repost on proving pp?

Hi Fun. You mention lack of written documentation - but you have to have something to know that they pulled it right?

I just asked a similar question about how to prove it to them as anyone can claim this if proof isn't needed and going beyond that conversation which I'm sure can be debated for a while. I was advised to white out certain identifying things and send to them to show their non-pp.

 

The point that fun is making though, is that they could simply argue (unless they've put something in writing otherwise, like in the case I am trying to build) that one of the PP did exist.

For example, they could claim that you filed an electronic in-store application for credit, there wouldn't be anything writen to prove otherwise. Even if you know that they didn't, how can you prove that someone didn't file an electronic in-store application for credit in your name.

 

Even with an electronic in-store application, they'd have to have your information somewhere in that format, right? So if you sued them (or threatened them with suit) and they claim they DID have pp, wouldn't they have to produce the document that has all your information (address, DL#, etc)?

 

But, they could always 'generate' that when you challenged them for it, if they can locate the data from your credit report that they obtained...

 

If it is computer generated or online, it has to have an IP originating address and a MAC address. This would all be accessible through discovery, or the presumption that you will demand it in discovery, if they don't get their act together.

Talk to any Computer Forensics Investigator... It proves the existance of email transmissions and computers that they actually come from.

 

Not if it is a closed end system (like when you are at an in-store applications kiosk, or application taken at the cash register, like a lot of the major stores are able to do).

There is a thread on such a situation, where the company pulled a non-PP inquiry based on a closed card, then claimed that the consumer went into a store (which was local when he HAD the card, but now was not his local store), and requested that the card be re-opened, to attempt to justify the PP.

 

http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...hp?s=&threadid=57952&highlight=store+pp+claim

First they claimed he walked into the store to ask for a deletion (i was close).

When the consumer caught them on that one, they tried to claim that his prior account gave them a purpose.

When the consumer caught them on that one, they tried to claim that his prior employment gave them a purpose.

Yes, maybe they would have gotten away with it, if they stuck to one story instead of theory shopping...

 

http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...hp?s=&threadid=58988&highlight=CRA+Disclosure

It all started with a PRM

Basically, COMP1 pulled a PRM report from UNKNOWNCRA1 (Now Known), I send a letter advising them that they should not have been able to obtain a PRM on me, and requesting that they contact me with the name, and address of the CRA which supposedly provided them with the PRM.

COMP1 somehow, either by calling, or some other method asks UNKNOWNCRA1 to disclose the PRM BLOCK status.

COMP1 responds, we got your info from UNKNOWNCRA1, now you know, and by the way, when we asked UNKNOWNCRA1 when you placed your PRM BLOCK on your credit file they said that you called to request the PRM BLOCK on XX/XX at XX:XX AM, which was after we had contacted you (#1, I didn't call, they placed the PRM BLOCK when I was disputing an account in writing for the account being submitted by a fraudulent third-party w/o authorization.) They went on to ensure that I would be taken *OFF* of their marketing list (so there is no PP for a PRM even if I were not PRM BLOCKED; and there was no PP for a complete report.)

COMP1 is trying to claim that since they didn't receive a copy of my report, they've done nothing wrong, I countered pointing to the definition of file, which is anything that UNKNOWNCRA1 has on their system portaining to CONSUMER. Therefore, even if the information is in a separate system from the official 'credit report' it was still a disclosure of my credit file because by the official FCRA definition, all information which is stored in any manner about the consumer is a part of the file.

So in my fourth letter (since the person responding for COMP1 wasn't able to cite chapter and verse of the FCRA; I can only presume that she is providing her uneducated opinion), I recommend that she contact their highest supervisor in their legal department, and have him show her why Section 604(e) status can't be disclosed without a PP, because a lesser disclosure, i.e. PRM is based on Section 604(e) status, and even if Section 604(e) status could be disclosed in a lesser disclosure, they didn't have a valid PP for a PRM, since in all their communications which have now been over 60-90 days, they've repeatedly said that within 60-90 days they can ensure that I will be completely out of their systems (i.e. any previously scheduled mailings that they couldn't cancel will be out of their systems.- no firm offer of credit or insurance, and I didn't personally authorize the lessor disclosure with the CRA.) and then reply back with an appropriate offer of settlement, or I will be forced to consider my options under the FCRA.

So the goal was to keep them digging their grave over the 60-90 days, then spring it on them that since they admitted in their first communication that they were not going to offer me a firm offer of credit or insurance, so even a PP for a PRM didn't exist by their own admission.