A little less than two years ago, I had requested that Exquifax remove an old account from my CR. The account had been paid and closed in 1991. Equifax did remove the account from my CR. I recently reviewed my Trans Union CR, and noticed that the OC mentioned above on the closed account did a hard inquiry about the same time I asked Equifax to remove the account. The account had been closed for more than a decade. Prior to being removed from my Equifax report, the account even showed 'closed by consumer'. My question is, did the OC have permissible purpose to pull a hard inquiry? Thanks in advances for your responses! MrKee
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you only contacted Equifax about the tradeline, and did not send anything to the OC? If I am right about this, the OC would have absolutly no right to pull a hard inquiry on you. Closed accounts (especially accounts closed in good standing by the consumer with a $0 balance) terminate any existing business relationship between you and the OC. The OC will only have permissible purpose to pull a hard inquiry on you if they have a current business relationship with you. This would require an account that has been charged off, or an account that is still open or has a balance. You might want to shoot off a non PP letter to the OC and see what they do. ChrisB
Here is what happened...probably. When you filed the dispute with the CRA they sent a validation letter to the OC asking them to check and make sure everything was correct. Because of the rampant ignorance of the lawthey pulled an inquiry to "see what was being reported" File your lawsuit immediately--against both the CRA and the OC. The SOL on this IS 2 years. I will almost guarantee you that the OC will claim they had a PP via section 604 (a)(3)(f)(i) " in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer". Furthermore the VRA will not have a certified pp for the inquiry. In their world the law doesn't apply to them. Let me know if you need some case law or FTC letter support to cite for your case. I'm currently in the middle of a lawsuit for the same thing. Don't forget to browse state laws for possible violations as well. What state are you living in? BTW...if you go small claims/justice court DON'T let them give you any crap about not being able to file in your precinct. You can file. Unfortunately you might not be able to keep the case within that court if you lose the motion to change venue, which I will also guarantee you to get. Because of thes issues and the fact that they may try to delay the case until it is over 2 years old so that you can't refile in Federal court, I would recommend that you go straight to Federal court first. The OC will be much more likely to try to settle with you also. Keep your chin up...there will be lots of ups and downs but you have them dead to rights on the PP. To get started, send the OC a demand letter showing them the laws that were broken, when they were broken, and the statutory damages they owe you. Ask them for oh....80 percent of that total amount so that you will look like you were trying to be reasonable with them to settle if it ever goes to court. They won't accept this offer because they feel that they can do whatever they want as well. Give them--oh---10 business days or so to correct the credit report, send an apology, and promise never to do it again. Then be nice and say if they do this you will give them an additional 15 days to remit the money to you. If they haven't acted in 10 days, pull the trigger and go to court. Hope this helps...its jyst my senseless ramblings.
I have the same scenario as the original poster. I was just trying to clean up my report of old positive tradelines. One was with a credit union that I had 2 or 3 various personal loans with back in '94-'95. They only reported for about 3-4 months on each loan since I paid them off quickly. I decided to dispute as 'not mine', figuring it'd just get deleted. Well lo and behold, that CU pulled a hard on my Experian report about 10 days after the dispute. So according to what has been said in this thread, since I don't have a business relationship with these guys and all accts are reporting as closed, this is NOT PP?
thats right. Though not law, the FTC opinion letter Gowen April 29, 1999 states "As the previously-quoted legislative history makes clear, "review" of an account under Section 604(a)(3) refers to an existing (i.e., open or current) account. A creditor has no existing business relationship with consumers whose closed end credit accounts have been paid off, i.e., former borrowers. Hence, the creditor would either have to (1) obtain those consumers' written authorizations pursuant to Section 604(a)(2) to access their credit reports or (2) comply with the prescreening requirements set forth in Section 604(c) and, where applicable, Section 615(d)." This reasoning holds up in numerous cases. The only reasons for them to pull a hard inquiry is 1) Employment 2) Extension of new credit 3) insurance eligibility 4) licensure 5) Potential for investment 6) other business purposes initiated by the consumer The OC will say that #6 was thier PP for accessing the account since each of the other cases is easily proved. If the non-PP was initiated as the result of a credit dispute, #6 does not apply. See: Mone v. Dranow, 9th Circuit court of appeals 1991 "congress intended the FCRA to authorize a CRA to issue a consumer report to determin an individuals eligibility for credit, insurance, or employment"--also sites 116 Cong. Rec 36572(1970) Houghton v. New Jersey Mfrs Ins. Co., 9th circuit cites a 3rd Circuit case which states that for a PP to fall within the business need exception it "must relate to one of the other specifically enumerated transactions in sections 1681(d) and b(3), i.e. credit, insurance eligibility, employment, or licensing." The court also reasoned the a broader interpretation of the business transaction language would render the specificity of 1681b(3) would render the specificity of sections 1681 a(d) and b(3) meaningless." Ippolito v WNS Inc. (7th court of appeals 1988) reaffirmed this reading. Hope this helps!
