Jackpot?!? Permissible purpose.

Hi all,

I've been arguing with a creditor about an account that was paid in 1999. Zero balance, nothing owed, but it's listed as a paid collection.

This morning, I was bumped up to the CS reps supervisor since I was running into a brick wall with her - she didn't have any records of the collection since their files were purged, but refused to remove the notation.

Anyway - first thing the supervisor says when she gets on the phone... "I just pulled your credit report and we're not listed on there". *BANG* right???

She pulled Experian - shows as a hard dated today. I told her that it was listed on the TU report - not experian.

Anyway, I have them on a permissable purpose violation, no?

Is there a precrafter letter out there for this sort of violation from an OC (not CA).

Thanks!

 

My understanding from this board was that if an OC or CA pulls your CR after you contact them about a dispute (so see what they have listed on there), then it's a violation....

I'm looking through FCRA/604 but I haven't found any verbage that says that... anyone have a quote?

Thansk!

 

I'm looking for sample letters that quote actual law (and hopefully a case file or two)... Any help?

Also, if I'm going to sue for federal FCRA violations, do I have to file in federal court, or is it with my county, local magistrate, etc?

Thanks!

Basically, OC of 1999 closed account -

- pulled CR
- didn't mark disputed
- refusing to remove info that "they think is right", but no longer have the files to support (maybe) - she was talking about getting my paper file out of off site storage but had never done that before.

I'm thinking of just moving forward with the 1st two for now...

 

Ok, couldn't find a pre-existing letter, so I put one togther. I was hoping for some review before sending, since I've never done a quasi-ITS letter before.


October 13, 2003
Me

University of XXX
c/o XXX

RE: Account #

To Whom It May Concern:

It has come to my attention that the University of XXX, Employee1, and Employee2 have violated my rights under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Specifically,
Failure to provide notice of Dispute.
On September 25, 2003 I contacted the university and spoke to YYY regarding the accuracy of account # as listed with Trans Union. Under FCRA § 623(a)(c) you were required to notify Trans Union that the listing was in dispute. This was not done.

Access of credit report without a Permissable Purpose
On October 13, 2003 I spoke with XXX regarding this account after coming to the conclusion that YYY was unwilling to correct the inaccuracies.

While speaking with XXX, I was told that she ordered a copy of my Experian credit report in order to view the account as currently reported. Under FCRA section § 604 this was done without â??Permissable Purposeâ?. I ordered a copy of my Experian credit report and it does list a disclosure to the University of XXX on October 13, 2003.

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). (http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/gowen.htm)

Additionally, FCRA section § 619 addresses penalties for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses:
Any person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.

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. (http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.htm)





While I am not eager to file suit in relation to this matter, I will do so if necessary. The law is very clear in these matters â?? the minimum penalties for these actions are several thousands of dollars to both myself and Experian, but the law also provides for actual damages.

These additional damage awards could be considerable given the fact that I am having to delay applying for a mortgage loan while trying to resolve this issue and the rates seem to be rising every week.

I have listed several of the statutes applicable to the violations to date. As additional evidence in this matter, I have a letter written by YYY stating that â??All records of that loan have been purgedâ? and a voicemail from her stating that â??she could not determine if it was even sent to a collection agencyâ?. Given the lack of accurate records, and the unwillingness of the University to correct the errors, yet more violations could be detailed concerning the requirement of reported information being â??complete and accurateâ?.


I am willing to settle this matter without filing suit providing the following five conditions are met.

1. The University of XXX shall remit one thousand dollars to me as a settlement in this matter.

2. The University of XXX shall notify the credit bureaus and ensure that the referenced account is:
a. Deleted from the report in itâ??s entirety â??OR-
b. Updated to remove any derogatory information that is associated with it.

3. The University of XXX shall notify the credit bureaus to remove the â??hardâ? inquiry which was posted to my credit report due to the actions taken on October 13, 2003.

4. The University of XXX shall provide to me a letter, on official letterhead , stating the credit reporting changes to be made according to sections #2 and #3 above.

5. The University of XXX agrees to not add any other derogatory information to this account listing in the future. As this account was closed in 1999, there is no danger future derogatory performance.


If no action is taken to address conditions two through five above within three business days of receipt of this letter, I will be forced to move forward and address this issue in the courts. However, if conditions two through five are addressed within three business days, I will allow a period of 15 days for the settlement check to be remitted.



Sincerely,




October 13, 2003

 

Re: Re: Jackpot?!? Permissible purpose.

Thanks guys - this is exactly the kind of discussion I'm looking for...

1. I'll confess, I don't really want to sue them. My hopes are that they'll see the info, realize that it's a win for me and settle - I don't even really need to get the $1k, my main goal is to have the derog removed.

Is it really that bad an idea, to lay it all out for them ahead of time? There's nothing that they can really fix - at least with the PP violation. Unless they have my signature somewhere (and they don't) - that one's a no brainer (I think!).

2. As for the CRRR letters for the 1st two items - are you talking about the violiations (dispute listing & PP pull)?

Unfortunately, all of this occured on the phone - I was in the be nice & maybe they'll delete phase when this non-pp pull from nowhere presented itself.

For the dispute one, it's weak, but they know they didn't do it. I received a letter from them in response to the 1st conversation where she says "our records have been purged, blah, blah", so there is evidence that I contacted them... and there is no evidence that they marked it in dispute.

