Home
Public Forum
Credit Reports
Apply For Cards
Credit Directory
Credit Overview
Credit Problems
Credit News
International
Credit Glossary
Purchase Books
Credit Laws
Business Credit
Merchant Accts
   

Re: Permissible Purpose Discussion--Section 604


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]

Posted by Dave (63.228.52.57) on December 13, 2002 at 19:59:47:

In Reply to: Re: Permissible Purpose Discussion--Section 604 posted by Christina on December 13, 2002 at 14:14:29:

I agree with you that per the FTC Opinion Letters, a perm purp would not exist for a CA to pull a report on an (alleged) debt that did not evolve out of a credit transaction.

However, I have read a few cases that cut in the opposite direction. This is why I proposed in the first thread that the courts have been interpreting Sect. 604 differently than the FTC Opinion Letters. I am in the middle of finals at the moment, but please stay tuned to this thread, and I will provide some more cases.

Here is one case, and there are more that I will post next week:

Etefia v. Russell Colection Agency, Inc. 20 Fed.Appx. 485, 486 (Mich. 2001) ("Further, Russell was authorized by § 1681b(a)(3)(A) to request a credit report since its reason for requesting the report was to review the collection of an account of a consumer.") Note: this case was not selected for inclusion in the Federal Reporter.

I think that this issue is an important one to make clear in the statute. Collection agencies pull hard inquiries on accounts, with no regard to whether or not the debt evolved from a credit account. I have a letter from Trans Union stating that a CA had a perm purp to pull my report simply because they are a collection agency.





Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:


[ Follow Ups ]   [ Post Followup ]   [ Credit Forum Index ]

 

    Top Of Page

  

Copyright © 1999-2002 Enkephalos Web Design