/ Register

I've never done this lawsuit thing

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by Quixote, Aug 6, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 7 of 17
  1. Oct 1, 2002 #121
    Marie

    Marie Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    I just reread the whole thread... NICE going. They're just wrong on Permissible purpose here.. and I've had that directly confirmed by several very large company's attys....

    one even said :" Note... I did NOT pull a credit report to find out how we're reporting the account... so please send me your copy...here's my fax #"

    this one seemed proud not to continue to violate my rights and I was actually grateful for it ;)

    But very few supervisors and amazingly enough inside counsels seem to get that they just can't stay in our reports forever...

    and esp if it's in response to a disputed trade line that then has a lawsuit threat attached to it...

    we need some case law not just an FTC opinion to back the pp issue and we'd get more money...

    1k not 500 offers b/c we could slam case law down their throats...

    so.. whatcha gonna do??? :))))))
     
  2. Oct 1, 2002 #122
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    If he doesn't take the deal I'm gonna send Christine Baker over there to beat him with her keyboard.

    LOL
     
  3. Oct 1, 2002 #123
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    You're not going to like the letter I'm writing then... I'll have it ready to send and post in a few minutes.

    Then I'll watch out for rogue keyboards. I hate typing anyway. :p

    Hey, I just thought of something. I wonder if Greg Fisher still thinks I'm making all this up. For some reason, I kinda hope so.
     
  4. Oct 1, 2002 #124
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    Hope you guys have some coffee...:)

    -----Original Message-----
    From: "Quixote (edit)"<(edit)@go.com>
    To: "Ellen R Dugan"<(edit)@FDS.com>
    Date: Tue Oct 01 23:02:20 PDT 2002
    Subject: Re: Your FCRA Complaint

