Franklin Collected pulled my Transunion report

[epark28]

I recently checked my True-Credit -- and Franklin Collection did a hard pull from TU. Then a week later, I get a call from someone from Franklin telling me about a medical debt from 2 years ago. I have never received any mail from them regarding this debt - also it is not reported on any of my credit reports. I'm wondering what to do from here.

[razr]

Nothing to do now other than wait for an initial dunning letter. Get your DV letter ready to go.

-r

[Focus2069]

count the days, they have 5 days to send you something in writing.

[epark28]

Once I get the dunning letter, should I just do a simple DV?

Should I bring up the fact that they pulled my credit report without my permission in my initial DV letter?

Or should I wait and see if they can provide me proper validation - then demand they drop the issue because they unlawfully pulled my CR.

[swirlgirl]

Epark, they don't need your permission to pull your credit report if they have permissable purpose. Basically, since you owe them money, they can pull your CR. Do a searchfor the term to get a better understanding.

[Focus2069]

Epark, they don't need your permission to pull your credit report if they have permissable purpose. Basically, since you owe them money, they can pull your CR. Do a searchfor the term to get a better understanding.

that is not 100% true.

a CA cant just pull your report because you owe them. It depends on what the debt was and if it was a "credit transaction initated by the consumer".

Generally speaking, if it was a defaulted credit card or loan, they do have a PP.

wait for the dunning letter, then DV them.

[razr]

that is not 100% true.

a CA cant just pull your report because you owe them.

The FCRA specifically grants the right of collectors to pull your credit report. No strings attached.

any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances...if a person....intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer;

-r

[Focus2069]

The FCRA specifically grants the right of collectors to pull your credit report. No strings attached.

any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances...if a person....intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer;

-r

Tell that to the CA that will be sending me a check for $1,000 in the very near future.

pintos v pacific creditors

http://vlex.com/vid/30095406

a CA only has a PP if the account is a "credit transaction initiated by the consumer"

"A credit transaction is one where a consumer participated directly and volunarily"

FACTA updated FCRA

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 made clear that debt collection was a permissible purpose for obtaining a credit report under Section 1681b(a)(3)(A) only in connection with a "credit transaction" in which a consumer had participated directly and voluntarily

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Tell that to the CA that will be sending me a check for $1,000 in the very near future.

pintos v pacific creditors

http://vlex.com/vid/30095406

a CA only has a PP if the account is a "credit transaction initiated by the consumer"

"A credit transaction is one where a consumer participated directly and volunarily"

FACTA updated FCRA

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 made clear that debt collection was a permissible purpose for obtaining a credit report under Section 1681b(a)(3)(A) only in connection with a "credit transaction" in which a consumer had participated directly and voluntarily

Your reading/interpretation of the specific statutes seems reasonable but I'm not nearly as certain about this not qualifying as a "credit transaction".

Clearly, "credit" was extended; had it not been, the OP would have been required to pay the alleged bill immediately...by the same token, the OP clearly did participate in the transaction by seeking the service.

I may well be wrong but I don't believe that the extension of credit and the consumer willing participating is reserved only to the obvious transactions (a CC, car loan, etc.).

So, bottom line is, I think this collector would have PP.

[CDL]

Your reading/interpretation of the specific statutes seems reasonable but I'm not nearly as certain about this not qualifying as a "credit transaction".

Clearly, "credit" was extended; had it not been, the OP would have been required to pay the alleged bill immediately...by the same token, the OP clearly did participate in the transaction by seeking the service.

I may well be wrong but I don't believe that the extension of credit and the consumer willing participating is reserved only to the obvious transactions (a CC, car loan, etc.).

So, bottom line is, I think this collector would have PP.

Usually there is no permission granted to a medical provider to pull your credit report.

My understanding of FACTA is if there was no permission initially then there should be no PP in the future.

I'll wait for more FACTA case law to hang my hat on that though, and there are plenty of pending cases that will soon clear that up for us!

I believe Pintos is going to be reversed because it occurred a few months before FACTA was enacted, but I hope that more judges see it how this judge did.

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Common sense does often apply in these cases.

While it is true that a "debt" can arise without a wiling extension of credit and/or without a consumer seeking credit, the vase majority of debts do arise because someone asked for and someone did extend credit.

