Well, I actually would have agreed with you yesterday morning, but I read Lizardking's post and was persuaded to research the issue. After doing so, I came back with this post yesterday: "Lizardking, I didn't believe your post to be accurate upon reading it, but I did some research and you are correct that a majority of courts have limited statutory damages to $1000 per action, based on the plain language of the statute. A few of those cases are: White v. Bruck 927 F.Supp. 1168 W.D.Wis.,1996 Barber v. National Revenue Corp. 932 F.Supp. 1153 W.D.Wis.,1996. Dewey v. Associated Collectors, Inc. 927 F.Supp. 1172 W.D.Wis.,1996. This court went the other way, but the case has never been followed: Rabideau v. Management Adjustment Bureau 805 F.Supp. 1086 W.D.N.Y.,1992. " If you don't think that case law matters, that's your call...you are speaking for yourself.
Kid...As this is a credit board...why don't you stick to the topic and STOP disrupting??!! Or maybe get a life!
There are several depending on the situation. Here are a few, and if you search for "permissible purpose" you may find more discussion and letters. Lots of people here have taken them on, some successfully, some not. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=278960#post278960 http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...&highlight="absolute+astonishment"#post234391 http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=271117#post271117
IB- that is two posts for you today, neither one has anything to do with credit. Here is my post from above again, since you seem to have missed my "on topic" point. Yes, it was BREEZE who disrupted the thread, saying things that have not a THING to do with CREDIT. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Marie Inquires appearing mysteriously may be a sign of several things. fraud starting: a: someone is getting your info and is about to become you b. someone has your info and is using it to apply for credit Errors: c. you have a file that's being confused with another d. the bureau is just making mistakes and has system glitches that's adding odd inquiries to your file if it's the first 2... you need to seriously consider a fraud alert on all 3 bureaus and NOW... id theft isn't fun. You can also try to add a consumer statement "do not confuse with consumers of similar identity... verify all identifying information".. those 2 actions make it difficult to impersonate you and it lets the bureaus know your file may have errors... This is my take on who's responsible for this. 1. Company xyz has a rogue employee who's in your file for no permissible purpose...guess the worst and go from there. Ask company xzy who accessed your file and why. they're supposed to have reasonable procedures and security so not every person can play in the credit files... only people with PP are supposed to be in the system... ask WHO accessed your file... and go after them personally... ask the bureau for the certification under which xyz pulled your file. Ask the bureau for an investigation... tell them you're concerned about fraud... if the same company pulls your report again (as in the case of the marketing stuff from companies you used to have a business relationship with but no longer do)... tell the bureau you want a block on your file from that specific creditor... the bureaus have contracts that contain clauses about companies pulling reports illegally... and it's my opinion that after you've put Credit bureau A on notice that their subscriber is violating their contract.. the bureau also becomes liable for dissiminating your info after notice... negligent and willful noncompliance... after all. Once they know it's a problem.. you could try for criminal prosecution of someone at the bureau as they're knowingly now giving out your file...perhaps asking for a criminal investigation of the supervisor who told you no.. or the CEO of a bureau might get this looked into... nobody wants jail time for "company" issues... they should either have a way to block you file from that creditor... or terminate their contract with that company... The latter will never happen... but the bureaus also don't have mechanisms in place to protect you from unauthorized access from a specific company... remedy? go after both in both a civil and criminal manner... after all, once you give notice, the bureaus are just enabling someone to have access to your info... there are criminal penalties and fines for individuals doing this... and some state laws are much better than the FCRA... use every law to your advantage... As to inquiries being fact... read fcra def: file "ALL INFO NO MATTER HOW REPORTED OR TRANSMITTED"... as to permissible purpose... look above it and catch the word "eligibility"... it's meaning is huge. Permissible purpose refers to eligibility for services... For any non current creditor then it's just a "business" relationship... they can pull you if you give them permission... or if you're applying for service and they're determining "eligibility for" service... but once they've determined to give you service... they can't be in your file to collect later.. after all, it's not ongoing credit... 