    >Dear Ms. Dugan:
    >
    >Yes, letâ??s do give this one more try. I should tell you that I take great comfort in knowing that I am in good company in my disagreeing with your conclusions. To wit:
    >
    >YOU WROTE: â??An "inquiry" cannot be reported as "disputed." It is something that we did in response to one of your challenges. You may not agree with it, but you cannot dispute it as an inaccurate report.â?
    >
    >WRONG! The â??Permissible Purposeâ? may be challenged, and is. There are TWO types of inquiries, Soft Inquiries, such as for promotional purposes or account review purposes. These types of Inquiries are NOT visible to other creditors and do not negatively affect oneâ??s credit scores. A "Hard Inquiry", in contrast, does in fact affect one's credit scores and in this case appears to other potential creditors as if I were attempting unsuccessfully to gain new credit with Macy's. And, by the way, you just explicitly admitted (above) that you had no Permissible Purpose for the Hard Inquiry Macy's placed on my credit. Read On.
    >
    >Soft Inquiries are spelled out quite clearly in the Gowen FTC Staff Opinion Letter found at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/gowen.htm
    >
    >â??Current Borrowers
    >1. Section 604(a)(3)(A) of the FCRA gives a creditor a permissible purpose to obtain a consumer report without the consumer's consent "in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of the consumer." Section 604(a)(3)(F)(ii), which relates to deposit or other non-credit accounts, similarly provides a permissible purpose "to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account." When obtaining consumer reports for such purposes, creditors need not comply with prescreening disclosure requirements because these transactions are exempt under Section 603(m)(1) of the FCRA.â?
    >
    >YOU WROTE: â??Further, you are still maintaining that we had no permissible purpose to obtain a report. Credit information is reported for seven years, in many cases long after an account is closed or has become inactive. We do have the continued right to check how an account is reported if the customer disputes the accuracy
    >of the report.â?
    >
    >WRONG! You have no such right once we have terminated our business relationship.
    >
    >From: Appendix to Part 600 â?? Commentary on the Fair Credit Reporting Act
    >found at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml_00/Title_16/16cfr600_00.html
    >
    >â??Section 604 -- Permissible Purposes of Reports
    >2. "A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other: * * *" 1. Relation to Section 603
    >Sections 603(d)(3) and 604 must be construed together to determine what are "permissible purposes," because section 603(d)(3) refers to "purposes authorized under section 604" (often described as "permissible purposes" of consumer reports), and some purposes are enumerated in section 603 (e.g., sections 603(d)(1) and 603(d)(2)). Subsections of sections 603 and 604 that specifically set forth "permissible purposes" relating to credit, insurance and employment, are the only subsections that cover "permissible purposes" relating to those three areas. Section 604(3)(E), a general subsection, is limited to purposes not otherwise addressed in section 604(3) (A)-(D).
    >A. Credit. Sections 603(d)(1) -- which defines "consumer report" to include certain reports for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for credit or insurance primarily for personal, family, or household purposes -- and 604(3)(A) must be read together as fully describing permissible purposes involving credit for obtaining consumer reports. Accordingly, section 604(3)(A) permits the furnishing of a consumer report for use in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer, primarily for personal, family or household purposes, and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer.
    >B. Insurance. Sections 603(d)(1) and 604(3)(C) must be read together as describing the only permissible insurance purposes for obtaining consumer reports. Accordingly, section 604(3)(C) permits the furnishing of a consumer report, provided it is for use in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
    >C. Employment. Employment is covered exclusively by sections 603(d)(2) and 604(3)(B), and by section 603(h) (which defines "employment purposes"). Therefore, "permissible purposes" relating to employment include reports used for evaluating a consumer "for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee."
    >D. Other purposes. "Other purposes" are referred to in section 603(d)(3) and covered by section 604(3)(E), as well as sections 604(1), 604(2) and 604(3)(D) (which contain specific purposes not involving credit, insurance, employment). Permissible purposes relating to section 604(3)(E) are limited to transactions that consumers enter into primarily for personal, family or household purposes (excluding credit, insurance or employment, which are specifically covered by other subsections discussed above). The FCRA does not cover reports furnished for transactions that consumers enter into primarily in connection with businesses they operate (e.g., a consumer's rental of equipment for use in his retail store). 2. Relation to Other Sections â??
    >
    >
    >From The Benner FTC Staff Opinion Letter :
    >
    >â??Once an account is closed because the consumer has paid the debt in full (and also, in the case of an open-end account such as a credit card account, notified the creditor to close the account), it is our view that no permissible purpose exists for a CRA to provide file information on a consumer to the creditor. Because there no longer exists any account to "review" and the consumer is not applying for credit, the FCRA provides no permissible purpose for the creditor to receive a consumer report from a CRA.â? (Available at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/benner.htm )
    >
    >
    >From the Greenblatt Letter:
    >
    >Section 604(a)(3)(F) allows a consumer reporting agency to provide a consumer report to anyone who "has a legitimate business need for the information -- (i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer; or (ii) to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account." (Available at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.com
    >
    (continued)
     