I have a question? A CA made an inquiry with experian 1/16/04. they sent letter to me dated 1/16 postmarked 1/19 saying they have been hired to collect debt for "current creditor" (Serman Acquistions) who purchased debt from OC (credit card). Am I correct in assuming they had a right to do that because they are taking over the debt collection of this bill?
most of my experiences have dealt with FCRA, not FDCPA. I would guess that they have a PP to access the account if they in fact now own the debt. I would validate with them, make sure they meet bonding/licensure requirements for the state, etc. before I did much with them. What state are you in? Is the debt really yours? If you an give us some more info some of the gurus in this board can give you some help on it. I'm just a little indian
I'm in TN. The debt is mine per divorce decree agreement. Although, it has almost doubled from 3286 to 5968 since 11/00. I don't understand how it could be that much & would love explanation of interest and other charges applied. This CA says they were hired by another CA they call current creditor which I know per FDCPA is till a third-party CA. I plan on validation of debt for above reasons. It's been longer than 30 days, but people have said I can dispute anytime. I just got credit report yesterday and thought it was interesting that they had pulled CR same day typing letter to me about collecting debt.
Re: Re: Is this PP? Thanks so much for your advice! I just want to be sure about one thing, though! Would there be a claim against the CRA, and if so, what? Does Trans Union have to verify that the OC had PP to pull my report? Thanks again for your help!
Re: Re: Is this PP? You know, that is a great question. Just my interpretation of the FCRA leads me to believe that the CRA does have to at least have a certified PP on file. I'm pretty sure that if the user of the report pulls a non-pp report THEY are responsible for a FCRA violation but I don't know about the CRA. I sent a letter today to a CRA that provided the report in my lawsuit asking them to give me the permissible purpose that was stated as well as justification of why, when asked after the fact, they said that pulling a report in response to a dispute was indeed a PP. I don't think I'll get an answer to this anytime soon, so if in 20 days or so I haven't heard from them I'll contact the judge and try to get a subpoena for the information. Right now I'm in the justice court (step up from small claims) with this. It has been fun so far. I filed against the bank that made the non-pp. In Texas they MUST be represented by an attorney. She bitched about my complaint not being correct and has asked the judge to compel me to make and amended petition. She also is trying to change the venue of the case to her home court and has begun "extensive discovery" in the bank's defense. LOL....I answered what I thought I needed to and objected to the rest of her crap. Then I sent her about 30 pages of MY discovery. See how she likes them apples If I lose the venue battle I'm going to dismiss and file in federal court against the whole lot of them---the bank, equifax, the RMA who provided the credit report and all of their children and pets. Let the judge sort it out.
Re: Re: Re: Is this PP? they do have a claim--and the OC is liable to the CRA for the damages--but they won't try to collect. It is bad for business. I've been wondering if i could file on thier behalf and compel them to pay the CRA. I hate to give one of the big three anything, but the way they screw up maybe I'll get it back from them
Re: Re: Re: Is this PP? they said that pulling a report in response to a dispute was indeed a PP. rondaben ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~ ~ ~ ><- <>- ><- <> NOT CORRECT They told you wrong. $1000 Violation ! ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~ ~ ~ ><- <>- ><- <>
Re: Re: Re: Is this PP? Existance of a dispute does not by itself give permissible purpose. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/long.htm A dispute, or the possibility of litigation, is not "a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer" http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.htm
Re: Re: Re: Is this PP? Also, pulling a report allowed and certified to be under a permissible purpose (review of a customer account), and using it for a purpose that is not permissible (assisting strategy for litigation) violates the OC certification of permissible purpose to the CRA, and is not permissible.
