cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Opinions needed

Your FICO® Scores can impact your loan interest rates, terms, approvals and more.
Moderator

Re: Opinions needed

Quick reminder... it's fine to disagree, but we must do so respectfully.

 

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Credit-Cards/Forum-Etiquette/m-p/2797115

Message 21 of 37
Senior Contributor

Re: Opinions needed


@SOGGIE wrote:

@Saeren wrote:

@SOGGIE wrote:

@Saeren wrote:

@SOGGIE wrote:
OP I agree with both your position and your intended method of resolve. IMO, and contrary to the opinion of others, the point is not how the DEALERSHIP'S inquiries categorically group or age, but rather THE FACT THAT THE DEALERSHIP'S INQUIRIES WERE SPECIFICALLY NOT PERMITTED BY YOU. Good luck!

This is false. There is no law that I am aware of that puts a limit on how many pulls can be done when you seek credit. Since these literally aren’t any difference in scoring and are just viewed as regular every day shopping for the best rates, there are no damages. 


False? SMH Saeren! A person who carefully reads OP's original and subsequent posts would understand that 2 separate business entities accessed OP's consumer credit profile: (1) Ford Financial Services--with OP's consent and (2) a Ford dealership--without OP's consent.

 

The dealership employee was specifically instructed by OP not to access OP's consumer credit profile. Therefore, the dealership DID NOT have the 'Permissible Use' required by law. Because the dealership employee disregarded OP's request, OP incurred 3 unauthorized HP inquiries.

 

OP was seeking an answer to his/her question. "... Isn't that a violation? Since they did it after I told them I was NOT wanting that done?" OP did not question allowable number of inquiry pulls by the dealership, but rather if whether the dealership was in violation for unauthorized access to their credit file. Yet your response was?

 

I provided OP my opinion. Now I provide you the same because it appears that you neither read and/or understood the matter. Nor (IMO) did you contribute with a response that directly relates to the issue as presented by OP. ~Peace

 

FYI, there are many consumers who have the same grievance as OP with regard to dealership salesmen acquiring unauthorized credit reports--resulting in HP inquiry dings.


I understood it completely. If you go to a dealership to seek credit, you are authorizing them to conduct pulls on your credit. If you want to secure financing and control how the HPs come, get your financing before you go shopping. 


@Saeren

1) Yet you appear to still NOT understand it completely.

 

2) OP DID NOT go to a dealership to seek credit.

 

3) OP DID NOT authorize the dealership to conduct credit pulls.

 

4) OP did secure financing prior to shopping in effort to control (minimize) HP credit inquiries.

 

5) Bottom Line....the dealership did not have required authorization to access OP's credit file. They are in violation.

 

6) OP (like many members) posted a question--seeking helpful responses from experienced or knowledgeable members on their subject. Your responses to OP's question are of no value whatsoever..

 


I have done business with FMC before and preapproval on the website is NOT final until you go to the dealership, at which point your credit is run again. Unless something has drastically changed, this was the policy, as your loan can’t be final until the exact contract terms are sent over from the dealership. The difference between getting an auto loan from a bank or credit union and getting one from the manufacturer’s credit department is that the one from the manufacturer isn’t final until you take possession of the vehicle. 

 

Again, there really doesn’t seem to be anything that is screaming wrong to me about this process.

 

Right from FMC’s website: “Any calculation of any price, tax, incentive, lease or finance terms is for your reference only, is an estimate, and may not be completely accurate. Individual dealers set the actual transaction price and lease or finance terms. Contact your selected dealer for the actual lease or finance terms and the price of any vehicle and any other applicable terms and conditions that may apply.”

 

https://www.ford.com/finance/terms-and-conditions

 

Again, I must insist that no laws were broken as financing is through the dealer regardless, the account is just held by FMC. Nothing is final until the dealer submits the paperwork and part of that paperwork requires a credit check. 


Scores 1/2019:
Scores 7/2019:

Hover over my cards to see my limits!
Goal cards:
Message 22 of 37
Established Contributor

Re: Opinions needed

@Saeren

 

Auto dealerships are subject to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) because they use consumer reports in connection with credit applications. The FCRA makes it illegal to obtain a consumer report unless the company has a permissible purpose that it certifies to the consumer reporting agency upon requesting the report.

 

OP makes it pretty clear that they did not give the Ford dealership permission to access their credit file. The violation is in accordance to 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(2) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act--which requires written consent of the consumer. It goes without saying, if the CRA lacked permissible purpose (requiring consumer's written consent) to report to the dealership, then the dealership was not legally authorized to access OP's CRA-maintained credit data. As per the laws set forth, both the dealership and the CRA are in violation. Bank of America was sued and settled in a class action lawsuit that involved impermissibly accessing consumer credit files. Auto dealerships are not exempt from complying with rule of law.