It may not be quite as clear-cut with a medical debt but I would submit that any medical services which are not paid for out of pocket at the time service is rendered is an extension of credit and a consumer, by seeking those services and not paying for them up-front have, constructively requested credit (obviously in hopes that insurance will pay the bills).

Therefore, IMAHO, a collector who is attempting to collect a medical debt does have permissible purpose to obtain a copy of the consumer's CR.

We need to keep in mind that the FTC recognizes the legitimate need for collection agencies to exist and to collect debts. Given the overwhelming reliance on credit reports for almost everything today (even when the granting of credit is not involved at all); I seriously doubt that anyone is going to take this tool away from the collection industry; even for medical debts.

[razr]

Credit as defined by FACTA is "the right granted by a creditor to a debtor to defer payment of debt or to incur debts and defer its payment or to purchase property or services and defer payment therefor."

So not paying for services rendered at the time of recieving said services is, for FCRA propses, a credit transaction.

In Pintos, "Pintos did not voluntarily seek credit. Rather, the debt arose by statute when the lien sale price of her vehicle failed to cover the towing and impound charges. See Cal Civ. Code § 3068.2. Pintos never sought to have her vehicle towed, and she incurred the resulting debt involuntarily. Consequently, no one granted her "credit" as defined by § 1681a®(5), and there was no "credit transaction" within the meaning of § 1681b(a)(3)(A). PCA, therefore, had no purpose specified as permissible under the statute to obtain Pintos's credit report."

As RN said "the vast majority of debts do arise because someone asked for and someone did extend credit." As such, CAs can pretty much pull your credit at will.

-r

[Focus2069]

I dont know what hospitals you goto, but the ones I have been in, have signs everywhere that say payment is due when services are rendered. Therefore, the hospital does not extend any "credit".

However, I did see a post somewhere, that upon signing the admissions paperwork for that hospital, it had in the fine print they they could (and did) pull that persons credit report.

In my own personal case, I have a situation where the CA hard pulled my credit, but couldnt validate the alleged debt. Therefore, they had no PP to even come near my credit report. I have it in writing that they could not validate and would cease any and all collection attempts.

Until Pintos gets overturned (which i hope it doesnt) that will be a tool for everyone to use. CA's have been getting worse, pulling credit 2-3 times a month just to posion peoples credit. Hell I just had a JDB and their CA pull mine and my wifes credit 3 times within a week. That **** will not fly with me. I would rather spend my last dollar fighting the bastards that do this than to pay them one dime.

Just my opinion. Im crazy like that

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

I dont know what hospitals you goto, but the ones I have been in, have signs everywhere that say payment is due when services are rendered. Therefore, the hospital does not extend any "credit".

Yes, we've all seen the signs and I'll guarantte you that you won't find very many people here who really want that rule enforced. If a consumer voluntairly obtains something of value without paying for it at the time the "something" is obtained, then the consumer has been extended credit and that is exactly what happens at most hospitals/Dr. offices, etc.

I think we can all agree that the third-party payor system of health insurance is a joke but it is what it is...until we all start paying for our own medical services and bring market forces to bear on the industry; it isn't going to get any better.

CA's have been getting worse, pulling credit 2-3 times a month just to posion peoples credit. Hell I just had a JDB and their CA pull mine and my wifes credit 3 times within a week. That **** will not fly with me. I would rather spend my last dollar fighting the bastards that do this than to pay them one dime.

Poisioning a CR is alrady actionable - we don't need case law to make it more so.

So...go get 'em.

[CDL]

I don't know I'm on the fence with this one. I agree with what everyone's saying but I still think if there's no authorization to pull a CR initially then there shouldn't be any PP in the future.

Like I said I'll wait for more FACTA case law that should be coming not soon enough. I do believe the pendulum will swing in our favor.

Even the JDBs seem to be cautious with FACTA, in regards to Pintos:

Debt Buyers’ Association International, an industry trade group for junk debt buyers, has issued the following ‘member alert’ with regards to this ruling:

The Pintos Court held that the FACT ACT only allows for credit reports to be obtained in connection with collection attempts when there was an underlying “credit transaction” under the FACT ACT. Further, the Court held that a towing debt was not part of a credit transaction. The Court also found Experian liable for allowing the impermissible pull. Debt buyers are encouraged to review with their counsel their practices in pulling credit bureau reports in light of this decision.