  5. Oct 1, 2002 #125
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    (continued)
    >
    >From The Gowen FTC Staff Opinion Letter :
    >
    >â??Former Borrowers
    >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).â?
    >(Available at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/gowen.htm)
    >
    >I ASK YOU AGAIN, Ms. Dugan; Did Macyâ??s ever ask me my permission to pull my credit reports pursuant to Section 604(a)(2)? Did Macyâ??s comply with the prescreening requirements set forth in Section 604(c) and Section 615(d)?
    >
    >From Appendix B, Prescribed Notice of Furnisher Responsibilities
    >
    >â??If a consumer notifies a furnisher, at an address specified by the furnisher for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate, and the information is in fact inaccurate, the furnisher must thereafter report the correct information to CRAs. Section 623(a)(1)(B) â??
    >
    >THE INACCURATE information being, of course, that Macyâ??s wrongly reported and wrongly confirmed that it had a permissible purpose for pulling my Credit Report. If, let us suppose, the Macyâ??s inquiry had been a â??softâ? inquiry, though still technically not within the letter, and certainly not the spirit of the FCRA, there would have been no adverse effect on my credit scores, no â??Permissible Purposeâ? would have been needed, and this exchange would most likely not be happening. Or maybe you could have just asked me for my credit reports? Hmm?
    >
    >YOU WROTE: â??The FCRA is a very complicated statute... â??
    >
    >WRONG! It is quite comprehendible. You should read it some time. I did.
    >
    >FURTHERMORE, I will continue to maintain that by allowing a third party, FACS, to obtain and review my credit reports (by explicit admission in the first letter from Ms. Watkins) Macyâ??s committed yet another violation of the FCRA.
    >
    >From The Long FTC Staff Opinion Letter :
    >
    >Section 604(a)(3)(A) allows a third party to receive a consumer report if the third party "intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer . . . and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account, of the consumer."
    >(Available at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/long.htm ) This letter also goes on to discuss at length how a former business relationship does not provide a current Permissible Purpose, regardless of pending litigation.
    >
    >BE ASSURED, Ms. Dugan, that I intend to show up in court with all of these readily available legal resources, both the FTC Staff Opinion Letters, and the FCRA itself, printed out in their entirety; with pertinent sections highlited, of course, as well as a complete timeline outlining each and every violation. You may also rest assured, unless somehow this is settled before trial, that should my argument carry the day, Macyâ??s may well still have to face Civil trial for numerous violations of California State Code Sections 1785.11 (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=53472710393+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve ). This next action will not be in Small Claims, as the allowable penalties under state statutes are considerably higher than under the FCRA in the Small Claims jurisdiction.
    >
    >
    >Best Regards,
    >
    > Quixote (edit)
     
  6. Oct 1, 2002 #126
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    EDIT- Wierd triple posty thingy.
     
  7. Oct 1, 2002 #127
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    EDIT- Wierd triple posty thingy that happens to you when you're way too tired and should go to bed but don't.
     
  8. Oct 1, 2002 #128
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    Sorry sis! I didn't notice your post earlier. I may go after Experian. But I kinda doubt it. Anyway, one windmill at a time! :)


    I Think I just set a :) record for one night's work. :) (ANOTHER NEW RECORD! THE CROWD GOES WILD!! I'M GETTING VERY PUNCHY!!!)
     
  9. Oct 1, 2002 #129
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    Dear Mr. Quixote (edit):

    Thank you for your note. I am sorry you are still disagreeing with me, but let me give this one more try:

    Dear Ellen,

    You are being pompous and are spewing what can only be your unresearched and flawed personal opinion based on economic gain, greed, and financial security in the form of a paycheck and workload and not the law regulating the actions of FDS. I am sorry you are still disagreeing with me!

    An "inquiry" cannot be reported as "disputed."

    Why Ellen, why can't it be reported as disputed?

    What section of the FCRA are you basing that on, please?

    This section, endows me, Quixote, a consumer, the lawful right to dispute ANY item of information contained in my file..

    Yes, ANY item of information and MY file:

    Further, under (a)(1) of the following section, you will note that when I exercise that lawful right a reinvestigation is REQUIRED, that's correct, REQUIRED.

    § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]
    (a) Reinvestigations of disputed information.


    (1) Reinvestigation     required.
    (A) In general. If the completeness or accuracy of     any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly of such dispute...
    It is something that we did in response to one of your challenges. You may not agree with it, but you
    cannot dispute it as an inaccurate report.

    I do not agree with it and I can dispute it.

    Ellen, hon, this is how it works:

    I, Quixote, am a consumer

    I have a consumer report as prepared by a consumer reporting agency.

    The FCRA regulates the information in those reports, the length of reporting time, the procedures for disputing with the CRA, the procedures for disputing with information furnishers, the penalties associated with non-compliant reporting and the duties and responsibilities of both consumer reporting agencies and furnishers of information.

    You, Ellen, are a furnisher of information

    I am not bound by the FCRA, Ellen, you are.

    I am allowed to dispute any piece of information and a reinvestigation is required.

    Ya with me, Ellen? ok, here's the deal:

    On MY consumer report is an inquiry that I did not authorize.

