Permissible Purpose

[Anonymous]

§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports

[15 U.S.C. § 1681b]

(a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a

consumer report under the following circumstances and no other:

   (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; or...............................

         (F) otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information

              (i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the

              consumer; or

Ok, from reading that, I think CA have PP to pull your credit report.........however......if they cannot validate, it means they have no right to collect on it, so shouldn't they have to remove any inquiries made?

Example: Received a letter from CA, sent them DV as soon as I got letter, they haven't validated yet(time isn't up), but I know they can't as it isn't my account, they have a "hard" inquiry on my report.....shouldn't they have to remove as they have no right to collect and it isn't in "connection with a transaction iniated by me" seeing as it isn't my account.and they are not "reviewing or collecting an account of the consumer" because it is not my account.

Another example: Spouse noticed new CA on her report(yet to get a letter from them) and emailed OC right away. OC admitted the account was in error and never should have been sent to collections. Account was cancelled before charges began accruing. This CA has listed a "hard" inquiry, shouldn't they have to remove for the same reasons above?

Message Edited by sidewinder on 03-02-2008 06:36 AM

[llecs]

Have you jumped on board our "CA has PP" Bandwagon? (That almost doesn't sound right, does it?)

I don't know the answer on removal of inquiries. I would assume that the transaction was in the past and therefore they are not updating it.

I did have two CAs (KCA and NCO) ding both DW and my CRs. They sent the dunning letters and we promptly responded with the DVs. Both went away and other than the inquiry, they never posted to the CR. Within 3 months of each both inquiries were deleted. I don't know if they deleted it or [SOME OTHER REASON]

Message Edited by Timothy on 03-02-2008 08:42 AM

[Anonymous]

---

llecs wrote:

Have you jumped on board our "CA has PP" Bandwagon? (That almost doesn't sound right, does it?)

I don't know the answer on removal of inquiries. I would assume that the transaction was in the past and therefore they are not updating it.

I did have two CAs (KCA and NCO) ding both DW and my CRs. They sent the dunning letters and we promptly responded with the DVs. Both went away and other than the inquiry, they never posted to the CR. Within 3 months of each both inquiries were deleted. I don't know if they deleted it or [SOME OTHER REASON]

---

lol........well FCRA does make it sound as if they have PP, I would rather they NOT have PP.

The inquiry on my CR was end of Jan, the CA that pulled a hard on my spouse was in Feb.

If they were over a year old or close to not affecting, I'd let it be, but we are hoping to buy a house this summer and can use all the points we can get.

Emailed the CA on my spouse's report Friday, we'll see what they have to say about it. Waitting on the DV response on mine before I mention it........when they called after I requested DV and I informed them they are not to be calling and trying to collect.....their response was "so what you gonna do about it" So, I'm sure they'll be a little harder to get the inquiry removed.

Anyhow they've p****d me off and I'm prepared to send ITS letter if need be.

If they can't validate the debt to me(prove they have the right to collect and it is a valid debt).......then how are they gonna defend in court their right to pull an inquiry on my CR?

Message Edited by Timothy on 03-02-2008 08:42 AM

[llecs]

True.....

I also saw here someone posted that a CA was pulling monthly. IMO, that is not PP.

And could a CA get the same info by pulling a soft inquiry? I'd be onboard with that one. In fact, I noticed that NCO just pulled a softie on EX last month. But no calls and no letters.

[Anonymous]

---

llecs wrote:

True.....

I also saw here someone posted that a CA was pulling monthly. IMO, that is not PP.

And could a CA get the same info by pulling a soft inquiry? I'd be onboard with that one. In fact, I noticed that NCO just pulled a softie on EX last month. But no calls and no letters.

---

I see monthly as an attempt to cause further damage to your credit. If they want to know when you update your CR, then why don't they sign up for that little service the CRA offers to business to notify them when activity is on one's CR.

I believe they could get the same information from a soft, but they make it hard so anyone you apply for credit with sees it.

[Anonymous]

Yea, Portfolio Recovery keeps hitting my CR monthly and they will not respond to the DV letter.  I disputed it with TransUnion but nothing happened. PR sent me a 1099-C dated 12/11/2007 - What's ironic is that this debt was charged off in 1996 and they keep calling wanting me to set up payments arrangements.  I guess they are trying to get anything they can, since the charged off amount was $6400.  The OC/debt isn't even showing up on my CR.  I have documented everything.   I have two appointments tomorrow - one with a CPA and the other with a Tax Attorney. I'm ready to rumble!!!! I will keep you all posted. 

I plan on going after NCO next........

[haulingthescoreup]

BTW, for those who think that CA's do have PP (hee hee, llecs, that does sound funny!), it can still be argued that this is true only for accounts that were originally credit accounts, meaning that they have PP for credit card debt, loans in default, etc.

It is very, very debatable that they have PP to do hards for collections for medical bills, parking tickets, library overdues and so forth. These debts did not result from an attempt to establish credit.

Just thought I'd stir things up a bit!


edit to clarify; need more coffee!

Message Edited by haulingthescoreup on 03-02-2008 08:10 AM

[Anonymous]

---

haulingthescoreup wrote:
BTW, for those who think that CA's do have PP (hee hee, llecs, that does sound funny!), it can still be argued that this is true only for accounts that were originally credit accounts, meaning that they have PP for credit card debt, loans in default, etc.

It is very, very debatable that they have PP to do hards for collections for medical bills, parking tickets, library overdues and so forth. These debts did not result from an attempt to establish credit.

Just thought I'd stir things up a bit!


edit to clarify; need more coffee!

Message Edited by haulingthescoreup on 03-02-2008 08:10 AM

---

Don't get me wrong.........I am not for CA doing hards under any circumstance.

And what you mention makes sense.......however isn't that were this part would come in:

(F) otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information

              (i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the

              consumer; or

Doesn't say Credit transaction..........just business transaction...........of course, I can't see the NEED for any information on my report........until they attempt to send a letter and it gets returned........then they may need my report to check for a new address, but there are other services for that purpose and most of the CA have them services.

I can't see how the information(cept for address, telephone) would assist them in a collection of an account.

Maybe the CRA needs to just issue the "personal information" section when requested by a CA.

[Anonymous]

Ads this the section that has giving collection agencies the ability to collect - the 9th District courts have detrimined this must be from a credit transaction.

§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports

[15 U.S.C. § 1681b]

§ 604.(a)(3)(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; or

In your quote: Either the customer must intitiate it or to AR
The Gowen opinion letter http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/gowen.shtm
Closed ended accounts- Don't have PP on AR
Nor do closed accounts have PP to AR
As Collection account MUST be reported as closed accounts- they do not have PP under this section-  

§ 604.(a)(3)(F) otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information

(i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer; or

(ii) to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account.

 

[haulingthescoreup]

Cripes, Timothy, you KNOW that I wear reading glasses! Could you have gotten that font any tinier???