44-1693. Access to reports by a consumer D. No consumer reporting agency nor any creditor, licensing agency or employer shall request or require any waiver of rights by any consumer. No consumer reporting agency nor any creditor or any other person shall charge any fee to a consumer for a disclosure of his file if within a thirty-day period prior to the request for a disclosure the consumer is denied credit, licensure, employment or received a notice of collection or received other adverse action due to the credit report. Except as provided for in this subsection, a consumer reporting agency may charge a reasonable fee for any disclosures of a file to the consumer or his designee. Here's the question part: "No consumer reporting agency...shall charge any fee to a consumer for a disclosure of his file if within a thirty-day period prior to the request for disclosure the consumer is...or received a notice of collection... Except as provided for in this subsection, a consumer reporting agency may charge..." Link to the section if you want to read the whole thing: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/44/title44.htm 1. Sent a letter to Credit Data Southwest requesting a copy of my credit file, based on this section; attached driver's license and identifying information; attached copy of just received notice of collection from a CA for a medical bill. 2. Credit Data SW writes back, form letter, blah blah blah, you didn't include the $9.00 fee necessary for payment. If you've been denied credit within the past 60 days and have a denial letter listing Experian or Credit Data SW as the source of the credit information that led to the denial, the $9.00 fee will be waived. Please send a copy of your denial letter and we will process your request. 3. Sent another letter with a copy of the first attached and a copy of the statute, stating I'm entitled to free report based on the statuatory provision, Arizona law, having received a collection letter; attached a copy of the statutory section. 4. Credit data SW writes back, all caps, WE DO NOT USE COLLECTION LETTERS AS DENIAL LETTERS and the same wording as listed above for a credit denial, provide a copy of the denial letter, we'll waive the fee. Unless I'm reading this section wrong, denial of credit and receiving a collection notice, are two seperate things and one doesn't have anything to do with the other. Am I missing something? Sassy
I think the problem might lie within the wording "or received a notice of collection or received other adverse action due to the credit report". Grammatically, this could be read two different ways.. It could read, "or received a notice of collection... (snip)...due to the credit report", meaning that you'd be entitled to the report if whatever notice of collection you had received was somehow a result of your credit report. It could also be read in a way that regards a "notice of collection" or "other adverse action" as being two separate reasons for entitlement to a free report. Reading it this way, a person would infer that simply receiving a notice of collection, without including any part of the second separate reason, would entitle them to a report. I tend to think that they are reading it the first way, although reading it the first way seems a little silly. Under what circumstance would a person be turned over for collections just because of their credit report? I don't think it would even be legal for any creditor to do so if an account was not delinquent, under which circumstances the action would not be being taken for reason of the credit report, anyway; it would be being taken because the account was delinquent. Therefore, a reasonable person would read the law the second way. After all, reading it the first way describes a situation that could not really exist. That's my opinion, for what it's worth. Good luck arguing it with them.
Obviously, you are correct and they are being morons. How about setting them straight once and for all. Write to the FTC and ask them for an opinion letter. I'll spot you the postage myself. That way, all of us could benefit from you beating them about the head and neck with this issue. Think of all the headaches the CRA's would get from an opinion supporting our right to get a free copy everytime some dumb*** CA sends out another notice. The CRA's would start losing more money and then the CRA's would start beating up the CA's. I find I can bear the thought of the CA's discomfort with remarkable fortitude............. Dancer
This is just like #4 of the "BIG 3" saying they do not have on-line access...BLAH...BLAH...BLAH...you didn't ask for on-line...MAIL ME A COPY OF MY CREDIT REPORT...
I am sorry to say, but in this case the CRA's are correct. The intent of the rules in the FCRA and various State statutes is to make a credit report free to someone who has been adversly affected BY the credit report.The part about "collections" refers to someone obtaining information from your credit report to use against you in their collection efforts. For instance, if you paid off cc #1, and a ca for cc#2 wrote you and said, "I see you paid them, now you should pay us" A copy of THAT would get you a free report.
I'm curious Whychat, on what are you basing this statement? Not that I disbelieve you, you always seem to have good sources; but do you have a source document that explains this (other than the CRA's self-serving "explanations")? Otherwise, we could still try for a FTC opinion letter? Dancer
Thank you all for responding! hmmmmmm ok, :-( proactive laws protecting consumers, I gotta throw away these rose-colored glasses, next I'll be thinking someone SHOULD be required to notify you before placing a tradeline on your CR, LOL. Section 612 (b): (b) Free disclosure after adverse notice to consumer. Each consumer reporting agency that maintains a file on a consumer shall make all disclosures pursuant to section 609 [§ 1681g] without charge to the consumer if, not later than 60 days after receipt by such consumer of a notification pursuant to section 615 [§ 1681m], or of a notification from a debt collection agency affiliated with that consumer reporting agency stating that the consumer's credit rating may be or has been adversely affected, the consumer makes a request under section 609 [§ 1681g]. "...or of a notification from a debt collection agency affiliated with that consumer reporting agency stating that the consumer's credit rating may be or has been adversely affected, the consumer makes a request under section 609 [§ 1681g]..." I thought that was interesting, so I looked at the collection notices that I'd sent as attachments, one says: Your account has been placed with us for collections, blah blah blah, as required by California law, you are hereby notified that a negative credit report reflecting on your credit record may be submitted to credit reporting agency if you fail to fulfill the terms of your credit obligation." I'm not in California, but I'm slightly encouraged that they require the disclosure, SLIGHTLY, lol. The other says, blah blah blah, to protect your credit please send your check or DISCOVER/ VISA/ MASTERCARD... Does that mean that referencing that my credit rating may be affected by a CA would fall under that section? Sassy I think these are all the applicable sections: § 603. Definitions; rules of construction [15 U.S.C. § 1681a] (k) Adverse action. § 612. Charges for certain disclosures [15 U.S.C. § 1681j] § 615. Requirements on users of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681m] § 609. Disclosures to consumers [15 U.S.C. § 1681g] § 610. Conditions and form of disclosure to consumers [15 U.S.C. § 1681h]