    To obtain a consumer report one must have a permissable purpose:

    § 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b]
    (a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report     under the following circumstances and no other:


    (1) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, or a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury.
    Do you have a court order, Ellen? If so, please provide me a copy of it.
    (2) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.
    Do you have written instructions from me, Ellen? If so, please provide me a copy of them. I am especially interested if there is any wording that extends your right to pull my report throughout eternity or for the duration of the FCRA defined reporting period.
    (3) To a person which it has reason to believe

    (A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer; or
    ...with a credit transaction...AND involving the extension of credit to...

    You have stated you were pulling my report in response to my having initiated a lawful dispute -- that does not involve an extension of credit.

    ...or review or collection of an account of the consumer...

    My account is closed and paid so you have no reason to review or review for collection.
    (B) intends to use the information for employment purposes; or
    I did not apply for employment with FDS.
    (C) intends to use the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; or
    This isn't applicable as you don't provide insurance and I didn't apply for anything with FDS irregardless.
    (D) intends to use the information in connection with a determination of the consumer's eligibility for a license or other benefit granted by a governmental instrumentality required by law to consider an applicant's financial responsibility or status; or
    Non-applicable
    (E) intends to use the information, as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or an assessment of the credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation; or
    Non-applicable
    (F) otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information

    (i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer; or
    We previously had a business transaction that I initiated, it was terminated with the closing and payment of my account.

    (ii) to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account.
    I do not have an open account making this non-applicable.

    (4) In response to a request by the head of a State or local child support enforcement agency (or a State or local government official authorized by the head of such an agency), if the person making the request certifies to the consumer reporting agency that...

    Non-applicable
    (5) To an agency administering a State plan under Section 454 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 654) for use to set an initial or modified child support award.
    Non-applicable

    Further, you are still maintaining that we had no permissible purpose to obtain a report.

    Indeed I do, Ellen, for all the reasons we just reviewed in detail above and Sassy typed all the color brackets just for you.

    Credit information is reported for seven years, in many cases long after an account is closed or has become inactive. We do have the continued right to check how an account is reported if the customer disputes the accuracy of the report

    Credit information CAN be reported for 7 years if it is accurate, complete, up-to-date and verifiable. There is NO law that says any credit information has to be reported at all.

    § 611. Procedure in case of disputed accuracy [15 U.S.C. § 1681i]

    (5) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable information.

    (A) In general. If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any information disputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the consumer's file or modify that item of information, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation.
     
  10. Oct 1, 2002 #130
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    Here's the rest, got wild with Ellen!!!

    Here's the problem, Ellen, you believe you have the right to pull my report for the duration of the reporting period, which could be a maximum of 7 years.

    If you choose to report that information has to be accurate by the provisions of the FCRA. There's no provision for checking to be sure or policing the CRA's. It is MY report that is what I do.

    Further, the intent of the FCRA flies in the face of your reasoning. If you were allowed to pull a report, or any furnisher for that matter, in response to my having exercised my lawful dispute rights, disputing itself would become a penalty as the inquiry itself lowers my score.

    The FCRA intends for disputing to be a mechanism or correction not punishment.

    Intent of the amendments: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1997/9709/fcra929.htm

    Had the account not been closed and paid and you were allowed to review my account, it would be coded as an AR (account review) and not as a hard inquiry.

    I alone determine whether the items are accurate or not accurate, you only have the right to REPORT the information, that is a right not a requirement. The right to report however is not a right to review. If you question whether the CRA's are translating the information you report accurately, may I suggest you address that in the business agreement that is between you two.

    Because you CHOOSE to report, you are bound by lawful duties and responsibilities as an information furnisher, please see:

    § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

    There is NO duty or responsibility listed covering a review of reporting to be sure it is being accurately reported and/or that the CRA's haven't made a mistake in translation.

    Additionally, Please see this document required of the CRA's to be provided to furnishers of information. Credit Reports: What Information Furnishers Need to Know:

    http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/infopro.htm

    And Ellen, just because I'm a fair guy, here's a summary of MY rights under the FCRA as provided by the FTC:

    http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/fcra/summary.htm

    The FCRA provides penalties for non-compliance. If the problem were with the CRA I could sue them as well. There are no provisions for you to sue the CRA on my behalf.

