No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
Cleanmachine wrote:
cheddar
Not exactly know what you mean when you state “Edited because of re-reading, I was a bit terse”.
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?
Cleanmachine wrote:
I personally did not appreciate the remark and find it to be totally unprofessional, especially since it appears you are a moderator.
Cleanmachine wrote:
I will no longer post opinions on this site.
If you change your mind, could you possibly use a "softer" typeface?
Cleanmachine wrote:I will no longer post opinions on this site.
I did read your entire post. It doesn't change anything.
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.
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.
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:
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.