Re: Permissible Purpose Discussion--Section 604

Posted by Christina (152.163.189.170) on December 14, 2002 at 17:51:15:

In Reply to: Re: Permissible Purpose Discussion--Section 604 posted by Dave on December 14, 2002 at 17:02:33:

With regard to ALLEGED DAMAGES (not back rent) in excess of a security deposit on an apartment; it would depend on what action is taken.

By law a LL does not have a LEGAL RIGHT to use or release the SS# of the former tenant (after the relationship has ended). Their LL/Tenant relationship is not one of an "extension of credit" because the rent is pre-paid; anything arising out of it cannot "magically" be considered an extension of credit. If the LL isn't a Judgment Creditor, I personally don't think there is a permissible purpose.

If the LL went to Court and was deemed a "Judgment Creditor", then that would give the LL and CA a Legal Permissible Purpose.

A LL can hire a CA to attempt to collect the "alleged debt", and I say "alleged" because the debt is not "proven", but could not (or should not) pull the credit report.

The second issue would have to deal with reporting an unproven, alleged debt to the credit reporting agencies (CRA's). Unless the LL is a Judgment Creditor, which would more than likely be picked up by the CRA's because it would be of public record, the LL is not a "Creditor" as per the FCRA, and cannot be legally reported by the CA as such.

With regard to the Dentist issue, it is different. Upon visiting a dentist or doctor, you sign an agreement for services rendered. The fees are set and available for review. If you receive the service and don't pay, I guess an argument could be made that it constitutes an "extenstion of credit".

As far as legally having permissible purpose to pull the credit report of the patient if the "debt" goes to collection, is one of those grey areas. If it went through litigation in 2 different courts, you would probably get 2 different outcomes.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup