This is a paraphrase of their response: "Yes, we pulled a report after the loan was paid off but we had not closed the loan on our books yet. We can pull ARs because the account was still open. We sent you a refund check on the date of the inquiry. Plus it was an AR - it did not hurt your score anyway." Come on guys, I need ammo but my mind isn't working right now. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=30758
This issue has nothing to do with your actions adversely affecting my credit status. This issue has to do with Home Depot illegally accessing my private information without my permission. I'm still thinking
I need to check the FTC opinion letters again. I think there was at least one letter that supported my claim. BTW, they pulled two AR's after the payoff. The 'light' just came on~~~ Why would they need to pull an AR just to issue a refund? If the latter AR was related to the refund, what was the former AR for?
I think that this FTC opinion letter backs my claim: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/gowen.htm April 29, 1999 Mr. Don Gowen Senior Vice President Security Mutual Financial Services, Inc. 1310 Cantwell Avenue, S.W. Decatur, Alabama 35601 Dear Mr. Gowen: This will respond to your letter posing a series of questions related to the efforts of creditors to market additional credit to current and former borrowers of closed end consumer credit. Your questions focus on the term "credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by the consumer," which is used in the amended Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681u, to refer to the practice of prescreening.(1) You observe that Section 603(m)(1) of the FCRA provides that this term does not include the use of a consumer report by a person with whom the consumer has an account or insurance policy for purposes of "reviewing the account or insurance policy," but the section offers no guidance as to what constitutes "reviewing." I believe your questions can be answered more easily by summarizing the treatment of current and former borrowers under the FCRA. Current Borrowers 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.(2) Your questions raise the issue of whether a creditor in a closed end credit transaction may exploit consumer reports obtained for "review" purposes in order to market its products or services. In the circumstances you described, we believe the answer is "no.". First, "review" is not a purpose for which a closed-end creditor would ordinarily need to obtain consumer reports on its customers. In commenting on the proposed provision which became Section 604(a)(3)(F)(ii), the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs stated: Like creditors, banks and others may need to consult a consumer's report in order to determine whether the consumer's current account terms should be modified. For example, the institution may provide more favorable pricing terms after consulting the report. The permissible purpose created by this provision, however, is limited to an account review for the purpose of deciding whether to retain or modify current account terms. (emphasis added).(3) The terms of a closed-end credit transaction are predetermined and generally may not be changed unilaterally by the creditor unless the contract expressly provides for such action (e.g., in the event of default). Therefore, the creditor is unlikely to have a reason to consider "whether to retain or modify current account terms" and, thus, would not have any routine need to procure consumer reports to "review" its accounts. Second, the credit bureau must, pursuant to Section 607(a), require the creditor to "certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose." (emphasis added). Because Section 604(a) provides no authority for a creditor (or any party) to use a consumer report for marketing purposes,(4) a creditor would violate its certification by using an existing report in such a manner. 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). Adverse Action In response to your question, it is not considered an "adverse action" under the FCRA for a creditor to decide not to include a current borrower in a credit solicitation based in whole or in part on the creditor's review of consumer report information, whether that information is new or was previously acquired and retained in the borrower's file. Section 603(k) provides that with respect to actions involving credit, the term "adverse action" has the same meaning as the term is defined under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"). Under the ECOA, adverse action must involve either (1) an "application" by the consumer(5) or (2) a termination of the consumer's account or an unfavorable change in the terms of that account that does not affect all or a substantial portion of the creditor's accounts within that class.(6) Failure to include a consumer in a solicitation for credit does not qualify as adverse action, as defined by the ECOA. Therefore, it does not constitute adverse action as defined by Section 603(k) of the FCRA.(7) I trust this answers all of your questions. This is an informal staff opinion and is not binding on the Commission. Sincerely, Ronald G. Isaac -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The Commission's Commentary on the Fair Credit Reporting Act defines "prescreening" as "the process whereby a consumer reporting agency compiles or edits a list of consumers who meet specific criteria and provides this list to the client or a third party (such as a mailing service) on a behalf of the client for use in soliciting these consumers for the client's products or services." 55 Fed. Reg. 18,815. 2. In commenting on Senate Bill 650, which contained provisions very similar to the ones enacted as the "Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996," the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs stated: Section 603(m) makes it clear that the prescreening provisions of the FCRA do not apply where a consumer report is obtained by a creditor in connection with reviewing or collecting an existing account of the consumer for safety and soundness purposes, even if the creditor subsequently decides to change the credit available to the consumer (emphasis added). S. Rep. No. 104-185 at 33 (1995). Hence, a creditor may obtain consumer reports for the purpose of reviewing its current closed end (or other) credit accounts without having to comply with the FCRA requirements applicable to prescreened transactions. 3. Id. at 35. 4. Trans Union Corp. v. FTC, 81 F. 3d 228, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 5. Section 202.2(e) of Regulation B, the implementing regulation of the ECOA, defines "application" to mean "an oral or written request for an extension of credit that is made in accordance with procedures established by a creditor for the type of credit requested." 6. Section 202.2(c) of Regulation B. 7. See S. Rep. No. 104-185 at 32, which states: The definition [adverse action] does not cover situations such as those where a creditor obtains consumer reports on its customers in connection with a review of its credit or other portfolio and, in connection with the review, a consumer's account is not changed, or is changed in a way that is not less favorable to the interest of that consumer, even if the accounts of other consumers are changed in a more favorable manner.
