hear from atty's; "there's no case law to back up your argument". to which I reply; "GREAT - LET'S MAKE SOME". This means there's no controlling authority to govern the current discussion between LK and Hiding. Until a high court speaks to the issue they can both argue until they turn purple. They could both be right and/or wrong all at the same time. That's why there seems to be no end to the argument. BECAUSE THERE ISN'T, YET. . .
There might actually be something to butch's arguement. The FCRA states... (1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)(2) of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action. (5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years. I think the court could go either way on this... it will either be looked upon as the inquiry being new information, or part of the old information and obsolete. Course then if the court were to rule that it was obsolete after 7 years, you would have to go after the CRA for reporting obsolete information.
Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old debt This is why I think I have a PP case against CAMCO...these scumbags are trying to collect on a debt that they CLAIM I owe (they cannot validate this debt) that is way past SOL in my state. I am going to send a letter demanding a C & D, and for $1000 for peeking at my CR...
Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old debt I'm so glad I read this thread again. I'm going to encourage my dad to send a non PP/intent to sue letter to a CA (Academy collection services) who pulled his report for a really old (like 15 yrs old!) debt that he doesnt even think is his. butch, you are AWESOME. You have this uncanny ability to pull our perception of these intricate laws back where they belong. we start thinking TOO much and get in a rut. you get us to think in a more reasonable, common sense way, probably the way the judge will be thinking.
Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old debt If case law were the only deciding factor, new laws would never go into effect. In addition, if the amounts at risk make it uneconomical for either party to bring action in courts beyond small claims, little case law is even made.