15 U.S.C. § 1681b

 

PERMISSIBLE PURPOSES OF CONSUMER REPORTS

 

(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:

(2)  In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.


Life was a lot simpler when what we honored was father and mother, rather than all major credit cards. ~Robert Orben

SCORES: Excellent · 830 to 848
INQUIRIES: 0
UNIVERSAL REVOLVERS: $200K Club
NUMBER OF CC ACCOUNTS: Less than 10
CARD USAGE: Minimal
CREDIT HISTORY: Very Lengthy · Seasoned Accounts
INCOME: Sufficient
UTIL: 1-2%
PYMTS: 100% Positive · Always PIF · AZEO
INSTALLMENTS: No thanks!
ASSETS: 100% Equity
TOTALLY REFUSE TO: Pay Interest or Annual Fees, Combine Accounts, Reduce Limits, Submit 4506-T, SCT, App Spree, Accumulate Inquiries, Do business with Comenity, Synchrony, Cap One, Wells Fargo, Citi, Barclays or any other credit-cancerous lending institutions
Message 23 of 37
Senior Contributor

Re: Opinions needed


@SOGGIE wrote:

@Saeren

 

Auto dealerships are subject to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) because they use consumer reports in connection with credit applications. The FCRA makes it illegal to obtain a consumer report unless the company has a permissible purpose that it certifies to the consumer reporting agency upon requesting the report.

 

OP makes it pretty clear that they did not give the Ford dealership permission to access their credit file. The violation is in accordance to 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(2) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act--which requires written consent of the consumer. It goes without saying, if the CRA lacked permissible purpose (requiring consumer's written consent) to report to the dealership, then the dealership was not legally authorized to access OP's CRA-maintained credit data. As per the laws set forth, both the dealership and the CRA are in violation. Bank of America was sued and settled in a class action lawsuit that involved impermissibly accessing consumer credit files. Auto dealerships are not exempt from complying with rule of law.


15 U.S.C. § 1681b

 

PERMISSIBLE PURPOSES OF CONSUMER REPORTS

 

(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:

(2)  In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.


I don’t know what you’re missing about my statements but if OP wanted financing through Ford Motor Credit, the only way to get that financing finalized was to go through a dealership and take another credit pull. They had a permissible purpose - Ford Motor Credit terms - as the OP requested.


Scores 1/2019:
Scores 7/2019:

Hover over my cards to see my limits!
Goal cards:
Message 24 of 37
Valued Contributor

Re: Opinions needed


@SOGGIE wrote:

@Saeren

 

Auto dealerships are subject to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) because they use consumer reports in connection with credit applications. The FCRA makes it illegal to obtain a consumer report unless the company has a permissible purpose that it certifies to the consumer reporting agency upon requesting the report.

 

OP makes it pretty clear that they did not give the Ford dealership permission to access their credit file. The violation is in accordance to 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(2) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act--which requires written consent of the consumer. It goes without saying, if the CRA lacked permissible purpose (requiring consumer's written consent) to report to the dealership, then the dealership was not legally authorized to access OP's CRA-maintained credit data. As per the laws set forth, both the dealership and the CRA are in violation. Bank of America was sued and settled in a class action lawsuit that involved impermissibly accessing consumer credit files. Auto dealerships are not exempt from complying with rule of law.


15 U.S.C. § 1681b

 

PERMISSIBLE PURPOSES OF CONSUMER REPORTS

 

(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:

(2)  In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.


Let's show ALL of 1681b.a so as to avoid cherry-picking parts to try to make this sound like some kind of slam-dunk case:

 

===

In general. Subject to subsection (c), 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
    1. 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; or
    2. intends to use the information for employment purposes; or
    3. intends to use the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; or
    4. intends to use the information in connection with a determination of the consumer's eligibility for a license or other benefit granted by a governmental instrumentality required by law to consider an applicant's financial responsibility or status; or
    5. intends to use the information, as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or an assessment of the credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation; or
    6. otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information
      1. in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer; or
      2. to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account.
  4. In response to a request by the head of a State or local child support enforcement agency (or a State or local government official authorized by the head of such an agency), if the person making the request certifies to the consumer reporting agency that
    1. the consumer report is needed for the purpose of establishing an individual's capacity to make child support payments or determining the appropriate level of such payments;
    2. the paternity of the consumer for the child to which the obligation relates has been established or acknowledged by the consumer in accordance with State laws under which the obligation arises (if required by those laws);
    3. the person has provided at least 10 days' prior notice to the consumer whose report is requested, by certified or registered mail to the last known address of the consumer, that the report will be requested; and
    4. the consumer report will be kept confidential, will be used solely for a purpose described in subparagraph (A), and will not be used in connection with any other civil, administrative, or criminal proceeding, or for any other purpose.
  5. To an agency administering a State plan under Section 454 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 654) for use to set an initial or modified child support award.

