Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... "I am doing so. I state under oath that I have no knowledge of any reason why they are pulling my credit file. Prior to seeing the inquiry on my credit file, I had never heard of ABC Credit Services, Inc. That is all I have to do. At that point the burden is on them. " WRONG again my friend YOU not only have to prove they pulled it without a permissible purpose, YOU have to prove they did it KNOWINGLY WITHOUT a permissible purpose... no case for LK
Re: PP reply NOT RE Hold the phone here. How might a consumer prove that the puller does NOT have PP? What would I march into court to show THIS? I'm confused. In my mind I'm the person who was wronged with a bad pull. Common sense (no legal background) would say that the puller would have to prove PP, not *ME*. My question then is WHO does the puller answer to when they are caught their pants down on a bad pull? Is the fox watching the hen house here or what? Who slaps their naughty hands? In all fairness, I could see if there was a case of mistaken identify, like a name, address & SSN *VERY* close to mine.
Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... hiding just a thought if LK has no case as you keep saying, then why are these CA making settlement offers out of court. if he settles he doesnt have to go to court to Prove anything
Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... "They are settling because they realize it is a very grey area of the law " Holly rat turds.....we agree LOL problem is...I have been able to find only cases that DISAGREE with the theory.
Re: Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... if its such a gray area I agree they should settle why risk taking a chance for arguements sake and risk loosing time and money. however on the other side of the coin, if you were to go to court argue your point and WIN the laws might get changed as it proves the gray areas need to be made in balck and white. just a thought
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... I usually read these boards and rarely post, but this battle regarding whether a consumer has to "prove" that a puller of their credit report is pure nonsense. A puller of a report (POAR) must absolutely prove they had a permissible purpose. Does a POAR have to reply to a written request to provide evidence of a PP? No. But the underlying fact is they must have a PP in order to access your report, as outlined in FCRA sectionn 604. Courts demand evidence. What is a POAR's evidence they indeed had a PP? Merely saying "we were collecting on a debt" is not enough. That statement must be backed up with tangible evidence (i.e. application, statements, etc.). Civil court uses a preponderance of the evidence. When I state "Company XYZ had no permissible purpose to obtain my report", the scale is tipped, perhaps just slightly, in my favor. The defendant must now try and tip the scale back toward themselves by offering evidence to the contray of what I've said. If they can't-I win. I've sucessfull sued four companies for non-PP; 2 settled, 2 went to court and they lost. Remember folks, preponderance is the magic word.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... I usually read these boards and rarely post, but this battle regarding whether a consumer has to "prove" that a puller of their credit report is pure nonsense. A puller of a report (POAR) must absolutely prove they had a permissible purpose. Does a POAR have to reply to a written request to provide evidence of a PP? No. But the underlying fact is they must have a PP in order to access your report, as outlined in FCRA section 604. Courts demand evidence. What is a POAR's evidence they indeed had a PP? Merely saying "we were collecting on a debt" is not enough. That statement must be backed up with tangible evidence (i.e. application, statements, etc.). Civil court uses a preponderance of the evidence. When I state "Company XYZ had no permissible purpose to obtain my report", the scale is tipped, perhaps just slightly, in my favor. The defendant must now try and tip the scale back toward themselves by offering evidence to the contrary of what I've said. If they can't-I win. I've successfully sued four companies for non-PP; 2 settled, 2 went to court and they lost. Remember folks, preponderance is the magic word.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... When asked for PP, the FCRA does not require that the CA reply, but when you sue, you are not suing over their failure to reply. You are suing over their pulling without PP. FCRA clearly requires that they have it in order to pull, and clearly provides penalties if they negligently or willfully pull without it. The consumer's request for PP is a courtesy not required by law any more than the CA's reply, and if the CA does have PP, or even wants to request payment of the debt, they could choose to contact the consumer.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... I'm certainly not any kind of an expert on this, however it just seems reasonable to me that if the CA already has all of your info, address, etc. because you sent them a validation letter, what possible permissible purpose would they have? The bozo I'm going to file on told me the purpose was "this inquiry is consistent with our attempts to collect the account." He did a hard pull the day after he received the request for validation. What a crock! He had all of the information he could possibly need. I'd like to see him explain what he could possibly have needed that he didn't already have. There is only one purpose there -- to put that name on your file because you dared challenge their right to collect. kimm
: PP reply NOT REQUIRED BY LAW... There is only one purpose there -- to put that name on your file because you dared challenge their right to collect. kimm =================. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> EXACTLY: It's called poisoning the file. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
