Jump to content

Please consider disabling your adblocker for CreditBoards if you have not already done so.  This site depends on advertising revenue to stay online.


Sign in to follow this  

Lost a Permissible Purpose lawsuit....

The last post in this topic was posted 5741 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Recommended Posts

I had a PP hearing last week, and I've won two previous so I was feeling pretty confident. Even when the commissioner took the case under submission rather than ruling at the hearing, I was feeling pretty good. I proved that the defendant pulled the report on the date claimed, and the defendant even stipulated to that. I showed that the account was closed and paid 60+ days before the pull, and the commissioner agreed.

 

I got the decision in the mail today:

 

"Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the case by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, Plaintiff contentds that Defendant, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, either procured Plaintiff's credit report under false pretenses, or procured Plaintiff's credit report knowingly without a permissible purpose.

 

Although Plaintiff produced significant evidence for consideration, that evidence failed to prove Plaintiff's case by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

Judgment for Defendant."

 

In the two previous cases, when the fact was established that I had no open account with the defendant at the time of the pull, the case was over. What didn't this guy see, and what do I send in my request to reconsider to get him over that hump? I just re-read 604, 607 and 616 top to bottom and I parsed the whole text for "permissible", and I could have swore there was language somewhere in there about the burden of proving permissible purpose being on the requestor of the report -- but I can't find it. I also went through all of the FTC opinion letters with no luck. I hate to let this one go, as it's a clear violation and the defendant drove me nuts for 6 months on bad credit reporting issues.

 

Any advice is appreciated.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sue the CRA for giving info they shouldn't have givin.

607. Compliance procedures [15 U.S.C. § 1681e]

 

(a) Identity and purposes of credit users. Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 605 [§ 1681c] and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 604 [§ 1681b] of this title. These procedures shall require that prospective users of the information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose. Every consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective user prior to furnishing such user a consumer report. No consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if it has reasonable grounds for believing that the consumer report will not be used for a purpose listed in section 604 [§ 1681b] of this title.

 

(:) Accuracy of report. Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.

 

© Disclosure of consumer reports by users allowed. A consumer reporting agency may not prohibit a user of a consumer report furnished by the agency on a consumer from disclosing the contents of the report to the consumer, if adverse action against the consumer has been taken by the user based in whole or in part on the report.

 

(d) Notice to users and furnishers of information.

 

just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, believe me...the CRA's are on my radar. I've already got ITS letters out to all three stooges for the "N/A" and "$0" and "Not Reported" Geronimo they use in key fields of accounts like - oh let's see - AMOUNT OF CLAIM fields in public records. I'm lining up my waves of attack and FCRA §604 and §607 violations are in the tube. I'm just trying to figure out how I can get this judgment on the requestor in question. I need to be able to convince the court that once I claim no permissible purpose, the defendant has to show that it was.

 

Thx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming this was a small claims court case, even with a commissioner for a judge and not a pro tem, small claims court despite the informality has the serious disadvantage of judges making decisions where evidence rules tend to be inconsistenly applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

700,

 

Sorry to say - it's over. Here in CA, the small claims commissioners (read: not real judges) are really glorified arbitrators with the power of the court behind them.

 

If you are a plaintiff, once they rule against you its over - there are no appelate rights for plaintiffs and don't even bother with request for reconsideration. I've had 7-8 experiences related to me and never once did I hear of the request for reconsideration beging granted. In fact, from what I have heard, the commissioners get mighty testy when asked to review a decision they've already made.

 

Also, I would not file any more cases in this court - chances are very high the same commissioner would hear your case and recall his previous decisions/impressions.

 

-HDAlex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmmmmm 700, sometimes the Commissioners are just plain wrong. Reminds me of an old fave thread, Quixote's day in court, and it was with a Commissioner as well.

 

I'll tilt at a windmill with ya ;-)

 

Sassy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a PP hearing last week, and I've won two previous so I was feeling pretty confident.  Even when the commissioner took the case under submission rather than ruling at the hearing, I was feeling pretty good.  I proved that the defendant pulled the report on the date claimed, and the defendant even stipulated to that.  I showed that the account was closed and paid 60+ days before the pull, and the commissioner agreed.

 

I got the decision in the mail today:

 

"Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the case by a preponderance of the evidence.  In this case, Plaintiff contentds that Defendant, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, either procured Plaintiff's credit report under false pretenses, or procured Plaintiff's credit report knowingly without a permissible purpose.

 

Although Plaintiff produced significant evidence for consideration, that evidence failed to prove Plaintiff's case by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

Judgment for Defendant."

 

In the two previous cases, when the fact was established that I had no open account with the defendant at the time of the pull, the case was over.  What didn't this guy see, and what do I send in my request to reconsider to get him over that hump?  I just re-read 604, 607 and 616 top to bottom and I parsed the whole text for "permissible", and I could have swore there was language somewhere in there about the burden of proving permissible purpose being on the requestor of the report -- but I can't find it.  I also went through all of the FTC opinion letters with no luck.  I hate to let this one go, as it's a clear violation and the defendant drove me nuts for 6 months on bad credit reporting issues.

 

Any advice is appreciated.

 

Thanks.

Sounds like a WRONG decision (but I'm not an expert in court)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last post in this topic was posted 5741 days ago. 

 

We strongly encourage you to start a new post instead of replying to this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  




  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      179,435
    • Most Online
      2,046

    Newest Member
    Zakiyyah
    Joined

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines