these folks responded to my original request for PP with a form letter, inquiries are blah...blah...blah. Here is my reply: Dear Privacy Invader, I am in receipt of your form letter dated February X, 2003. I specifically requested documentation proving a permissible purpose for viewing my credit file on the following dates: (insert all SEVENTEEN dates here). I did not ask for a definition of inquiries in general, and I find your frivolous response to my valid request for proof incomprehensible. You now have seven business days to reply with documentation of permissible purpose for each and every act of obtaining my personal credit file. I opened an account with Privacy Invader on XX/XX/XX. I am aware that account reviews are permitted, and should you be able to provide documented proof that each of these inquiries was permissible, and I find your documentation valid, I will refrain from taking this issue further. However, please note that the majority of these invasions of my privacy occurred BEFORE there was a business relationship established, ruling out the possibility of an account review status or any other known permissible purpose. The form letter I received will most certainly be construed as non-response. Should I receive another form letter or other form of nonresponse I will be filing suit against Privacy Invader for the maximum amount of $1000 per non permissible offense allowed for by the FCRA § 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n] "(b) Civil liability for knowing noncompliance. Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or $1,000, whichever is greater." I restate my original request verbatim: â??Please explain your permissible purpose for request of my credit file for each of the SEVENTEEN (17) times it was requested by Privacy Invader. Should you not be able to provide me with proof of a permissible purpose for each and every inquiry, please arrange for payment of $1,000 for each non-permissible event by February X, 2003 and immediately remove said inquiries from my credit files.â? Please respond via US Mail only to Luckymom. Sincerely, Luckymom
The law seems to indicate that the liability is to the Credit Reporting Agency and not the consumer. Did I misread?
Sec. 616 (B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater; And here's an opinion letter: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.htm
Lucky mom, you are being long-winded and "ASKING" and "REQUESTING" Be DEMANDING. Demand $5,000 and Deletion. If you know you are correct, then take them to court, or at least make them think you won't stop until you get your money.
http://www.creditforum.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=229 read that link. Christine did a good job DEMANDING this one!
Bear with me - I might have missed something. I'm unfamiliar with Privacy Invader. You signed up with this service to keep an eye on your credit reports, right? Did you use it to look for changes to your CR? If so, everytime you did, it's going to generate an inquiry. Maybe this is an automated service that checks every month or week and notifys you if there is a change. It would need to inquire to check. Consumer Disclosures are soft inquiries and are not shown to prospective creditors nor included in your score. Are these inquires coded as HARDs? If so, maybe this is as easy as recoding the inquiry. And if I'm way off base, I apoligize.
Can an insurance company like Progressive pull an existing customer's credit report? Progressive pulled my report without me knowing.
LOL - I thought it was sarcastic pseudonym like Suzy Sucka$$ collection agency that someone elses used.
Inquiries regarding Insurance should be coded as such and [ supposedly ] are not included in score calculation. Some reports do not show this very well - Equifax + TU are bad, but Experian shows it clearly. Call up the Insurer and ask why they are pulling!
Re: Re: Letter critique please - unauth inq I have two hards from insurance companies on TU. They clearly state PP=Insurance underwriting.
Re: Re: Re: Letter critique please - unauth inq For an initial decision as to whether or not an ins. co. wants to do business, a hard can be expected. Once you are a client however, those inq's should be AR's. Keep up the good work Jodi.
lolol I'm SOO sorry. I was using "Privacy Invader" in the place of the actual company name for privacy.