    § 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n]
    § 617. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681o]

    Chase v Nelson provides that the FCRA provides a cause of action for individuals against furnishers of information:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0015946p.pdf

    As regards your claim before the small claims court and your request, I will never acknowledge any illegal act on our part in your situation simply because no illegal act occurred.

    I didn't ask you to acknowledge an illegal act on your part and I disagree that no illegal act occurred. That is however what courts, judges and juries decide.

    The FCRA is a very complicated statute
    and your claim is based on an incorrect understanding of the requirements of the statute. However, I am still willing, in order to avoid the cost and inconvenience of sending someone from our nearest offices to defend us, to remove the inquiry and any reference to your account and pay you $500 to settle this dispute, in exchange for your dismissing the complaint. This offer is open till 5 pm Eastern time, October 2, 2002.

    Remove the inquiry and all references to my account and provide written assurances that it will never appear on any consumer report for any consumer reporting agency and pay me $1,000.00 and you've got a deal!

    To aid you in your decision making, I provide the following for you reading pleasure:

    http://www.milawyersweekly.com/micoa/216166.htm#fn1

    In particular, plaintiff alleged wilful noncompliance with provisions of the FCRA because defendants obtained plaintiffâ??s consumer credit information under false pretenses and for an impermissible purpose. If plaintiff prevailed on his claim, 15 USC 1681n provides for a potential award of punitive damages.

    In addition, plaintiffâ??s complaint alleged abuse of process and invasion of privacy claims. Review of the causes of action alleged in the complaint and counterclaim reveals a potential for significant damages...

    http://www.nciss.com/Legislative/how_the_ftc_interprets_the_fcra.htm
    Per section 604, consumer reports may only be procured for credit, employment and insurance underwriting purposes. It is unlawful to order a consumer report for any other purpose. For example, no one may order a consumer report when investigating an insurance claim. No one may order a consumer report for pretrial or litigation support or for a background investigation unless the purpose includes extension of credit.

    http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.htm
    The penalties for violating the FCRA are governed by several different sections of the statute, and the applicability of a particular section depends on such factors as who brings the action and the degree of the violator's noncompliance. For example, Sections 616 and 617 impose liability for willful noncompliance and negligent noncompliance, respectively. The monetary penalties mandated by these two sections include actual damages proven by a consumer, plus costs and attorneys fees in each such case. In the case of willful violations, the court may also award punitive damages to a consumer. Any person who procures a consumer report under false pretenses, or knowingly without a permissible purpose, is liable for $1000 or actual damages (whichever is greater) to both the consumer and to the consumer reporting agency from which the report is procured. Also, Section 621 governs enforcement actions brought by the Commission, other agencies, and the states, and provides for various monetary and injunctive penalties. The potential monetary penalties include, for those who knowingly violate the FCRA, up to $2500 per violation in a civil action brought by the Commission in district court.

    And finally Ellen, my personal fave:
    http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/gowen.htm
    Former Borrowers

    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).

    Very truly yours,

    Quixote (as interpretted by sassy, who only speaks for herself LOL)
     
  11. Oct 1, 2002 #131
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    hehehee,

    Sassy you kill me.

    :)
     
  12. Oct 2, 2002 #132
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    Quixote,

    You're in my head!!!!!!!! It's the windmill, tilt tilt, LOL.

    I love your letter!

    Please put a p.s. for me, BTW Ellen, Sassy doesn't like your pompous tone and bets her right arm that you'll lose this case based on your arrogance and failure to stop looking at yourself in the mirror long enough to do some real work.

    Go Quixoteeeeeeeeeeee go!

    Sassy
     
  13. Oct 2, 2002 #133
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    Dang Sassy!

    That's better than the one I sent! I noticed you got the [/color] thing down cold now..;)

    Thanks for rooting me on! You too Butch!

    If Ya' Got It, Tilt It!
     
  14. Oct 2, 2002 #134
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    No way, Quixote!

    Your letter is great, no worries anyway, she makes no arguable points, none.

