ok. I'm going to try pushing a lawsuit and see if I can get the theory to win. I would like some very thoughtful input from the experts out there. I had a medical account grab my credit info, I believe, illegally. I believe they violate the fcra Permissible purpose sections. In the logic, look to the definition of consumer report. Note: it discusses "eligibility purposes" for its use... then we look at how you get permissible purpose... Permissible purpose: reason you can look into someone's report falls into several different categories and into several time limits. For simplication, I'll discuss only 3. 1. I give explicit written permission. In this case, anyone can then peak into my credit for any reason. It would be for application (eligibility) purposes only (a one time permission). 2. Then there's a "business transaction" as fcra defined. This is a noncredit related business transaction INITIATED by the consumer. The person wanting to look into my report does not have to have my explicit permission here. But Again, the fcra is very specific in that it does not include review capablities... the application can be accepted or denied. The permissible purpose extents to "eligibility" only. A landlord / tenent relationship falls here. The landlord can accept or deny an application, but cannot look again into the credit for review or collection purposes. They most definitely cannnot look if evicting (or if the person has already moved out). That is "decidedly impermissible". FTC Opinion. I believe medical accounts fall into this category. 3. Credit relationships: credit cards, installment loans. Ongoing relationships where the creditor has permissible purspose to peak into your credit all they want while there's a relationship. You don't have to give your explicit written permission but creditors almost always get your signature...BUT, once the installment loan is paid off, or once the revolving account is paid and closed, the permissible purpose to look into your credit is then closed. There is even an opinion that once the relationship is terminated, they can't go in and look for "marketing purposes" etc for future products. After all, permissible purpose isn't forever. As to terminiation of permissible purpose: it also seems clear once a relationship is terminated for any of the above cases, they can't get into your credit at all... Ok... So, as to medical accounts. My contention is simply this. Given as a whole, a doctor's office might be able to claim permissible purspose for "eligibility" puspose (initial accept/decline the patient) but not for review: meaning, it's not credit, then they can't continue to peak into my credit. then, neither could any collection agents or agencies for medical accounts. In my case, it's even more clear. The company looked at my credit after the bill had been paid, and, they also received score and sensitive credit-related information that they had no right to have as I was not applying for credit. Plus, the admittance form I signed with the hospital made absolutely no mention of running my credit in any fashion.. so I didn't give explicit permission, in fact I didn't even include my ssn purposefully. Which means we have a business transaction scenario: and under that, even if they could claim permissible purpose, it'd only be for "eligibility purposes" and not for review purposes. to add to the sweetness of the deal. the hospital sent me a letter actually stating that they pulled my info to better process my account. Well, that's considered a "tangential" reason. And tangential reasons for pulling credit are "decidedly impermissible". I'm suing them. They Airborned their letter to me as we're rapidly approaching the 31 day deadline. under the business transaction scenario, they could have looked to decide whether I am who I say I am, they could decide eligibility, but nothing else. I believe all medical collections, therefore, actually constitute impermissible pulls of your credit...
