Neiman Marcus Inquiry . . .

[hotpoint]

Need advice . . .

Recently, I made a purchase at Neiman Marcus, by personal check.  I noticed they made an inquiry by checking my credit . . . without my permission.  The Sales Rep, never mention if I paid by check that an inquiry would be placed on my report.  I called the main office, and their reply was, "we do not have to notified our customers, it is Neiman Marcus right to check their credit".  

Who can I contact to have this removed --- although, the purchase went through, the inquiry is an hard one, and it did effect my score by a couple of points.  I would really appreciate advice.

Hotpoint . . .

[haulingthescoreup]

Wow, that is outrageous! Follow the link posted, and send a non-PP letter.

This kind of thing needs to be hit the moment it pops up. How ridiculous to claim that writing a check is applying for credit!

[hotpoint]

Thank you for your response and your suggestions.  I contacted them once again, and they are in the process of presenting my request to the board. I know this sounds well . . . what ever.  Nevertheless, we will see what happens.  In the mean time, they are serious --- this process of checking your credit when writting a check ("unless you have a history") will continue without authorization or notification.

Hotpoint . . .

[fused]

Sue their a$$!!!!!!!!

edited: maybe you cannot sue their a$$ afterall

Message Edited by fused on 05-02-2008 09:41 AM

[Anonymous]

Playing Devil's Advocate.

I agree that it's a ridiculous policy.

BUT...

What is a check if not credit?  Isn't it a promise to pay at a later date (when the check is presented at your bank) in lieu of payment (in cash) today?

The FTC has actually given their opinion on this, and they seem to believe there is PP.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/coffey.shtm

From the Coffey letter:

"The dealer may also obtain a report to check a consumer's creditworthiness when the consumer presents a personal check to pay for the vehicle. By contrast, a permissible purpose would not arise if a consumer intends to pay by cash."

[That opinion is in regard to a payment by check for an automobile purchase, but wouldn't the same logic apply to a purchase of anything else by check?]

Here's a footnote from the Coffey letter:

"1. The dealer's 'permissible purpose' here is provided by Section 604(a)(3)(A), which permits the use of consumer reports in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer."

Again, I agree it's a ridiculous policy.  But contrary to FCRA?  The FTC doesn't seem to think so.

[fused]

Well, I write 25 checks a month, I could potentially have 25 new hards per month. Multiply that by 12 and I would always have at least 300 hard inqs on my reports any day of the year. NM blows!

[Anonymous]

---

fused wrote:

Well, I write 25 checks a month, I could potentially have 25 new hards per month. Multiply that by 12 and I would always have at least 300 hard inqs on my reports any day of the year. NM blows!

---

I agree, fused!  It's a terrible policy, and any store that pulled a hard inquiry on me for writing a check would hear about it from me!

I'm just not so sure it's an FCRA violation.

[haulingthescoreup]

I'd be outside on the sidewalk with a big ol' sign, walking up and down, warning other shoppers about NM's unique interpretation of credit.

[Anonymous]

Another FTC Staff Opinion, this one even more clear on the matter:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/long.shtm

"Section 604(a)(3)(F)(i) provides a permissible purpose on behalf of a party who has a legitimate business need for a report 'in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer.' Thus, for example, a merchant may procure a report on a consumer who offers to pay for goods with a personal check."