    You backed up every one of her bluffs with documentation.

    I just had to get anal about the coloring so I wouldn't post blotched colored fonts for you again. That was for you though, not her.

    Sassy
     
  15. Oct 2, 2002 #135
    KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    My head is spinning-
    Sassy you kill me, your wit is amazing and your willingness to help others is awesome.

    Quixote-
    I'm convinced you could send these "company officials" smoke signals and they STILL won't understand. Kinda reminds me of the woman that says a consumer pulling their own report hurts your score......hmmmm...my score would be -942.
     
  16. Oct 2, 2002 #136
    Saar

    Saar Banned

    Re: The end game

    Quixote, my friend:

    GO FOR IT! GET THE BASTARDS!

    Always stress, as you have, that you're not diputing the INQ, you're disputing it being coded as one made under permissible purpose.

    Whether their purpose was permissible is NOT A MATTER OR RECORD, AND IS 100% DISPUTABLE PER FCRA.


    Saar
     
  17. Oct 2, 2002 #137
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    -----Original Message-----
    From: "Ellen R Dugan"<(edit)@FDS.com>
    To: "Quixote (edit)"<(edit)@go.com>
    Date: Wed Oct 02 12:34:43 PDT 2002
    Subject: Re: Your FCRA Complaint

    >
    >Dear Mr. Quixote (edit):
    >
    >Thank you for your most recent letter.
    >
    >I have been in meetings most of the day and do not have the time to comment
    >in detail to your long letter. I would just like to make the following
    >points:
    >
    >Socalled "promotional inquiries" are shown on a person's credit record when
    >a credit grantor has requested a credit bureau to pre-screen large numbers
    >of potential customers so that a pre-approved offer for a credit card can
    >be made. The pertinent disclosures will be included in the solicitation
    >that is mailed with the pre-approved offer. These types of inquiries are
    >visible to other credit grantors, but they disappear after a few months.
    >More importantly, we did not give you the disclosures because you were not
    >pre-screened and no pre-approved offer was made to you.
    >
    >As regards your claim that your account was paid and that therefore we had
    >no "permissible purpose" to obtain your report, I see no other way to deal
    >with your allegation that we were incorrectly reporting an account that you
    >said you never had. This, of course, resulted in an "inquiry." You now
    >seem to want us to report the "inquiry" as "disputed." There is no
    >physical way to do so. A credit report is a report on people's payment
    >histories with their various creditors. If a credit report is wrong, it
    >may be disputed by the customer. But an inquiry is not a report on a
    >person's credit history. The inquiry cannot be disputed, with a notation
    >to that effect, on the report. You can complain about it, which you did,
    >and we can delete it, which we offered, but you can't "dispute" it.
    >
    >Regarding your comments about FACS, FACS is the service company for FDS
    >Bank. As servicer, FACS has the right to obtain reports on FDS Bank's
    >behalf. It is not considered a "third party."
    >
    >I could go on if I had the time, but I do not think I can convince you
    >that we did nothing improper or illegal. It is unfortunate that we can't
    >settle this in a reasonable manner.
    >
    >Very truly yours,
    >
    >Ellen Dugan
     
  18. Oct 2, 2002 #138
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    She may be right about this point. Ever seen an inq. with the dispute notation right next to it?

    I haven't.

    But still - She's all wet everywhere else.

    LOL
     
  19. Oct 2, 2002 #139
    Quixote

    Quixote Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game

    Experian does mark Inquiries as Under Investigation. Remember Doc's Trick? They'll do it on a written dispute or a phoned in dispute also.

    I think it's interesting how she goes off on tangents but never actually responds to the mountain of evidence from the FTC that she is wrong. She just keep saying, in effect, "Look, you're obviously not bright enough to understand this very complicated stuff."

    I was totally prepared to accept the second offer, assuming there was one. Now, it looks like we'll see them in court.
     
  20. Oct 2, 2002 #140
    KHM

    KHM Well-Known Member

    Re: The end game


    SAY WHAT????
     
Page 7 of 17
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page