For the 2nd, not really sure what I'd need a CRRR for here...? They pulled when they weren't allowed to - whether I talked/communicated with them or not shouldn't really be of issue... again, I think!

Thanks for the replys - keep'em coming!

 

Re: Re: Jackpot?!? Permissible purpose.

What if I would just list the permissable purpose offense since that one is indefensable? Even if they know ahead of time, there's nothing they can do about it.

I could then make a reference to many "other" offenses (mark in dispute, complete & accurate, etc) that I would pursue if I have to file...

Also, even if I don't mention it here, it's going to have to be all laid out when I file & they get a copy of that, right? Either way, they're going to have it all before a court date...

 

Re: Re: Jackpot?!? Permissible purpose.

I'm stressing the PP issue because they may well be able to validate the tradeline as reported.

I originally contacted them for info about why it was listed as a "collection account". Their system had been purged, so they were unable to give me any details about it.

After a few weeks of back and forth, where they at least wrote a letter to TU saying that they have no records of than it's been paid and purged, I pushed the issue since TU would not remove the "collection" notation unless they addressed it specifically in their letter.

When we started getting a little nasty with each other, thats when the PP violation occured (today).

She's now in the process of seeing if she can retrieve the archived paper files from some long term salt mine storage location... I don't know for sure, but I'd say there's a pretty good chance they'll be able to validate the accuracy.

Since the PP violation presented itself, I figured that was the best bet since it's a lock (if it's not tell me!). To me, it comes down to delete the tradeline or pay up... I'd prefer the deletion, but the cash would be OK too...

 

Thanks for the new posts! That opinion benner letter is very relavent - I'll add it - thanks! I wish I could find on which explicitly states that they're not allowed to pull in order to work on a disputed tradeline... but I guess a closed account is a closed account.

I would probably add the verify with no files issue if I actually have to file, but I think that's the weakest since it's open to interpretation - they're opinion is that we put it on there when we had the files, so it must be right, even though we don't have access to the files right now. She agreed to pull it off (at least temporarily if she can't find the supporting data by the end of the week) - and add it back on if she finds the data at some point in the future...

I'll post the updated letter later today!

 

Here's the new letter... I focused more on the PP violation and made reference to other violations that I may pursue if I have to file suit.

Is there anything "legal" that I'm required to do, or exposing myself to by talking about filing suit if they don't meet my conditions?

Thanks!!!


October 13, 2003
Me

University of XXX
C/o EmployeeX


RE: Account #XXX


To Whom It May Concern:

It has come to my attention that the University of XXX and EmployeeX have violated my rights under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Specifically,
Access of credit report without a Permissible Purpose
On October 13, 2003 I spoke with EmployeeX regarding a listing placed on my Trans Union credit report.

While speaking with EmployeeX, I was told that she ordered a copy of my Experian credit report in order to view the account as currently reported. Under FCRA section § 604 this was done without â??Permissible Purposeâ?. I ordered a copy of my Experian credit report and it does list a disclosure to the University of XXX on October 13, 2003.

Section 604(a) (3) (A) of the FCRA provides a consumer reporting agency ("CRA," usually a credit bureau) with a permissible purpose to provide a report on a consumer to a person who "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."(1) 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. I enclose a recent staff opinion letter (Gowen, 04/29/99) that discusses this issue in more detail. ( http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/benner.htm)

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). (http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/gowen.htm)

Additionally, FCRA section § 619 addresses the penalty for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses:
Any person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.

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. (http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.htm)


While I am not eager to file suit in relation to this matter, I will do so if necessary. The law is very clear in this area. The minimum penalty per FCRA section § 616 is the greater of $1,000 or actual damages payable to both myself and Experian.

Since my dealings with the University of XXX are causing me to delay obtaining a lock on a mortgage loan, the actual damages amounts could be considerable given the fact that mortgage rates are currently in an upward trend.

If we cannot settle this amicably, and I am forced to file suit, I will also address other violations which I believe have occurred during the course of our interaction. Specifically, violations of sections § 623(a) (3) which details the furnishers responsibility to update an account as in-dispute when contacted by a consumer, as well as section
§ 623(a) (1) (A) which addresses reporting inaccurate or incomplete information.















I am willing to settle this matter without filing suit providing the following five conditions are met.

1. The University of XXX shall remit one thousand dollars to me as a settlement in this matter.

2. The University of XXX shall notify the credit bureaus and ensure that the referenced account is:
a. Deleted from the report in itâ??s entirety â??OR-
b. Updated to remove any derogatory information that is associated with it.

3. The University of XXX shall notify the credit bureaus to remove the â??hardâ? inquiry which was posted to my credit reports due to the actions taken on October 13, 2003.

4. The University of XXX shall provide to me a signed letter, on official letterhead, stating the credit reporting changes to be made according to conditions #2 and #3 above.

5. The University of XXX agrees to not add any other derogatory information to this account listing in the future. As this account was closed in 1999, there is no danger of derogatory performance in the future.


If no action is taken to address conditions two through five above within seventy-two hours of receipt of this letter, I will be forced to move forward and address this issue in the courts. However, if conditions two through five are addressed within seventy-two hours, I will allow a period of 15 days for the settlement check to be remitted.



Sincerely,



October 13, 2003