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... It's my hope that you all will soon hear about a situation in Atlanta that's being looked into by our AG.. for this very reason. They can't provide service then later say "we pulled your header info from Exp including score... just cause we wanted to in the processing of your current hospital account"... I'm hoping this will curtain not only adding ssns to files needlessly but will also curb id fraud originating in hospitals (if you knew HOW MANY people then have access to all your info nationwide... you'd pass out)... they'll add your dob and ssn even if you don't give them to the hospital.. 2. If you had an account once... (this is now credit) and you've paid it off and closed the account (as in the case of a revolving account) then they cannot mine for marketing info via your file.. No PP... NONE. the FTC is very clear on these. once the business relationship is terminated... seeya on PP for credit. 3. But... if you pay off a credit card but it's still open... they can go in every day of the year and it's permissible... but I dare say, improper as hard inq's connote an "application for NEW credit"... and not an AR... so while it's not technically a permissible purpose deal... I hope eventually case law will hammer hard inquiries for ar purposes... they tank your scores... 4. I'd say the same thing for PRMs that are supposed to be for "firm offers for credit" if you get denied based on credit... after all... what's so firm about that offer then? No PP Just my .02 on this thing. I think there are so many PP violations that the laws will eventually be changed to open it up more (eg: hospitals)... but for now... a lot of the inq are so illegal it's a joke. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. )
The Kid cites a lot of very interesting stuff, but the parts that I read all reference the FDCPA, which does (textually) limit damages to THE SUM OF: $1000 per "action" (e.g., lawsuit) PLUS actual damages PLUS costs. So while he is correct that the FDCPA limits statutory damages to $1000 per action, even under the FDCPA the TOTAL liability can certainly exceed $1000. Permissable purpose is part of the FCRA, however, which does NOT use the word "action". Further, the FCRA limits awards to THE SUM OF: actual damages OR $1000 whichever is GREATER, PLUS PUNITIVE DAMAGES, PLUS costs. It is certainly misleading of people on this board to imply that EVERYONE can ALWAYS get a boatload of money out of one of these cases. But it is completely false to argue that NOBODY can EVER get more than $1000. And in a case where multiple creditors have improperly pulled a CR, I suspect that quite a few courts would permit an award from EACH and EVERY creditor.
As far as recovery for an action based on impermissible purpose, I agree with you. My discussion above is largely about what constitutes impermissible purpose, who has a permissible purpose and under which circumstances? That is a loaded topic, IMO. I don't think that Sect 604 is very clear. In particular, it is not clear to me if the term "credit account" applies to "collection of". I'm talking about subsection (a)(3)(A) of 604. I have read FTC Opinion Letters suggesting that it must be a credit account, but no case law in support of that conculsion. I have read case law, cited above, suggesting that any debt creates a permissible purpose, regardless of whether it is a credit acct. Judgments are treated differently for some reason. I sent in a letter to the FTC on the subject and I do hope that they respond.
...so the judge wants to AWARD $3,000 for 3 violations...BUT CAN'T because somebody here says they CAN'T??? I DON'T THINK SO!!! Reminds me of a "PREACHER" who knows the BIBLE inside and out, backwards and forwards, but does not have "RELIGION" KID~~CASE LAW IS ONE THING...BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY UNSECURED CREDIT CARDS??? WHAT IS YOUR F.I.C.O. SCORE???
George- I believe that this thread is about impermissible purpose. Before looking at what one might recover, first establish what constitutes impermissible purpose. I do believe that I have posted above a persuasive argument (with citations) that refutes the position taken in a previous post regarding what constitutes permissible purpose. I apologize if you are unable to participate in this thread from an intellectual perspective... As far as what is in my wallet, it is frankly irrelevant. "Post to the post, not the poster.."
