![]() |
| We don't make mistakes. We make learning experiences. - pcmech |
|
|
|
|||||||
| Is There a Lawyer in the House Hang out with our expert legal minds - get advice on lawsuits, procedure and credit case law. |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
MERRICK BANK/HOOTERS CARD
has been pulling only TU reports and claiming it is for account reviews. now they charged off the account years ago but claim they can still pull the report to review the account to see if it still meets the standards of the bank. now is that true they can still pull the report for account reviews. can i sue them for pulling my reports after charge off? is there any case law i can use? and yes they are reporting to all 3 but only pulling TU. |
| Sponsored Links - Opinions and methods expressed by these Sponsors do not necessarily reflect the views of this board. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
CO means "charge against accrued income for P&L purposes". It has nothing to do with you. Its only for their internal accounting.
They still own it, you still owe it, they can still try to collect, they can still charge you penalty and interest...and...they can still pull your reports to see what other activity is going on.
__________________
Manage your debt, not your credit score. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
They have permissible purpose for collection of an account but I don't think they would have pp for account review.
The purpose of account review is for the creditor to see how you are doing in other accounts. This information can then be used to adjust the terms of your account with the oc. However, if your account is closed, you didn't say, there would be no terms to review thus no pp for account review. There is FTC opinion and case law that say that there is no pp on an account which is closed and paid because the terms of the closed account cannot be changed. I understand that your account is not paid but it is probably closed and the terms are frozen. What would be the purpose of reviewing an account to change the terms if the terms could not be changed in the first place? In your case, the oc or the CRA's are only misnaming the pp. They should be pulling for collections, not account review. They have pp, they are just not listing the correct pp. I don't think a violation of this type would gain much traction in court. It's kind of like not dotting your i's or crossing your t's. The mistake might cause a little confusion but no real harm is done. |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Permissible Purpose Scenario | Dolemite73 | Is There a Lawyer in the House | 12 | 03-11-2010 09:56 AM |
| Permissible purpose? | Gsgatormom | Is There a Lawyer in the House | 18 | 08-14-2007 10:20 AM |
| 604. Permissible Purpose | philskidz | Is There a Lawyer in the House | 1 | 05-26-2005 04:21 AM |
| Permissible purpose inquiry question. | tst888 | Credit Repair | 10 | 05-06-2005 12:25 AM |
| Permissable Purpose: Court Ruling | Credit Hawk | Is There a Lawyer in the House | 4 | 03-18-2003 05:21 PM |
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:51 PM.
|
| View Your Credit Score | | | Online Credit Counseling | | | Credit and Debt Consolidation | | | Repair Bad Credit Now |