Tangential pulls impermissible FTC Quotes and Opinions: We also believe that your client does not have a "legitimate business need" for the information in connection with a business transaction initiated by a consumer. It is clear from the language of Section 603(d)(1) of the FCRA that, except as otherwise set forth in Section 604, consumer reports relate to eligibility for employment, insurance, credit, or another permitted purpose. Since Section 604 does not specifically permit the use of consumer reports in the context of business transactions initiated by consumers for any other purpose, we conclude that the only permissible purpose for which a credit report may be obtained in connection with a new business transaction is to determine the consumer's "eligibility" -- i.e., whether the business wishes to undertake a transaction with the consumer. In this regard, we note that the legislative history indicates that Congress intended the "permissible purposes" provisions of the FCRA to cover primarily "eligibility" issues (see, e.g., 116 Cong. Rec. 36,572 (statement of Rep. Sullivan)). In your letter, you indicate that the information your client seeks will not be used to determine the eligibility of consumers for a business transaction. Rather, the information is sought to make the transaction with the consumer go smoothly in order to enhance the marketability of the program. Since the information your client would obtain is tangential to the transaction with the consumer and is sought for marketing purposes, we do not believe that the information may be obtained without the permission of each affected consumer. this is from the Brennen Opinion letter http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/buchman.htm
It's almost all Eligibility... Let me further simplify it. As I understand the FCRA, unless you explicitly give them the absolute right to get into your credit via written permission, they have to have a reason. And, other than for ongoing credit relationships... all other reasons are "Eligibility" reasons and no other. Meaning, you get the business transaction or not. but that's it. Checks: a store can use your credit to decide/not to take your check... but once that decision is made, they can't look again. Landlord, same thing. Even Employment, get the job or not (and boy does this statement you sign for employment purposes have to be specific!) I'll post more FTC Opinions for you guys to look at and read... they're real eye openers
Permission isn't forever... Benner FTC Opinion: Section 604(a)(3)(A) of the FCRA provides a consumer reporting agency ("CRA," usually a credit bureau) with a permissible purpose to provide a report on a consumer to a person who "intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer."(1) Once an account is closed because the consumer has paid the debt in full (and also, in the case of an open-end account such as a credit card account, notified the creditor to close the account), it is our view that no permissible purpose exists for a CRA to provide file information on a consumer to the creditor. Because there no longer exists any account to "review" and the consumer is not applying for credit, the FCRA provides no permissible purpose for the creditor to receive a consumer report from a CRA. I enclose a recent staff opinion letter (Gowen, 04/29/99) that discusses this issue in more detail. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/buchman.htm
Can't change reason for pull... So, a medical account won't change the terms of the account... won't modify the terms... so how can they possibly certify for review purposes... Buchman Opinion again... The terms of a closed-end credit transaction are predetermined and generally may not be changed unilaterally by the creditor unless the contract expressly provides for such action (e.g., in the event of default). Therefore, the creditor is unlikely to have a reason to consider "whether to retain or modify current account terms" and, thus, would not have any routine need to procure consumer reports to "review" its accounts. Second, the credit bureau must, pursuant to Section 607(a), require the creditor to "certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose." (emphasis added). Because Section 604(a) provides no authority for a creditor (or any party) to use a consumer report for marketing purposes,(4) a creditor would violate its certification by using an existing report in such a manner. Former Borrowers As the previously-quoted legislative history makes clear, "review" of an account under Section 604(a)(3) refers to an existing (i.e., open or current) account. A creditor has no existing business relationship with consumers whose closed end credit accounts have been paid off, i.e., former borrowers. Hence, the creditor would either have to (1) obtain those consumers' written authorizations pursuant to Section 604(a)(2) to access their credit reports or (2) comply with the prescreening requirements set forth in Section 604(c) and, where applicable, Section 615(d).
Re: Permission isn't forever... Marie, As I recall, the malefactor is Tenet Group? A large chain will have a procedure manual that spells out the circumstances that a credit report may be pulled. You need to demand exactly what their written corp policy says on credit matters. I have 2 rather weird thoughts. First of all, it may be just a bored clerk decided to snoop. Or, could you have been a training exercise? I recall a guy filing a huge lawsuit against a phone company because they randomly chose his name to teach a trainging class how to access and interpet a credit report. He had over 600 inquires in just a few months. I agree, I wouldn't let this stand either. There are some huge privacy issues at stake. I guess what I'm trying to say, is see if they followed their own written rules.
Def: Consumer Report=Eligibility Even the very definition of "consumer report" discusses Eligibility purposes... so when someone pulls your credit report, they must "certify" to the credit bureau that they're pulling it for a permissible purpose. Since a medical collection isn't for eligibility... they're lying on their certification to the bureau too... Def: Consumer Report FCRA ...used or collected in whole or part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for... It's actually overwhelming specific the FCRA is regarding permissible purpose...
Re: Permission isn't forever... they actually admitted to me on the phone that they do it for everyone... again, as a part of processing the account. Once I found the link describing a "tangential" use... I knew I had them. The more I read this, the more I understand when and how we're abused. They actually think they're just matching names addresses etc and I was told they couldn't see my whole report, but how do I know???... what they're really doing is getting my ssn and adding it to the file... checking my address, getting my scores and credit information... and my real guess is that I'll get compiled and marketed to in the future.. Oh, they say their computer does it... but they also have the ability for an individual to request my file and look at it... so again, how do I know what's really going on here??? but again, that's impermissible. Trust me, this one is being put to several very heavy hitting lawyers right now... I'd like to do this in US District and not just magistrate. I'm also discussing with my lawyer a formal complaint with our Office of Consumer Affairs... they can stop this practice cold. Another issue I now have is that any of their reps now can access all my data... and this month all of a sudden I'm having issues of file confusion/ id fraud with my TU report... so I will also content their security measures to protect and safekeep my data are completely inadequate...
