OC response to non-pp lawsuit

Ok..short story. I had a auto loan that was paid in full 2 years ago. They were reporting 30 and 60 day lates on the account. I disputed with the CRA and the bank. I have had no other dealings with this bank since the time the loan was paid in full.

5 days after receiving the dispute the bank made a hard inquiry on my Equifax file. I immediately sent them a nasty letter citing the laws broken, dates, proof of reciepts, etc. and an ITS if my demand for $1000 to make things right was not heeded.

Enter the reply to my dispute. They say that they sent a letter to me CRRR the month the 60 day occured. Problems from that were that:
1) it was sent to an old address in VA. I was living in TX at the time
2) Their "receipt" of my signature wasn't the green cards but was the receipt from when it was sent.
3) they obviously didn't update my address before the move 2 months later.

I contacted THEM about not receiving a bill after the move, found out that it was a billing error. They promised to fix the problem and I made prompt payment of all monies due plus the next payment.

Back to the non-pp conflict. Their response today was that they had permissible purpose because of 604 (a) (3) (F) "...any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report in conjunction with a legitimate business transaction that is initiated by the consumer.." They say that they verfied this with the CRA they obtained the report from (of course). They also cited the dispute with the CRA I filed ( I filed as "not mine" because I never had an account with this creditor which was late).

Now I know their response is bullshit. Please double check my reasons for that.

1) FTC opinion Gowen states that permissible purpose only extends to businesses with an EXISTING business relationship.

2) FTC GoldBlatt establishes 604 (a) (3) (f) specifically deals with an individual seeking to open an account or thereafter to discontinue doing business with an individual who is an established client.

3) 945 F. 2d 306, Mone v Dranow (CA 9 (Cal) 1991) cites congress' intent that CRAs only issue reports for the purpose of determining "an individuals eligibility for credit, insurance, or employment". It also cited a 3rd Circut Court of Appeals case Houghton v New Jersey Mfrs Ins. Co. which specifically states that the business need exception must "relate the other specifically enumerated transactions in SS 1681 (a)(d) and b(3), i.e. credit, insurance eligibility, employment or licensing." The broader interpretation of "business transaction" cant be interpreted any broader than that or it makes SS1681 a(d) and b(3) meaningless. This was reaffirmed in Ippolito v. WNS Inc. 864 F.2d 440, 451 (7th Cir. 1988).

Now, am I missing relevant caselaw for this? I'm also suing (in TX) for other state violations which will hinge on me prevailing on the FCRA violation. They bank was aware of my dispute to the CRA. Will my disputing the account as "not mine" be a problem within the trial? I see that as being germaine as its not directly related to thier pulling of the report.

What holes do you see? Thanks for all of your help.

 

bump

 

bump