[epark28]

Franklin has not yet sent me a letter that says I owe them anything - even though I requested that they send me a bill when they called me.

They just now showed up on Experian and Equifax.

They seem to be collecting for Central Financial Control, who is on all 3 CRs.

Central Financial has a TL (derog. unpaid) for $600 and Franklin has a TL for $200.

What should be my strategy for getting each off my report?

-I'm pretty sure Franklin will PFD

-If I PFD w/ Franklin ($200) what will happen with the ($600)TL for the CFC collection?

My goal, of course, is removing all traces of collections from all 3 reports.

I will gladly PFD if it comes down to it.

If anything is unclear, please, let me know in what areas I need to clarify.

[epark28]

bump

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Do the original creditors still own these debts? If so, are they reporting the tradeline or are both the CAs and the OCs reporting the tradeline?

If the OCs still own the accounts I'd try to work directly with them to pull back the accounts from the CA (which will kill the CA's reporting) and get a PFD from the OC.

Keep in mind that any "agreement" you work out for a PFD with a CA will generally only apply to that specific CA; in other words, if the OC and th CA are both reporting and you settle for a PFD from the CA, the OC can still report unless you've gotten both to agree in writing to the PFD arrangement.

That said, you need to go through the DV process before you do anything else (or at least before you pay a penny to a CA). If they haven't sent you a n initial dunning letter yet, DV them anyway and get the ball rolling.

[epark28]

Do the original creditors still own these debts? If so, are they reporting the tradeline or are both the CAs and the OCs reporting the tradeline?

The CA and OC are owned by the same company, Tenet Hospitals.

If the OCs still own the accounts I'd try to work directly with them to pull back the accounts from the CA (which will kill the CA's reporting) and get a PFD from the OC.

I've talked to the OC and offered to pay them the full amount, but they refuse to pull the debt from the CA.

Keep in mind that any "agreement" you work out for a PFD with a CA will generally only apply to that specific CA; in other words, if the OC and th CA are both reporting and you settle for a PFD from the CA, the OC can still report unless you've gotten both to agree in writing to the PFD arrangement.

That's what I was wondering:

I don't have a TL from the OC.

The CA is showing up with a TL of $600.

There is a TL from a JDB for $200 (which is what the CA has previously agreed to settle for)

If I were to PFD one of these, would I have to get that same agreement from the CA and JDB?

That said, you need to go through the DV process before you do anything else (or at least before you pay a penny to a CA). If they haven't sent you a n initial dunning letter yet, DV them anyway and get the ball rolling.

I've already DV'd the CA and they gave me more info than I asked for - they even sent me a copy of my driver's license. I just sent a DV to the JDB last week, just got my green card back yesterday.

I'm wondering, if I PFD the JDB, can the CA still report?

If I did PFD the JDB for $200, then what will the CA do - they have a TL for $600 - won't they just try to collect the other $400?

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

I'm confused. On one hand you say the CA and OC are the same (apparently a hospital) and then you turn around and talk about a JDB???

In any case, if the debt is yours (as it appears to be) and they can prove it (as it appears they can), and they aren't willing to do a PFD (as it appears they aren't) then your only choice is to pay and live with the consequences of a paid bad debt (not the end of the world) or refuse to pay, live with an open collection/bad debt on you CR and hope they don't sue you.

Any agreement that isn't for settlement in full, for whatever amount is agreed to be paid, is a worthless agreement because they'll just come back later for the rest (meaning you would be better off to pay in full now than have to keep dealing with this again and again.

[CDL]

I'm wondering, if I PFD the JDB, can the CA still report?

If I did PFD the JDB for $200, then what will the CA do - they have a TL for $600 - won't they just try to collect the other $400?

I agree with Nash. Just to add, that if you pay, then the CA will update as paid.

This has just hit your reports, so it is having the most impact on your credit and scores currently, so if you pay it now, they update it now, I believe that is the best benefit for you.

If you drag this out, let's say another year, and then pay it, then in a year you will have another blow to your credit with a newly listed paid collection or if they sue you (in a year) then you will double your damage with a judgment.