Reply
Moderator Emeritus
cheddar
Posts: 6,794
Registered: ‎09-29-2007

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY



Cleanmachine wrote:

cheddar

Not exactly know what you mean when you state “Edited because of re-reading, I was a bit terse”.


What that meant is that I posted, re-read it, and then edited my post because I realized my reply had been a bit terse.  What did you think it meant?
 


Cleanmachine wrote:

Do you know how to break down the word “ASSUME”. Am I to assume that anyone that replies to a Post must be careful not to cause any adverse feelings to a moderator?


I have no idea what you are getting at.  I never expressed any adverse feelings.  I pointed out an inconsistency in your statements, along with a slightly judgmental attitude they seemed to convey.  Those statements didn't affect this moderator one bit.  I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.
 


Cleanmachine wrote:

I personally did not appreciate the remark and find it to be totally unprofessional, especially since it appears you are a moderator.


I'm really not sure which remark you are referring to.  As I explained above, the "terse" remark was directed at myself, not you or anyone else.
 
Regarding "unprofessional":  Yes, I am a moderator, but this is not my profession.  I am really not clear which part of my post you take objection to.
 


Cleanmachine wrote:

I will no longer post opinions on this site.


I'm sorry to hear that.  Take care, and good luck to you.
 
 
----------------------------
App free since 7/11/08.
TU 744 / EX 710 / EQ 694 (Starting to slip. :smileysurprised: )
Super Contributor
MidnightVoice
Posts: 8,158
Registered: ‎03-25-2007

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY



Cleanmachine wrote:

I will no longer post opinions on this site.


If you change your mind, could you possibly use a "softer" typeface?  :smileywink:  :smileyvery-happy: 
The slide from grace is really more like gliding
And I've found the trick is not to stop the sliding
But to find a graceful way of staying slid
Senior Contributor
UpUpUp
Posts: 3,017
Registered: ‎06-03-2008

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY



Cleanmachine wrote:

UpUpUp

I stand by my statement with the exception of taking out the word “YOU’ and inserting the word “ANYONE”. Please read the entire post.

 


I did read your entire post. It doesn't change anything. 
Senior Contributor
Wonderin
Posts: 3,494
Registered: ‎05-25-2008

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY

Well, this thread has driven me loony tunes. So, though I realize it doesn't constitute diddly-squat in REAL terms, I went ahead and made a dinner/drinks date with some friends, and one "friend of a friend" -- a lawyer (the one I've joked about here), a Federal judge (her hubby works with my hubby), and a District judge (sit with her on a few community boards) and a District judge who's friends with my lawyer friend.

A little bit of background on each:

Lawyer friend: practiced law in VA, GA, and FL. Area: Intellectual property (and yes, I realize that has squat to do with consumer credit). Practiced 12 years. Staunch republican

DJ1: 15 years on the bench; known widely for her aid to the "unfortunate" ... tends to rule in favor, where she can, for the "little guy." Republican with liberal leanings.

DJ2: 18 years on the bench; non-partisan publicly, VERY Republican privately.

FJ: 22 years on the bench (10 as DJ); VERY non-partisan publicly, So Republican privately that she makes Newt Gingrich look liberal.

All four agreed that the Pinto case DID set a precedent, as per the legal definition. ALL rulings from a higher court that have NOT been overturn and can be used as guidance to other judges ARE precedents. HOWEVER, it remains as to whether an individual judge will use it as guidance or dismiss it.

(I really don't know where you got the idea that it wasn't a "precedent," Clean, under the legal definition!!???)

DJ1 & DJ2 would use the decision as guidance. They believe that the FCRA as they read it in it's entirety (I did print it out for their perusal), allows for a "rough translation" of the definition of "credit transaction" and would aver that the sections in question here would allow for the interpretation of NONcredit transaction.

FJ would not (it might be relevant to mention that she tends to side with Big Business. She's richer than Croesus and does not understand HOW someone could not afford to pay their bills). FJ also is less "than impressed with the Ninth Circuit Court" believing that many of their rulings are hogwash.

Lawyer: Would be comfortable arguing on either side as he, too, feels that the verbiage is wikky-wonky enough to be open to translation.