===

 

1681b.a, section 3 parts 1 and 6 are also both permissible purposes which a dealership could potentially lay claim to. I'm no lawyer so I can't say where exactly the line is when it comes to initiating a business transaction (walking in to a dealership, expressing interest in a vehicle, asking questions, going online to the Ford website and applying for financing?) but it's not so as black and white as "I didn't give you written instruction, so you violated my rights", especially when we don't know what happened between applying online and the dealership reaching out.

 

If I had to guess, it sounds like someone (Ford?) reached out to initiate discussion with the dealership, perhaps because that dealership happened to have the matching vehicle the OP was looking for (the OP did state they had the exact vehicle desired). The dealership then pulled its own report, perhaps because some algorithm did it or someone behind a keyboard. It's already been covered that this doesn't have an impact on the OP's scores, but if the OP wants to take their chances and fight this extra pull on principle, they're welcome to do so. I'll echo the other sentiments that a goodwill request or kindness is far more likely to generate a removal if it was an oops by some computer than legal threats. The latter will just get the dealership/Ford to dig in and unleash their army of lawyers.

Message 25 of 37
Senior Contributor

Re: Opinions needed


@iced wrote:

@SOGGIE wrote:

@Saeren

 

Auto dealerships are subject to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) because they use consumer reports in connection with credit applications. The FCRA makes it illegal to obtain a consumer report unless the company has a permissible purpose that it certifies to the consumer reporting agency upon requesting the report.

 

OP makes it pretty clear that they did not give the Ford dealership permission to access their credit file. The violation is in accordance to 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(2) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act--which requires written consent of the consumer. It goes without saying, if the CRA lacked permissible purpose (requiring consumer's written consent) to report to the dealership, then the dealership was not legally authorized to access OP's CRA-maintained credit data. As per the laws set forth, both the dealership and the CRA are in violation. Bank of America was sued and settled in a class action lawsuit that involved impermissibly accessing consumer credit files. Auto dealerships are not exempt from complying with rule of law.


15 U.S.C. § 1681b

 

PERMISSIBLE PURPOSES OF CONSUMER REPORTS

 

(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:

(2)  In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.


Let's show ALL of 1681b.a so as to avoid cherry-picking parts to try to make this sound like some kind of slam-dunk case:

 

===

In general. Subject to subsection (c), 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
    1. 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; or
    2. intends to use the information for employment purposes; or
    3. intends to use the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; or
    4. intends to use the information in connection with a determination of the consumer's eligibility for a license or other benefit granted by a governmental instrumentality required by law to consider an applicant's financial responsibility or status; or
    5. intends to use the information, as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or an assessment of the credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation; or
    6. otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information
      1. in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer; or
      2. to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account.
  4. In response to a request by the head of a State or local child support enforcement agency (or a State or local government official authorized by the head of such an agency), if the person making the request certifies to the consumer reporting agency that
    1. the consumer report is needed for the purpose of establishing an individual's capacity to make child support payments or determining the appropriate level of such payments;
    2. the paternity of the consumer for the child to which the obligation relates has been established or acknowledged by the consumer in accordance with State laws under which the obligation arises (if required by those laws);
    3. the person has provided at least 10 days' prior notice to the consumer whose report is requested, by certified or registered mail to the last known address of the consumer, that the report will be requested; and
    4. the consumer report will be kept confidential, will be used solely for a purpose described in subparagraph (A), and will not be used in connection with any other civil, administrative, or criminal proceeding, or for any other purpose.
  5. To an agency administering a State plan under Section 454 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 654) for use to set an initial or modified child support award.

===

 

1681b.a, section 3 parts 1 and 6 are also both permissible purposes which a dealership could potentially lay claim to. I'm no lawyer so I can't say where exactly the line is when it comes to initiating a business transaction (walking in to a dealership, expressing interest in a vehicle, asking questions, going online to the Ford website and applying for financing?) but it's not so as black and white as "I didn't give you written instruction, so you violated my rights", especially when we don't know what happened between applying online and the dealership reaching out.

