Since this seems to be the hot topic, and by the way LK has no case still, I spent the last day in the law library looking into this. A "puller" of a consumer credit report DOES NOT HAVE TO RESPOND WITH THEIR PURPOSE WHEN REQUESTED BY A CONSUMER. "The Court finds no disclosure provision in the FCRA applicable to plaintiff's complaint. One who obtains a credit report must make disclosures to the consumer only in limited situations. §§ 1681b(2); 1681m. There is no general requirement that one who obtains a credit report must report to the consumer that it was obtained or what information it contained. Wilson, 921 F. Supp. at 761. Thus, even after a liberal reading of plaintiff's papers as required for pro se litigants, Branum, 927 F.2d at 705, the Court concludes that plaintiff cannot fall under the exception. Thus, all the FCRA claims must be dismissed. " 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2297, * VICTOR SARAIVA, Plaintiff, - against - CITIGROUP, INC. and JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS and EMPLOYEES, CITIBANK, N.A. and JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS and EMPLOYEES, and THE DIME SAVINGS BANK-DIME AUTO FINANCE, ITS EMPLOYEES, and JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, Defendants. 01 Civ. 3298 (LMM) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2297 February 13, 2002, Decided February 13, 2002, Filed
What does that snippet have to do with permissable purpose other than confirm your ability to twist words and their meaning and fit them into your narrow little box? How in the world do you twist that to fit into the title of this thread that PP is not required by law?????? It absolutely IS required for a report to be released. Your snippet doesn't mention permissable purpose at all so how did you come to the conclusion that it translates into: Amazing, truly amazing! Sassy
LK are you suing the Ca as a furnisher of innacurate info as you could not verify their PP for the pull? if not what are you suing them under Im dealing with the same issues.
ok , Ill ck back I was just wondering because I posted a question about venue earlier and I thought that you may be able to answer it for me
Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... From the above snippet: §§ 1681b(2) 1681m There is NO section 1681b(2) of the FCRA, so hiding either made it up or again misquoted. Betting on the latter, that he meant 1681b(b)(2) which seems to fit with the snippet, it is referring to disclosures required for reports to be pulled for an EMPLOYMENT purpose. And, the decision is spot on, there is NO requirement that someone who receives a report has to advise a consumer that is was obtained (that is one of the purposes of inquiries being a required disclosure to consumers) or what it contained. § 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b] (a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other: (b) Conditions for furnishing and using consumer reports for employment purposes. (2) Disclosure to consumer. (A) In general. Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person may not procure a consumer report, or cause a consumer report to be procured, for employment purposes with respect to any consumer, unless-- (i) a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; and (ii) the consumer has authorized in writing (which authorization may be made on the document referred to in clause (i)) the procurement of the report by that person. § 615. Requirements on users of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681m] Refers to disclosures required to consumers when used for adverse action. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#604 Sassy
Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... DID U SEE THE CASE CITE...if you want to know if I made it up..look up the case..better yet..Ill post it here.... Also, since you seem to have this idea that "snipets" of a case is not valid.....HOW do you think the courts cite PARTS of other cases. A court can agree with another court on SNIPPETS of a case. A case cite is not INVALID because the whole case isnt the same scenerio. A court can make several "rulings" WITHIN a ruling. Sassy, do you have ANY court experience? Additionally, if you agree this is "spot on" how do you agree LK can sue because they failed to answer or provide the PP of the pulls ???
The CA does not have to disclose to the consumer that they have pulled a report, or what was in it, but the CRA does have to disclose, as per FCRA, and must maintain and provide records of inquiries to the consumer. Which leaves an interesting question: If the CRA removes an inquiry on request of the CA, is it still visible to the consumer but marked as not visible to others?
Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... "How in the world do you twist that to fit into the title of this thread that PP is not required by law?????? It absolutely IS required for a report to be released. Your snippet doesn't mention permissable purpose at all so how did you come to the conclusion that it translates into: " -you kidding right.... the title is: PP reply NOT REQUIRED.......as in the "puller" is not required to reply to a consumers request for the purpose....
Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... Please learn to read, I didn't say you made the case up and yes I saw the cite. Because you post them out of context and don't accurately reflect the decisions. Courts cite PARTS of other cases because it and all parties have access to them to verify. What do you think the purpose of a citation is???? Except for UNPUBLISHED cases of course (see below). Learn to read, or better yet, QUOTE where I said the case citation was invalid. I've court experience that I don't care or feel the to share or explain to you because, if you read the other thread (presently active and same topic, WHY do you do that?), you obviously don't even know what an unpublished decision means or that it generally can't be cited. So, I'd say you are the one spewing, my posts speak for themselves and are all confirmable too (what a perk, eh?). Sassy
Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... so no court experience in other words....thx IF you did..we wouldnt be having this discussion. Because you would be able to read the entire case yourself. keep up the posting...it really helps everyone and yes..an unpublished decision requires the party to PROVIDE THE OTHER PARTY A COPY OF THE CITE....IT DOES NOT MAKE THE LAW "bad"
Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... Why in the world did you ever think a reply was required? Your first sentence indicated it was relative to permissable purpose as has been frequently discussed and related to LK. Here, I'll quote it for you: Sorry you spent all day at the law library looking for something that was a non-issue. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... *************************************** where in the law does it say the puller is not required to respond to the consumers request ? ok plz clarify something for me you guys... the CRA provides a report to the consumer the consumer disputes the inquiry on the report with the CRA. it remains the CRA tells the consumer to contact the puller directly about the inquiry to seek further info, so if you can not verify the info from the puller as to why the pulled your file then how can it remain on the report as accurate? the CRA puts the responsibility back off on the puller instead of doing their job to maintain adequate procedures do you think that these CRA actually verify this info they dont have the time so they throw a bone to the consumer to deal with it. what then is a consumer left to do with that innacurate info but to file suit? maybe the law is not specific in this area but if a consumer files suit, how is that harrasing the puller when the ignore you.and how can a consumer be held liable for enforcing their rights to have accurate, verifable information reported. what am I missing here ???
Re: Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... "But by their refusal to reply, that gives me the ability to draw the conclusion that there is no PP so I can file a lawsuit in good faith. The CA may very well be able to prove PP, but now they have to do it in court. The end result is the same. They are going to settle out of court because I am right. They SHOULD have responded and their failure to respond to a letter just gave me a free shot in court. Now it costs them several thousand $$$ to fight me. "-LK I didnt think a reply was required...but LK does
Re: Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... so your agruement is that they dont have to reply, but by them not replying you can infer a violation.. umm ok.....what time does the short bus pick you up for school....and dont forget your helmet YOU as the consumer have to PROVE they DID NOT have a permissible purpose. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING
Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... Will you stop editing already!!!!!!! Your snippet has nothing to do with LK's case based on what he has posted. It is spot-on in reference to the balance of the paragraph posted, did you not read the rest of the sentence or what????? Here it is again: Actually, I should have said, the referenced snippet portion... That however doesn't have a darn thing to do with what you are trying to make this decision say as it relates to what LK has posted. And, I've never said whether I agree with LK or disagree, so why do you feel the need to assume that I do or don't -- is it relevant? In fact, I've purposefully avoided those discussions altogether for other reasons. What I definately disagree with is the way you present something as factual that isn't. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... Nope, that's not what I said. I'm done because you refuse to stop misquoting and twisting my words and everyone elses. And this is why YOU spent all day at the law library, that doesn't make sense. I intend to, thanks!!!!!!!! Never did I say the word bad or imply it, you really should learn to read. You better start checking some state-specific rules for unpublished decisions if that is what you think it means. Sassy