On a final note, each polled made sure to mention that laws are interpreted by the individual judge in each case. Two judges may or may not see the interpretation in the same light. That's why we have appeals. :smileywink:

FW all that was worth.:/ I was just grateful to have a nice time, get a little "lubricated" in the spirit of a good (and spirited) discussion and get out for a night while hubby's on travel! :smileyhappy:

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Hubby's FICOs when we started: high 400s (June 2008)
Hubby's FICO NOW (04/06/09): TU: 679 EQ: 608 EX: ???
My FICOs: TU: 643, EQ: 606
Closed on new home: 1/20/2009 -- If we can do it, YOU can do it!!

New Member
marbol
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎07-04-2008

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY

Ok, this very thing happened to me... And I told the CA to remove my inquiry. They responded with a letter that the pull was in relation to a collection and then sent me an account and an address in a different state. But the alleged debtor had the same name as me. It's clearly NOT my debt - never has been - however, quite a few of you seem to think that the CA HAS PP. How is that? Does that mean they can do this and not even validate the debt? That seems hardly right - it's not PP. It's just not. Unless you are now opening the door that the CA has to validate - which means they have to pull the INQ or mark it disputed until they investigate. - And they don't do that. Unless the same standards apply to INQs that apply to trade-lines, then PP cannot exist for simple INQs. If so, it would mean that CAs can just slam 100 INQs on your record and claim it's for collections, and you can't dispute it.
Moderator Emeritus
cheddar
Posts: 6,794
Registered: ‎09-29-2007

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY



marbol wrote:
Ok, this very thing happened to me... And I told the CA to remove my inquiry. They responded with a letter that the pull was in relation to a collection and then sent me an account and an address in a different state. But the alleged debtor had the same name as me. It's clearly NOT my debt - never has been - however, quite a few of you seem to think that the CA HAS PP. How is that? Does that mean they can do this and not even validate the debt? That seems hardly right - it's not PP. It's just not. Unless you are now opening the door that the CA has to validate - which means they have to pull the INQ or mark it disputed until they investigate. - And they don't do that. Unless the same standards apply to INQs that apply to trade-lines, then PP cannot exist for simple INQs. If so, it would mean that CAs can just slam 100 INQs on your record and claim it's for collections, and you can't dispute it.


Welcome to the FICO Forums, marbol.
 
Obviously, if the account is not yours, there is no PP.
 
----------------------------
App free since 7/11/08.
TU 744 / EX 710 / EQ 694 (Starting to slip. :smileysurprised: )
Moderator Emeritus
Timothy
Posts: 9,252
Registered: ‎03-19-2007

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY

Did you provide the UPDAED version of FCRA?
 
It reads a bit clearer to me.
Senior Contributor
Wonderin
Posts: 3,494
Registered: ‎05-25-2008

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY

[ Edited ]
To my dinner dates?

Yep. They each pretty much said that as they see it, it can be interpreted as THEY (or the judge in question) see fit. All three (none of which deal with "credit cases" -- two are criminal and one is strictly Federal "criminal" ) said that it gives enough leeway to interpret it both ways.

All three pretty much agreed that it's ALWAYS at least nominally up to the judge to interpret ... but their decision could easily be appealed. And if that happened, it would be possible that the ruling be overturned.

As per the Pinto ruling the two district said that they could comfortably rule in the consumer's favor while the Federal said "Nu-uh, CA all the way."

Go figger. While it may not be admissible in a court of REAL law (since it was all supposition), it was a nice evening and fun. :smileyhappy:

EDITED TO ADD: I printed out a copy of the newest FCRA (I did NOT print out the FACT -- ran out of time) and the best case summary I could find for the Pinto case.

Message Edited by Wonderin on 07-17-2008 10:55 PM

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Hubby's FICOs when we started: high 400s (June 2008)
Hubby's FICO NOW (04/06/09): TU: 679 EQ: 608 EX: ???
My FICOs: TU: 643, EQ: 606
Closed on new home: 1/20/2009 -- If we can do it, YOU can do it!!

Mega Contributor
RobertEG
Posts: 17,456
Registered: ‎03-19-2007

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY

[ Edited ]
Here is Pintos in detail.  For what it actuall held, and not dicta.

The referenced decision is Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Association (9th Cir 2007) 504 F.3d 792.

The Pinto case involved a vehicle registered to a Ms Pintos that was found by the police illegally parked. The police ran the registration and found it had expired, and they had it towed it to their impound lot.