Re: Permission isn't forever... marie!!!!!!!!! I LOVE how you think. Yours on the hospital is a slam dunk, in my humblest of opinions, because no matter the I'm sorrys or buts or whys, it was AFTER the services were rendered. That you'd already paid your bill, is a reinforcement unless they were contemplating some other procedures, but surely you'd know if they were. The other, for medical at all is interesting indeed. To have a purpose then, would be prior to any services having been rendered and that still would be a one time thing unless you specifically authorized otherwise, yes? For medical collections, unless there's something you had signed authorizing the collection itself and then further authorization for third parties to continue the action, highly unlikely I think, how could they have a purpose? They've got to be hanging their hats or gowns, LOL, as the case may be, on collection itself being a legitimate business need, but the interpretations you've posted are contrary to that business practice. Interesting, very! Now I'm gonna be thinking of this all night, LOL. I do love the way you think. Sassy
Re: Permission isn't forever... You understand it perfectly I am a bit proud of myself on this one, actually. I am trying to talk with some of the best fcra attys this week to see if I'm completely nuts. But the short of it is easy: Unless it's credit related, they can only pull to determine eligibility... a one-time, are we doing business with you or not deal... Now, You can give express permission for anything... I can say that a company has the right to pull my credit for me to be treated... but I didn't. And I could say they have the unlimited right to pull it as much as they want to for any reason... I can give express permission for anything..but it has to be really specific. It seems if I don't specifically state how many times/ or for how long they can pull it, then it's a one-time eligibility pull... again, as long as it's not credit related (they have carte blanche) until the relationship is over. The FTC Opinions are actually pretty well defined on interpretations. They're not legally binding, but it does give us better parameters to judge if we've been violated. Given the opinions I quoted above, seems like we get violated a lot. Anyway, just before the lawsuit, I will post the details (I won't sign a nondisclosure unless I've already posted). And I'll likely not sign a nondisclosure. I want to be able to, possibly, sell this info in a book... This could be a windfall or a class-action lawsuit. Think of all the medical collections out there.
Re: Permission isn't forever... It's brilliant, marie!!!!!!!!! I hope it's worth a windfall for you and class actions for all of us, as well as, a change in that business practice and an accountability beyond because I can unless you catch me. Sassy
Re: Permission isn't forever... I received a letter from the Hospital basically stating this: We didn't pull a hard but a soft one, so what's the problem. We did it while you had a balance (wrong)... We didn't add anything derog to your file... so what's your problem. Needless to say, they don't seem to get that they had no right to be in my file after they rendered services anyway... Anyone have any suggestions? FTC Opinion letter? FTC complaint? Office Of Consumer Affairs Complaint? Lawsuit? those are my options... any other thoughts from the peanut gallery? By the way, this could easily be applied to real, due medical collections. You could hit them back for fcra permissible purpose violations if they peak into your credit to collect on a debt...
Re: Permission isn't forever... "You had no permissable purpose, you are in VIOLATION of the law...to save us both a trip to SMALL CLAIMS COURT...I am willing to accept a check from you in the amount of $500.00 payable in 30 or less" COULDN'T HURT!!! If they don't want to play fair...THEN TAKE THEM TO COURT!!!
