In Oct 2003 I financed a car with XYZ Company. They pulled my CRA file - no problem, it's permissible. BUT... they also pulled it in April, July and November 2004 (soft pulls all 3). I send them a letter in December 2004 demanding to know ther PP and demanding $3000 if they had none. Today I get the following response: Obviously I know they were soft inquiries. Here's my response: OK, any takers on where to go from here? From where I can see, this is totally uncharted territory and I can find no precedent or cases to guide me either way.
If these were truly pulled by subsidiary companies for marketting purposes, as he says, they would have been OK if PRMs thru the usual CRA channels, but not if full reports whether soft ARs or not. "Marketting" is not a permissible purpose under FCRA, except within the more limited promotional report. Were the coded as PRMs or not? If they were PRMs, the company is off the hook, even if you have opted out. The CRA is the one that screwed up. It doesn't sound like this attorney is very familiar with FCRA, since he would probably be safer claiming this was an account review on your loan, than claiming it was for marketting by a subsidiary, which if it was not a PRM, is practically an admission of no PP. Either that or he thinks he can snow a naive consumer. Presumably this is a closed end loan, with terms set when signed. It is not a "revolving account", where the lender can decide to increase or reduce your credit line. Was your loan maintained in good standing, with no collection purpose to pull a report? Did you obtain your insurance thru the lender or one of their subsidiaries, which might give them the right to pull for insurance reasons? What does your loan contract say about pulling credit reports? Does the contract claim they can pull reports later? (Although they might claim such language would give them the right to pull, regardless of FCRA, you would argue that federal rights are not waivable.)
TU doesn't indicate whether they are PRM's or not, but they have already admitted they just gave their customer list to their subsidiary who pulled first and then decided whether to offer credit or not after the pull. The CRA was not involved at all. Nope, an AR wouldn't fly either - it's a fixed obligation loan and the Gowen letter specifically states it's not PP. I think he thinks he can snow a naive consumer, and is HE in for a shock. AFTER they settle with me (or even better, lose to me in Court) my wife will be suing them over EXACTLY the same thing (they did it to her, too) only HERS will be a Class Action. The next loan payment is due March 2006. I have paid 2 payments a month, every month. Never delinquent. It is a fixed rate obligation. I have my own insurance, no forced-placed insurance. I guess they are runing out of safe harbors. The loan contract is silent on the subject, and my position is no mention is no permission.
Wow, flying. First I must say that I thought you were female all this time. :blush: Secondly, I think you have done your research. That letter sounds great and would scare me, if I didn't know some of that stuff. I wish you luck and hope you get that 3K.