Ms Pintos did not reclaim the vehicle or pay for the towing and impound charges.  The towing company asserted an unpaid towing/impound charge lien. They then auctioned the vehicle at public sale to recoup some of the towing/impound costs.  They did not recoup all of the outstanding debt at auction, so then assigned the deficiency to a collection agency for the remaining debt.  

The CA then, as part of its collection efforts, obtained a credit report for Ms Pintos.  This was standard practice, as supported by Edge v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. 1999) 64 F.Supp.2d 115.

Pintos then filed a complaint against both the CA and the CRA, asserting a violation of the FCRA based on the CAs  acquisition of Ms. Pintos’ credit report, allegedly it was done without a “permissible purpose” in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b. The cause of action also assered that the CRA had also violated the FCRA by improperly providing the report to the CA upon their request. 

Both the CRA and the CA then field a motion before the District Court for summary judgment dismissal of Ms Pintos action, and the District Court granted both motions, thus dismissing Ms Pintos case.

Ms. Pintos then appealed the District Court decision to the Fed. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The sole issue was the legitimacy of the CA pull of the credit report, and the legitimacy of the CRA in thus providing that report.to the CA under 15 U.S.C. §1681b(a)(3)(A), which reads as follows:

FCRA 1681 (a) In general
Subject to subsection (c) of this section, any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other:

(1) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, or a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury.
(2) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.
(3) To a person which it has reason to believe—
(A) 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.
 
Pretty clear, is it not?

The 9th Cir. ruled that it WAS a permissible pull under the FCRA if related to the “collection of an account.” FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A); see, e.g., Edge v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., supra, 64 F.Supp.2d at 117-119; see also Hasbun v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2003) 323F.3d 801, 803-804; Korotki v. Attorney Services Corp. (D. Md. 1996) 931 F.Supp. 1269, 1277.

They clearly held that “permissible purpose” thus exists under the FCRA § 1681b(a)(3)(A) for pull of a credit report by a CA within the 9th Cir.  The 9th circuit embraces California, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Wahsington St.  

Opinions by the 9th Cir. Court of Appeals are only precedential and binding case law upon the District Courts within their jurisdiction.  Other circuits are not bound by such decisions as binding precedent within their jurisdition.  That is why we have a Supreme Court.

But other Circuits listen, and will be led by the judicial guidance of their sister circuits.

You can accept as precedent, binding or advisory, that a CA may pull a CR as being associated with a legitimate business transaction under the FCRA.



Message Edited by RobertEG on 07-17-2008 10:24 PM

Message Edited by RobertEG on 07-17-2008 10:41 PM

Message Edited by RobertEG on 07-17-2008 10:41 PM
Senior Contributor
Wonderin
Posts: 3,494
Registered: ‎05-25-2008

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY

Yep, that's what I printed out (can't remember the web site ATM, but it was one in which an atty disagreed quite vociferously on the ruling).

While yes, it's true that the Ninth doesn't have jurisdiction over my modest little state, my (and their) point was that it WAS a precedent, according to the legal definition. You said it was NOT. Just 'cause it's not a precedent per se, in my state (or yours, for that matter) doesn't mean it's not a precedent to those in the Ninth's jurisdiction.

As to the specific FCRA section you quoted, I believe that in my earlier post I mentioned NONcredit transactions. Perhaps medical bills? Some utility bills?

My friends (a bit presumptious on my part to call them that, I think) said that it was THAT particular phrasing that gave the section it's ambiguity. It specifically states CREDIT transactions.

Medical bills are not credit transactions, per se. Nor are most utility bills. Nor would I say that rent, considering that it typically pays (and this is, of course, my own opinion) in advance of usage, would be considered a credit transaction.

Personally, I'd bet that if we asked the actual writers of the FCRA what their intent was, they'd not be able to agree on an interpretation. :/

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Hubby's FICOs when we started: high 400s (June 2008)
Hubby's FICO NOW (04/06/09): TU: 679 EQ: 608 EX: ???
My FICOs: TU: 643, EQ: 606
Closed on new home: 1/20/2009 -- If we can do it, YOU can do it!!


myFICO is the consumer division of FICO. Since its introduction 20 years ago, the FICO® Score has become a global standard for measuring credit risk in the banking, mortgage, credit card, auto and retail industries. 90 of the top 100 largest U.S. financial institutions use the FICO Score to make consumer credit decisions.

>> About myFICO
FICO Score - The Score that matters
Fair Isaac Corporation is a BBB Accredited Financial Service in San Rafael, CA
FOLLOW US Social Media Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google+