This is more of a devil's advocate post. Believe me, I highly disagree with this idea, but it popped up in the one response that I just received, so I am going with it to see what arguements get made both ways. Now, the twisted respondents reply. (paraphrased) > Since you didn't apply for credit, we did not > request a copy of your consumer report. > > NEENER, NEENER, NA NA!!! In other words, if they request the information for a non-permissible purpose, the request isn't a 'consumer report' since it doesn't meet the definition of a 'consumer report' established by the FCRA. Now, this company also has argued that a) a PRM is not a consumer report (Section 604(c) disagrees with that position) b) that since the information which they requested from the CRA didn't portain to any trade line, that it wasn't a consumer report (Section 604(c)(2)(C) disagrees with that position) c) that the information they requested from the CRA is maintained separate from the credit file, that information is not a consumer report (Section 603(g) disagrees with that position; as the definition of file is all inclusive of anything regarding the consumer maintained by the CRA).
twisted logic I would say but then again I think I need more sleep to totally get the gist of the entire meaning here. since when are consumer reports oral? I would think a report would be reduced to writing
fun: The definition has always included oral disclosures... Company calls CRA to ask about your file, the file information is still being disclosed to them its still an inquiry...
Butch, I knew you would love this one... I have a stack of four letters from this same person, and each one gets them in just a little bit deeper; and she just doesn't get it. My last letter highly recommened that she get advisement from their highest ranking person in their legal department, and *THEN* reply with a reasonable settlement offer, and *THAT* was their response.
Does the CRA show it as an inquiry? Do you know what information the CRA supplied orally? Perhaps if one of those items clearly requires PP, the CRA will mark it as an inquiry to protect themselves, and let the inquirer dangle.
Do they claim they obtained information as a PRM would disclose, yet their purpose was not a firm offer of credit?
yep, but i am debating whether to let her dangle for a few more months, i need some great humorous reading material.
ontrack: That's the problem with the *WHOLE* situation... It's also why I've spent the last few months going over Section 604 with a fine tooth comb. In March, I received two offers from two different banks, supposedly based on PRM offers. I received reports immediately after that from all three CRA's, which didn't show these two companies as having received PRM's. I sent them a 'quick', you shouldn't have been able to receive my information because I am supposed to be PRM blocked with the CRA's, letter, and that because I have been the victim of identity theft, I am justifiably concerned with the release of my information; and asked *ONLY* that they check their systems and immediately reply with the name and address of the credit reporting agency which provided them my consumer credit report. One beated around the bush, and eventually after three or four letters through the BBB disclosed the name of the CRA; meanwhile I had sent to all four CRA's a combination perm opt-out/fraud alert request, stating that despite the fact that my files should have been PRM BLOCKED according to several company's at least one has thus far undisclosed CRA has not complied with that request. Then I receive a letter from the second company, sometime around the first or second letter from the first company; the first words out of this second company's mouth was essentially 'we contacted ___ and they told us that you did not opt-out until XX:XX AM on XX/XX/XXXX; which was after we contacted you to send you the offer" [604(c)(2)(C) - 'other information pertaining to a consumer that does not identify the relationship or experience of the consumer with respect to a particular creditor or other entity'; makes this fall under a PRM classification -- BUT the purpose was not to *SEND* a pre-approved offer of credit; but only to verify when I had optted-out, and the first letter explicitly stated to allow for up to 60-90 days to ensure that they didn't have any queued letters waiting to be sent to me, then I will be completly out of their company's system.] MIRACULOUSLY, while a dispute was pending with the CRA in question, when the complete after dispute report came in; lo and behold *3* undisclosed PRMs appeared from 3-4 months prior. Still waiting for a response to my inquiry on that front of the war... The first company, well, they're getting their just deserts from AG's offices, so since they didn't violate, I'll be stepping away from the buffet, and let the AG's offices get their fill... The second company well, Section 604(c) doesn't give a company a right to play 20 questions with a CRA about a consumers credit file, just because they want to; and apparently this person doesn't 'grasp' the concept that a PRM is a consumer credit report; or that they can't inquire of PRM BLOCKED status under 604(c), because a PRM is based on there not being a PRM BLOCK on the consumers credit report, therefore, they apparently *EITHER* claimed a false PP, claimed I provided 'written instructions' for them to obtain the information, *OR* abused their 'blanket' PP rights to get the information. The hillarious part is she quoted the definition of consumer report up to and including the reference to Section 604 (603(d)(1)(C)); but apparently didn't take the time to even GLANCE at Section 604, before coming to her conclusion 603(d)(1)(A) & 603(d)(1)(B) don't apply, so why even bother at 603(d)(1)(C) because that would actually require me to read a lot of legalese; so 'you didn't apply for credit with us, so we didn't obtain a consumer report on you; *IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE DEFINITION* if you didn't apply for credit, its not a consumer report...'