Read it again, the kid, you too, stan: The key word is eligibility, did you miss that? You've twisted Marie's words, made bogus assumptions and not read what she's typed. Sassy
In Korotki, an atty had a permissible purpose to pull a consumer report for the sole purpose of finding the debtor's address. There was no "eligibility for services" requirement. Are you suggesting that the judge missed the "eligibility" requirement? Which bogus assumptions? What are you talking about? Be more specific, please. Here is another case, Stonehart v. Rosenthal: "Stonehart also argues that neither defendant had a permissible purpose to obtain her credit report because the underlying charges do not constitute a 'credit account.' See Pl. Mem. at 15-16. However, the statutory language does not, by its terms, require the account to be a credit account. The relevant part of the statute reads: the 'review or collection of an account of the consumer.' " I believe that Marie mentioned something about medical debts, and there is no permissible purpose to collect on a medical debt. Here is what she says specifically: "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 " Now look at Greenhouse v. TRW, (granting defendant summary judgment where defendant obtained plaintiff's credit report in an attempt to collect unpaid medical charges) I think that is pretty persuasive case law suggesting the precise opposite of what Marie has suggested....
Good Lord...I think we should all be quiet and slink away...apparently there's only one person with the intelligence to participate in these discussions. I rarely make posts like this one, but The Kid...perhaps you do not know everything...just like I don't know everything, Marie does not know everything and George does not know everything. I think its wonderful you are willing to share your research with the board. I don't think its so wonderful that you believe you have all of the answers and are always correct. The thing about caselaw, etc. is that it changes and not all judges rule the same way and while something seems cut and dried, anything can happen in a court of law. So when you say something will never happen...that is not necessarily true. I asked my boss a month or so ago how to go about making changes in the credit reporting industry. He said I can lobby to get a bill passed or I can file a lawsuit. I asked him how I would sue if I didn't have a cause of action and he said I could argue that I *should* have a cause of action based upon whatever the facts of the situation were. Basically that even though there are no statutes covering what I am suing over...there should be. That being said, lawsuits are adversarily *because* there is always more than one viewpoint and more than one argument out there. You can show me caselaw all you want, but rarely is there a case out there that doesn't have a case decided that appears to contridict that decision. Cases are overturned all the time...so while caselaw is king...its not God. I know I'm on a soapbox here, but I believe everyone here who has sued a credit reporting agency, collection agency or even just plain been a pain in the butt to them is a pioneer and I believe it is important to believe that while there will be failures, people have to try in order to change things. L <climbing down off my soapbox and thinking about whether or not the saying of "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and prove it' applies to me or someone else.>
Not you, whyspers I've read your postings here, and at Bayhouse, and have even perused some of your lawsuit stuff - you've PROVEN yourself to be a valued member of the credit reform movement. Someone else just types after having had too much to drink.
You are definitely assuming that I always think that I am correct. I just sent a letter to the FTC (my second one on the subject) asking them to clarify the "credit account" portion of Sect 604. IMO, and I wouldn't expect you to disagree, a position that is supported by case law is significantly more persuasive than one that is completely void of any citations. Does this mean that case law is "God"? Of course not. Your mention of "Basically that even though there are no statutes covering what I am suing over...there should be." is a public policy argument, and I think that it is a good one. Now back to the topic of this post, which is permissible purpose. It looks like, based on the precedent cited above, that a debt collector has a permissible purpose to pull a credit report in order to collect ANY debt, even a medical debt...
AMEN Whyspers!!!!!!!! Unfortunately, the kid, doesn't appear to be able to stand back and watch himself walk by or review your message objectively :-( It's about having the last word, being right, grand-standing and one-upping, if even in his own mind. Objectivity comes through experiential living and well, he's a kid, the kid, afterall. Well chosen words from you though!!!!! Sassy
Sassy- I am seeing a lot of personal attacks, and very little discussion about the underlying credit issue, PERMISSIBLE PURPOSE. Trying to keep this thread on track, but a lot of posters here wishing to talk about something other than CREDIT.
That wasn't an attack, the kid! I tried to discuss this with you, it seems however, unless the discussion is what you want to hear it's not about CREDIT or thicker skin is needed. I'm sorry you aren't capable of being objective or having a discussion that could include or grow your ideas into something that could be beneficial to the board-- that's what this board is about. It's your choice however whether you wish to participate constructively or just continue to provoke, insult and offend. I'm sorry you've decided to choose the latter. Sassy
