Jump to content

Can we define Non PP? Is this an example?


Recommended Posts

No.. this is called an Account Review.

A NON PP is when you don't give your permission to have your credit pulled by someone that might offer you credit.

A CA can pull your credit. A company you are already doing business with can pull your credit.

A car lot you applied for a loan with can pull your credit..

BUT if that car lot pulls your credit again.. without asking your permission for the 2nd time.. THAT IS NON P/P

Make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well written, Sky!

The only thing I will add is in regards to the Car Lot. If the consumer has a "few" negative items causing the primary lender to deny credit, such as GMAC, the lot will supply your info to it's other institutions for consideration. Since they all occur during a set period of time, they are considered a single inquiry on your score, and, yes, are considered permissable purpose. Reason being is the consumer is wanting to buy a car and has made no reference as to who should do the financing. Some will argue this, and I do agree, that one pull is enough and the lot should just FAX the copy to the others, but, it can be done. This also involves the consumer who is shopping for the best deal. I have been told by some dealerships that they already have set minimums for each of the others so as to avoid multiple pulls, but, the institution has the right to pull their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the FTC, the car lot should get your permission before forwarding your application to other lenders:




Division of Financial Practices


Helen Goff Foster


November 20, 1998

Ms. Linda J. Throne

Bodman, Longley & Dahling

229 Court Street

Cheboygan, Michigan 49721

Re: "Joint users" -- FCRA §§603(f) and 604(a)(3)(A)

Dear Ms. Throne:

This is in response to your correspondence concerning the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). You indicate that your bank client uses a loan application format which includes a section where the consumer may request that the bank forward the application to another lender if the bank is unable to make the loan. You ask whether the joint user exception to the definition of consumer reporting agency, found in the Federal Trade Commission Commentary on the FCRA ("the Commentary"), requires the disclosure to the consumer of the identity of the additional lenders to whom a loan application may be forwarded. We conclude that it does not.

As you note, Comment 603(f)-(8) takes the view that the FCRA definition of consumer reporting agency does not include a creditor that qualifies as a "joint user" with another party involved in evaluating a consumer's loan application. It states, in pertinent part:

Entities that share consumer reports with others that are jointly involved in decisions for which there are permissible purposes to obtain reports may be "joint users" rather than consumer reporting agencies. For example, if a lender forwards consumer reports . . . to another creditor for use in considering a consumer's loan application at the consumer's request, the lender does not become a consumer reporting agency by virtue of such action.

16 C.F.R. 600 Appendix; 55 Fed. Reg.. 18,813 (May 4, 1990). In short, the Commentary treats entities as "joint users" when both parties are considering the same loan application and both have a permissible purpose.(1) The situation you present is the one set forth in the commentary example -- your client and the additional creditors to whom they forward a consumer's loan application are involved in the evaluation of a particular consumer loan application. Further, there is no doubt that your client has a permissible purpose in obtaining a consumer report in connection with a consumer's application for credit under Section 604(a)(3)(A). However, in order for the additional creditors to whom your client forwards the loan application to have a permissible purpose to obtain a consumer report, the potential credit transaction must be initiated by the consumer. For this reason, the Commentary notes that a lender may forward a loan application to another lender at the consumer's request. Accordingly, your client must obtain the consumer's consent prior to forwarding such information to additional lenders.

The FCRA and the Commentary are uniformly silent on what form such authorization should take. In light of this, we conclude that the inclusion in your client's loan application of a section which enables the consumer to indicate consent for the loan application file to be forwarded to "other lenders" would be sufficient to satisfy the requirement that subsequent creditors have a permissible purpose to receive the consumer report included in the file. Such action can only be taken, however, in pursuit of the approval of the loan application.

I hope that this information is helpful to you. The views expressed in this letter are those of the staff and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or of any individual Commissioner.


Helen G. Foster


1. Although the Commentary employs the term "joint user" to describe the two parties, its focus is not the use two parties make of a consumer report, but rather to determine whether one user is to be considered a "consumer reporting agency" under Section 603(f) if it simply forwards the report to a second such party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

herauntsis, that is some good scoop. Thank You!

After reading this, it appears to me that one needs to read everything on the application before signing. True, I did not have to sign one when I bought my last car. I just gave them my SS# and let it go at that. I am going to read it again in great detail as I do see, by glancing, where someone could argue this to some degree. I may be wrong, but, do want to look deeper at this. In fact, I am going to scan this letter to a friend of mine in the business (He's been doing this for over 34 years in all capacities) and see what he can add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...