Re: Permission isn't forever... What do you want from them?? My guess - you want the publicity that goes with a full blown lawsuit. Keep baiting them, let them hang themselves
Re: Permission isn't forever... That's actually a good question.. as usual Breeze. 1. I want my personal financial data purged from their system. No ssn, no dob... they can keep my name and address but I don't want all the rest on their very open system (too many hospital and administrative employees have access to this database). It's too much exposure to identity fraud... all for a 500 bill that was paid in a timely manner (I offered to pay the bill at the time of services, but they couldn't generate a bill that fast). 2. I want them to learn they can't just pull credit files because they feel like it. I want them to cease this practice. I know that's a very tall order, but I truly think this is impermissible. Think of how many violations per day this is. 3. I want them fined by my state. I want them to quit running over people's files and exposing us to unnecessary identity risks because Experian is willing to sell us and they're willing to buy us... and I'd like them to pay a fine for every occurance... well, at least a large enough fine to get their attention. 4. At the very least, I'd like to see them modify the information they receive about us. NO ssn, No DOB, NO Credit information or score... Honestly... a SCORE! Why would they need that to process a bill?????????????????????????????????????????? If they are matching name to address for verification, then fine... but do it at the time of admission and not after the fact. Make it a permissible pull and not an illegal one... 5. Personally, I want 1k for the violation. 6. I'd like to see Experian get a whopper of a fine. If I'm interpreting this correctly, then the cras are selling our information for purposes they know in advance are impermissible... Why??? Well, who's ever going to stop them??? and finally, I want to make sure I understand this whole thing correctly and I want to pass it on to everyone who is suffering medical collections... it's a violation and an abuse and until enough people complain it will continue. they can change the fcra, they can modify it to include medical charges as credit charges if they want to... but as the fcra is currently written, unless you sign explicit authorization at the time of services or unless they pull credit at the time of admission and accept or deny you for services, I can see no way they get permissible purpose after rendering services... 5. I'd like big corporations to quit thinking they're above the law. I'd like to see them respect the law... or at least fear its fines... Am I too idealistic??? Too Optimistic? Well, then how about I get a fine for what they did to me and at least make those financial reps at the hospital nervous every time they run credit when they shouldn't... at least let them be scared as they're breaking the law... And the funniest part of all this is... I hate publicity. I don't want to be in the news... but I'd like this system modified and I'm hoping either the ftc or our state's Office of Consumer Affairs really will step up and do their jobs... and of course, I'm guessing what will really happen is this. I'll get an FTC Opinion letter and it'll help guide me... the Office of Consumer Affairs will "look into it" and likely little or nothing will be done... I file a lawsuit and they'll try to intimidate me into backing off... or they settle and at least through public forums we can pass along that the practice is a violation of the fcra and its victims are due compensation... Oh, and my pessimistic side is thinking the large hospitals are using our information to compile marketing lists and to sell them... that's ultimately where I am guessing all this information is going... a reciprocal relationship with the bureaus perhaps...
Re: Permission isn't forever... Oh, and I'd like peace of mind. 1. I want a list of all personnel who have actually accessed my file... and the reasons why... I'd like to see these employees' background checks... are criminals looking at my data? I'd like to know. 2. I want to see their cra certification. What did they declare as their permissible purpose specifically for my file? 3. I want to know exactly how much of my information they have seen or now have access to... I want to be able to determine my real damage. 4. I want to know if they sell any of my information, to whom, to what extent, and how to opt out. Frankly, I feel a bit violated and I'd like some remedies that will protect me now and in the future. Why should I have to worry that any Tenet hospital employee (and that's a big list of hospitals) has access to my ssn and dob... why not just publish it on the internet and get it over with...
Re: Permission isn't forever... Marie, This is a great post, one of the best on this board. I had a therapist pull my credit without me knowing before sending me a civil warrant, is that permissible?
Re: Permission isn't forever... If they pulled your credit report for the sole reason that they're suing you, it's impermissible. In fact, there's an FTC Opinion specifically for this one. If the therapist pulled your report because they were suing you for a bill... then likely it's impermissible. the only way they can, as I see it, is if you gave them explicit written permission early on that gave them unlimited permission into your credit... and even those can be challenged. why are they serving you? a bill?
Re: Permission isn't forever... No I never gave them any permission to access my CR nor did I know anything about the bill til I was served. I recieved no letters concerning it and I didn't even know my rights at the time. The bill was for 240. I was served on March 16th and Court date was for Mar 26th 2002. My CR shows they checked my transunion on Feb. 28, 2002. I paid it cause I have never ever been to court for anything, even a traffic offense. Now that I see this I am pretty darn mad and I want to get my 240 back for this cause I still have no idea if Its my bill.
