I have read here how newbies tend to run off to court at the drop of an imagined violation, so I thought I would see if an older, wiser, more experienced head thought I had a case. Thank you. Say, Greg, did you get up on the abrupt side of the bed this morning?
Marie- I have done some research on permissible purpose and written a letter to the FTC on the subject as well. There is some competing authority on the subject, and I was hoping that the FTC would respond to my letter and clear the haze. Unfortunately, they did not respond. I have read the "Riddle" FTC letter and once believed that only creditors or collectors who were collecting on a "credit" account had a permissible purpose. The FTC Statements of General Policy contains various statements that suggest that Congress intended not to limit permissible purpose to collection of credit accounts. At least one federal case holds the same, and the case has not been overturned. Even so, there is a portion of the FTC Statements of General Policy that would lead one to believe that a "credit account" is a requirement for permissible purpose to exist. (Note the very last sentence of the first excerpt below, "credit account") The discussion of Section 604 in the FTC Statements of General Policy state the following in part: The title of the paragraph is "Reports Sought in Connection with the 'Review or Collection of an Account' " (leads me to believe that the credit acct is not a requirement) "A collection agency has a permissible purpose under this section to receive a consumer report on a consumer for use in attempting to collect that consumer's debt, regardless of whether that debt is assigned or referred for collection. Similarly, a detective agency or private investigator, attempting to collect a debt owed by the consumer, would have a permissible pupose to obtain a consumer report on that individual for use in collecting that debt. An attorney may obtain a consumer report under this section on a consumer for use in connection with a decision whether to sue that individual to collect a credit account." 16 C.F.R. Pt. 600 App. My interpretation is that a credit account is only a requirement for PP when an atty is obtaining it for purposes of deciding whether or not to sue. A collection agency can obtain a consumer report in order to collect a consumer's debt, regardless of whether it is a credit account or not. The FTC could easily have stuck in the words "to collect a credit account" in their discussion of when a CA has a permissible purpose, but they chose not to, presumably intentionally. The next topic is entitled "Judgment Creditors" and it reads as follows: "A judgment creditor has a permissible purpose to receive a consumer report on the judgment debtor for use in connection with collection of the judgment debt, because it is in the same position as any creditor attempting to collect a debt from a consumer who is the subject of a consumer report." 16 C.F.R. Pt. 600 App. It sounds like a judgment creditor has a permissible purpose for obtaining a consumer report, whether or not the judgment was obtained from a suit involving a delinquent credit account. In Korotki v. Attorney Services Corp., Inc., the Maryland Federal Court held that a permissible purpose existed for an attorney to obtain a credit report for the sole purpose of determining the address of Korotki. The subject of the debt does not appear to involve a credit account, and the court does not even discuss whether or not the debt was a "credit" debt. IMO, this would have been a good argument for the plaintiff. 931 F.Supp 1269 at 1276-1277 ("The only purpose which the record reflects that defendants had was to obtain an alternate address at which to serve Korotki. In this Court's view, that purpose is permissible under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(3)(E); accordingly, defendants did not violate the FCRA.") In sum, there is competing authority on this subject. Not unlike you, I hope to see some more lucid, pro consumer legislation passed. )
I have to agree with The Kid here, even though Marie is well respected, etc..and was touted by Doc. Funny how people prop each other up on a pedistel in order to gain credibility. Don't you guys realize that this is just one person's opinion? You don't hear her cite a case, it should make you wonder..who gives a damn about an FTC letter..case law is way more powerful and persuasive. This is but one example of a consumer reading the law in a manner that is most favorable to the consumer. Marie says: "eg: doctor's offices, hospitals etc are NOT considered credit as per the fcra... they can see if they want to originally do business with you... but cannot use your info later for either collections or "processing of your claim"... FTC opinion letters to this and even Doctor's forms that say "we may pull credit" aren't specific enough. it's a "we're pulling your credit" or it's a violation... " And then The Kid pulls case law to the contrary...the FTC letters are NOT binding on anyone/anything...
Put it this way: If you can cite ONE CASE where a judge has awarded a penny over $1000 to a consumer for an impermissable inquiry, I will send you a check for $5000 and never post on this board again. LMAO
Amazing!! stan agrees with the kid that all old-timers need to be brought down a few pegs, and they are both in Minneapolis!! What a coincidence!!
Breeze- Got anything to say about CREDIT? It's hard to swallow...I know. Just think, a link from FAQ which once contained questionable information about permissible purpose. Be grateful that I came along and shed some light from a different angle, while citing case law and legislative history to back it up. It's a tough one to swallow, I know...post to the post and not the poster, then see where you come out, IMO.
OHMYGOODNESS!! No, I think you are wrong, and I don't want to research for you. Sorry. Don't want or need your approval.
Right, George, he is here to argue, and disrupt the board. He has singled out people who do help others and tried to discredit them. That is all he does. He either posts how right he is, or how wrong the other person is. Helps no one.
If anyone thinks that my post above regarding permissible purpose is inaccurate, then I am sure that they will respond. Note that I have cited case law and legislative history, which is significantly more persuasive than someone's personal experience or hunch... One of the purposes of the site is to aid people in understanding the laws surrounding credit, and I do believe that I have contributed to that purpose. Breeze, you continue to talk about everything EXCEPT for credit...good luck to you.
Obviously, there are a lot of threads you are not reading. I do not feel obligated to prove anything to you. I have proof of what I know in the file full of thank-you letters from consumers who have asked and gotten help. I don't give a *** what you think or post about me.
Hi, George..I try to give people accurate information. You mentioned on page 1 in this thread that "$1,000 IS THE MINIMUM YOU SHOULD GET...IT CAN BE WAY MORE..." Now, a majority of courts have held that the maximum recovery is $1000 PER ACTION, which means a $1000 maximum. You are suggesting a $1000 minimum, which is inconsistent with the majority opinion. I assume that you do not want to provide inaccurate information, and you would regard me as "helpful" in light of the fact that I have corrected your inaccurate advice.
I'M 100% WRONG, 100% OF THE TIME, SO DON'T ANSWER ME OR RESPOND TO ANYTHING I SAY AND WE WILL BOTH BE HAPPY!!!
I disagree. I have seen you post a great deal of accurate information. However, I do not believe that your post (in this thread) regarding recovery was accurate. For that reason, I posted accurate information in an effort to assist consumers. If you do not consider that "helpful," then please advise.
We have people on this board who have received more than $1,000. And I am not going to search to prove it to you. But we know you are wrong, because we know they sued and got more. You aren't here to post accurate information, you are here to discourage people.