Butch: Which tactic may work better, the sledgehammer 'noose'... Or... A Columbo-esque non-threatening... Oh, just one more thing... Would you say that the CRA's answer was information pertaining to me that does not identify the relationship or experience of me with respect to a particular creditor or other entity? Just one more thing... I am really, really curious as to when you personally believe that your company obtains a consumer report, as you so brilliantly quoted in your last letter. Just one more thing, when do you think that you don't... Please provide as many examples as you can think of, because I am really interested in what you and your company considers to be a consumer report.
What are you trying to accomplish? The second company likely paid for mailing list info based on PRMs with the CRA. Since it is unlikely that they specifically request PRMs of blocked consumers, which would be both illegal and poor business, they were depending on the CRA to follow the law and not provide blocked information. The CRA is the one that messed up, and appears to have belatedly posted the PRMs, as required by FCRA, after they received the inquiry from the company. Since their reported blocking date does not match your blocking date, this too appears to be an error on the CRAs part. The company's inquiry of the block date is directly related to determining and fixing the problem indicated in your complaint. The company appears to have acted in good faith to try to fix a problem, caused by the CRA, and remove you from their mailing list as you requested. What would you have done in their place?
ontrack: Despite the CRA just now finding a *4*th non-previously disclosed PRM that happened in March; there is nothing in either the hards/softs/PRMs to show that this additional disclosure occurred, except for their own proud confession of it in the first letter. So if I keep applying pressure to the CRA, maybe the CRA will find proof of this April-May disclosure before December, for an early x-mas gift...
Are these delayed inquiry disclosures all PRMs, or are there soft or hard inquiries that are also showing up late?
These are PRMs... When the first company didn't provide a name right away, I sent to all four a generic... I know that one of you has been selling my name, when they shouldn't have been selling my name, I want to make it clear that I wanted to be PRM blocked indefinately... And miraculously, three PRMs showed up when I received the next results report.
There is no permissible purpose for the company to inquire of the block date, because that is a portion of the consumer's consumer file. Without either my express written authorization, which they did not have, or a valid permissible purpose, there is no legal reason for her inquiring of anyone that information. Company 1 demonstrated the right way to fix the problem, there was no need for them to contact the CRA to block me from receiving future offers, and they didn't. Therefore, they didn't violate. Company 2 *DIDN'T* violate, until they having specifically requested information about me, after I had advised them that I was PRM BLOCKED. THAT was when Company 2 violated; there was no permissible purpose for them to inquire of the CRA anything about my consumer report, when the consumer gave them a reason to know, or that they should have known that the consumer was PRM BLOCKED. As Company 1 demonstrated, they did not need to contact the CRA to remove me from their own marketing lists, and they immediately knew who to call, so they didn't need to contact the CRA to find out if they were the one who gave my information to them. The only reason they did so, is that they felt like Section 604(c) gave them free range to play "20 Questions" about my consumer report, after they were told that I was PRM BLOCKED. They were given notice by me, that I was PRM BLOCKED, *AFTER* they received that notice, *THEN* they specifically requested more information about me from the CRA. SO they did, in this case, "specifically request PRMs of blocked consumers, which would be both illegal and poor business". Since the only place where less than a full permissible purpose is needed, and the only place which refers to LIMITS on a consumer report to not having anything to do with any particular trade line, which she referred to in her second letter, is under Section 604(c), she knowingly requested under a PRM this information, without a permissible purpose under Section 604(c); and knowing that I was blocked. That is why Company 1 hasn't heard from me, since they finally disclosed the CRA, but Company 2 will keep hearing from me, until it is resolved to my satisfaction, and SHE UNDERSTANDS WHY what she did was both illegal, and bad business. PRM's only have one permissible purpose, and that is for the future sending of a marketing offer for credit or insurance, Company 2, not only requested my information specifically knowing they couldn't have it legally, but for the EXACT OPPOSITE IMPERMISSIBLE PURPOSE. And the reason she thought that she could get away with it, is because even in her first letter, she stated that 'to her' a PRM is not a consumer report, because they don't receive anything other than the consumers name and address; unfortunately for her, Section 604(c) disagrees with her, on that since Section 604(c) refers to any such report as a CONSUMER REPORT, just as when she played 20 questions about me and my consumer file.
Nice Analysis Jam. For others reading along; "she stated that 'to her' a PRM is not a consumer report, because they don't receive anything other than the consumers name and address." Name & Address is NOT all the info. released via PRM. The inquirer sets certain perameters for the selection of names in the first place. ie. Those who have an income of $40,000 - $50,000 Those who have no collections within the past 2 years old. So now, when the name is selected she knows your name and address PLUS your income level AND that you have no collections in the past 2 years. And that's what makes them a consumer report.
Butch, How do they know what the income is? At least on my CRs it doesn't report that. <confused look>
Jam LOL I can picture you tightening the noose watching them squirm as they try to think up an excuse or defense, then kicking the bucket from under neath them.
