Pintos ruling and CA's

[BTO429]

I wonder if the pintos ruling could be made to apply to CA's also? after it did say in the ruling that if you were not involved in a credit transaction with a company then they cant pull credit.

I think it should be against the law for any one to pull your credit without your consent.

[StressPot]

I wonder if the pintos ruling could be made to apply to CA's also? after it did say in the ruling that if you were not involved in a credit transaction with a company then they cant pull credit.

I think it should be against the law for any one to pull your credit without your consent.

I have read about Pintos concerns on the enemy (collectors) websites. According to them, for example, if they received a collections account that deals with a towing bill - the CA cannot legally pull your credit rating, because the towing bill has nothing to do with your credit. This arguement could apply to any bill received that does not directly involve your credit.

This applies to JDB's and CA's I believe.

Any one else have thoughts on this?

StressPot

[Amerikaner83]

Agree. Pintos does not go as far as we all think it does.

A CA can still pull your credit, if the original account was a credit transaction. Loans, credit cards, etc= yes. parking ticket? no. Impound? no. Repos? YES.

[Rick9972]

NOw the truly interesting question is Medical Bills. Sometime soon, someone will give it a try.

[BTO429]

That was my next question. I have a couple ca's after me for bills other than credit like medical, a bill from the library

[Rick9972]

NOw the truly interesting question is Medical Bills. Sometime soon, someone will give it a try.

I say Medical can go either way. Medical bills have really only been directly involved in one court case.(When it was determined that Medical Bills were indeed a debt covered by FDCPA)

The way the judge worded his decision, I feel, would be very persuavive in a Pintos type hearing. He basically said that a patient enters a medical office with the expectation of having to pay for the services received. If the patiant does not pay at the time services are rendered then a state of indebtness has been incurred.

Since the debtor authorized/asked for the services, with the understanding that the services would have to be paid for. I would think that medical bills would be considered a credit transaction and thus a pull would be appropiate.

*shrugs* That is how I would argue it if I was a lawyer anyway.

[TTigggers]

I say Medical can go either way. Medical bills have really only been directly involved in one court case.(When it was determined that Medical Bills were indeed a debt covered by FDCPA)

The way the judge worded his decision, I feel, would be very persuavive in a Pintos type hearing. He basically said that a patient enters a medical office with the expectation of having to pay for the services received. If the patiant does not pay at the time services are rendered then a state of indebtness has been incurred.

Since the debtor authorized/asked for the services, with the understanding that the services would have to be paid for. I would think that medical bills would be considered a credit transaction and thus a pull would be appropiate.

*shrugs* That is how I would argue it if I was a lawyer anyway.

True but you never Gave your consent for them to pull your credit as you would have to do if applying for any line of credit.

Also the Hospital and or Doctor never notified you that your transactions would be listed on your credit report.