 

If I had to guess, it sounds like someone (Ford?) reached out to initiate discussion with the dealership, perhaps because that dealership happened to have the matching vehicle the OP was looking for (the OP did state they had the exact vehicle desired). The dealership then pulled its own report, perhaps because some algorithm did it or someone behind a keyboard. It's already been covered that this doesn't have an impact on the OP's scores, but if the OP wants to take their chances and fight this extra pull on principle, they're welcome to do so. I'll echo the other sentiments that a goodwill request or kindness is far more likely to generate a removal if it was an oops by some computer than legal threats. The latter will just get the dealership/Ford to dig in and unleash their army of lawyers.


By prequalifying for FMC financing on the website, this was set in motion, and by letting the dealership know that they were interested in FMC financing, OP gave the dealership a permissible purpose to pull credit in order to offer terms to the customer. 

 

The thing that OP probably didn’t realize when starting this is that FMC approval is contingent on finalizing terms with the dealership while a preapproval from a CU or bank is solid up the dollar amount they tell you. 


Scores 1/2019:
Scores 7/2019:

Hover over my cards to see my limits!
Goal cards:
Message 26 of 37
Regular Contributor

Re: Opinions needed

The OP should also understand that in order to be awarded statutory damages under the FCRA, he has to prove the creditor willfully (knowingly) violated the Act.  If a consumer can only show negligence, he must have actual damages.   

Message 27 of 37
Senior Contributor

Re: Opinions needed


@vntrsc wrote:

The OP should also understand that in order to be awarded statutory damages under the FCRA, he has to prove the creditor willfully (knowingly) violated the Act.  If a consumer can only show negligence, he must have actual damages.   


Yeah and there definitely aren’t any damages since FICO scoring will ignore the extra inquiries. 


Scores 1/2019:
Scores 7/2019:

Hover over my cards to see my limits!
Goal cards:
Message 28 of 37
Established Contributor

Re: Opinions needed

Of significance to me is OP's actions pointed out in Post Message #9. IMO, based on this information, the dealership did not have permissible purpose.

"I didn't even visit this dealership. We hadn't even discussed a sale price. Via text, a rep sent me a link to an application and I informed him that I would not apply through them (and why) because I already had through Ford. He then got my info from Ford and ran it. Only reason he did, was to fish it to banks to make more money via points on the APR. But I was going to lease so that was pointless."

Life was a lot simpler when what we honored was father and mother, rather than all major credit cards. ~Robert Orben

SCORES: Excellent · 830 to 848
INQUIRIES: 0
UNIVERSAL REVOLVERS: $200K Club
NUMBER OF CC ACCOUNTS: Less than 10
CARD USAGE: Minimal
CREDIT HISTORY: Very Lengthy · Seasoned Accounts
INCOME: Sufficient
UTIL: 1-2%
PYMTS: 100% Positive · Always PIF · AZEO
INSTALLMENTS: No thanks!
ASSETS: 100% Equity
TOTALLY REFUSE TO: Pay Interest or Annual Fees, Combine Accounts, Reduce Limits, Submit 4506-T, SCT, App Spree, Accumulate Inquiries, Do business with Comenity, Synchrony, Cap One, Wells Fargo, Citi, Barclays or any other credit-cancerous lending institutions
Message 29 of 37
Senior Contributor

Re: Opinions needed


@SOGGIE wrote:
Of significance to me is OP's actions pointed out in Post Message #9. IMO, based on this information, the dealership did not have permissible purpose.

"I didn't even visit this dealership. We hadn't even discussed a sale price. Via text, a rep sent me a link to an application and I informed him that I would not apply through them (and why) because I already had through Ford. He then got my info from Ford and ran it. Only reason he did, was to fish it to banks to make more money via points on the APR. But I was going to lease so that was pointless."

As I have explained already, you cannot apply for financing through Ford, you can get prequalified through Ford but you have to actually finalize the terms with a dealership. I even posted the relevant quote from the FMC website and the link to the full terms that disclose this information. It is possible to say that the OP didn’t give explicit permission to have his credit pulled by the dealership but it would be just as easy to argue that by the terms on FMC’s website which state that dealers set the final terms for any offers that the dealership had a permissible purpose since the only way OP could get the car that they wanted from that dealership with FMC financing was to complete the FMC application through the dealership which would again require credit to be pulled. 

 

OP likely did not understand the terms as stated on the FMC website which is what started this negative chain of events. 

 

Also in the end, OP has had no damages as a result of this which has been explained over and over, therefore OP has no basis for any legal action. 


Scores 1/2019:
Scores 7/2019:

Hover over my cards to see my limits!
Goal cards:
Message 30 of 37