More information One CRA is reporting a closed date that is for the month of the payoff, not the month that they did the AR's. I think they are lying and trying to cover their a$$e$. Another report has a DOLA of the month of the payoff as well. But then the 3rd CRA has the account scheduled to report for 10 years and 2 months after the loan was paid off, which is 10 y 2 mo past the date they claim to have closed the account. Maybe they are reporting a closed date that antedates the dates of the ARs... One more question. They said that it was still open at the time they AR'd, but why did they report it as closed prior to then? Isn't that a conflict?
More information When I paid you in full, the date you received my payment is the date our relationship ended. I am not concerned with your companies internal polices as it relates to your wanting to keep my account open or closed any longer then ias required by law. In fact I will now amend my lawsuit to include violation of FCRA § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (4) Duty to provide notice of closed accounts. A person who regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a consumer who has a credit account with that person shall notify the agency of the voluntary closure of the account by the consumer, in information regularly furnished for the period in which the account is closed. Your company had no permissible purpose to pull my credit report after it was paid off. Your company also has an obligation to close the account and report such and not to keep it open at your leisure. Why would your company need to do an "Account Review" because a refund was being issued? Doesn't your company know how much in total was owed and if their was an overpayment? Simple math could have solved that problem and there would be nothing of importance on my credit report to help your company in the process of my refund. If that is the case it sounds like your company does not have reasonable procedures in place to handle this type of thing let alone operate a business. Your company should already be aware of what you are reporting about this account to the credit bureaus, without causing damage by invading my privacy and compromising the integrity of my personal credit file. Again when you were paid the account was closed and our business relationship ended, period end of story! As an example, if you rent an apartment from me and move out and end our lease does that give you permission to come back in the apartment when ever you feel like it until you think you shouldn't be there anymore? Answer...Nope! It's against the law and so is what you've done to me!! You did not have my permission and on top of it being a civil matter it is also a criminal matter. I tust that I will be in receipt of your payment to me for $1000.00 within 15 days of receipt of this letter. If not I will file the enclosed suit without delay and forward all information to the local federal prosecutor in my jursidiction for an investigation of your company. ********************************* That should about do it! You get the idea. Tac
If it was a "closed credit" loan it doesn't make any difference whether the account was closed or not. AR or hard doesn't matter - both access (invade) your private credit info and if there is no pp both are just as illegal. 0 p.s. - keep their letter as evidence.
Not feeling much support on this board and that worries me. Should I drop this case, as it is quite iffy? Can we take a poll?
Hell No!! Sue, Sue, Sue!!! This is an excellent case! They will fold, their attorney's will know it when their served. They would be fools to want to show up. Tac
This mess gets even fishier They got the payoff check, subsequently the title was released. Two days after the title was released, they pull an AR. Twelve days after that the refund check is cut. Two days after that, they pull another AR and mail the refund check. These creeps are creeping me out.
This mess gets even fishier Queen Bee, Ya know there comes a time when you either gotta take action or let them walk all over you. They clearly broke the law and even tell you so much as it leaves no doubt. So which option do you prefer.....Take action and file suit or let them continue to walk on you? For me the answer is simple and if your on this board asking our opinion of what to do I'm sure most would agree with me on this. This case is a no brainer. Get a small claims complaint form, fill it out and file it. Then sit back and wait for their attorney to call you and ask you where you'd like the check mailed out. It has happened for me several times and I just can't quite explain the feeling to you when that check comes in the mail and the knowledge that this month's mortgage payment is gonna be on them! Tac
This mess gets even fishier Tac, Thanks for the vote. I am just trying to muster up the balls to go through with this. I will take your advice and take it to the head!
This mess gets even fishier Queen Bee, Don't get intimidated by their denials and verbal gymnastics. They carefully hone these skills to dissuade people from suing them. You are right and the law is on your side. You should file suit and you should prevail.
This mess gets even fishier Queen - any update? This is EXACTLY the same issue i am having with Cap1... I closed acct 1/8, fully paid 1/14, letter received that once acct fully paid it would be fully closed cap1 pulled ar's on 2/19 and 3/19 i have been dealing with office of ceo and she wont do anything she said 1. acct closes 2 cycles after i ask for closing 2. ar's are requested from the cra 2 mos in advance so too bad. im gonna send letter to sue plus the county form this week i think once i hear back from tac - cuz hes da man
