Law firm pulled my credit report - violation?

[the-g]

I have a thread going regarding a lawsuit threat. I tried to post a link to the thread, but apparently I can't post links until i get to 20 posts..not even links within this forum...

I have an important specific question that I hope will have a better chance of being answered if I post it separately. I feel I have them solidly on a violation, but I need to confirm it absolutely so that I can be sure I have a card up my sleeve so I can either sue them, have them drop the case, or both.

I recently got my credit report and I see that the law firm that is threatening to sue me did a hard pull just before they started contacting me.

They claim they are representing a collection agency that allegedly owns the account in question.

I requested validation, and they sent me documentation possibly showing transfer of ownership of my account from the original creditor to 2 different collection agencies, the second and final one being their "client".

The thing is, they produced nothing saying they are the collector or owner of the debt, yet whenever they contact me they say they are a debt collector, and that I should send payment to them, etc.

My big question is: if this law firm cannot prove that they own this debt, and their client is in fact the actual owner of the debt, isn't it illegal for the law firm to pull my credit report?

Obviously it was only for the purpose of seeing if I'm a good target for legal action.

Edited October 27, 2010 by the-g

[Guest usctrojanalum]

My big question is: if this law firm cannot prove that they own this debt, and their client is in fact the actual owner of the debt, isn't it illegal for the law firm to pull my credit report?

No.

[tigra]

They would not be a violation, unless they cant prove they have been retained to collect on this account. Collectors and creditors can pull your report.

"The thing is, they produced nothing saying they are the collector or owner of the debt, yet whenever they contact me they say they are a debt collector, and that I should send payment to them, etc."

I might not be understanding this question correctly, but take everything they sent you so far, and if there is nothing on the letters that says "This communication is from the debt collector" or something like that, then you got an FDCPA violation. Have they called you or mailed you anything during validation period? If it was my case, i would go through discovery, request their witness, etc. This debt has been sold twice, its doubtful they will have all the proof they need to win this

[the-g]

No.

Really. I was under the impression that a law firm pulling a consumer's credit report for the purpose of litigation was not legal.

Litigation is not permissible use of a consumers credit report as litigation is not a business to consumer transaction and thus violates the FCRA.

"In the 1990 Commentary on the FCRA, the Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") stated that "[t]he possibility that a party may be involved in litigation involving a consumer does not provide a permissible purpose for that party to receive a consumer report on such consumer . . . because litigation is not a 'business transaction' involving the consumer." 16 C.F.R. § 600 App., 55 Fed. Reg. 18804, 18816 (May 4, 1990). This statement extends to all aspects of litigation, including the pre-litigation discussions and settlement preparations that you describe, and was not altered by the recent amendments to the statute."

[Guest usctrojanalum]

Google "Permissible Purpose"

[the-g]

Google "Permissible Purpose"

I have read through that part of the FCRA and the only thing I can find that might relate is this:

In general. Subject to subsection ©, any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other:

3. To a person which it has reason to believe

1. 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;

c. Furnishing reports in connection with credit or insurance transactions that are not initiated by the consumer.

1. In general. A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report relating to any consumer pursuant to subparagraph (A) or © of subsection (a)(3) in connection with any credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by the consumer only if

1. the consumer authorizes the agency to provide such report to such person; or

2.

1. the transaction consists of a firm offer of credit or insurance;

2. the consumer reporting agency has complied with subsection (e); and

3. there is not in effect an election by the consumer, made in accordance with subsection (e), to have the consumer's name and address excluded from lists of names provided by the agency pursuant to this paragraph.

I still see it as the law firm is not pulling the credit report for business purposes or in connection with a credit transaction. They are pulling it for purposes of litigation.

I have a letter from them which is dated 2.5 months after their inquiry to Experian which reads, among other things

Our office will now begin investigating your assets, which may include verifying your employment, real and/or personal property that you may own, and/or searching for bank accounts. Once we locate these items we may recommend to our client that they file a lawsuit against you.

Edited October 27, 2010 by the-g

[Seadragon]

They are just trying to scare you. You can write a letter to the CRA to have the hard pull removed for improper permissible purpose and find out how to opt out of allowing the Lawyer access to your credit report. I think that in some states that have no FDCPA/FCRA equivalent the lawyer cannot be counted as a debt collector if they are going to sue. I may be wrong but it seems to me that they cannot have it two ways. they either are or are not debt collectors and not interchangeably.

Also that last statement looks more like something a JDB would say, than an attorney they may just be using the lawyers letterhead which is definately a violation look at the postmark and see what zip code it was sent from.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Seadragon
adding more

[the-g]

I think that in some states that have no FDCPA/FCRA equivalent the lawyer cannot be counted as a debt collector if they are going to sue. I may be wrong but it seems to me that they cannot have it two ways. they either are or are not debt collectors and not interchangeably.

This has been and is now even more of a big question mark for me. It looks like they tried to serve me with papers yesterday, so I'm assuming that the lawsuit is on.

I really need to get clear on this distinction between the law firm and the debt collector because it seems like the law firm is trying to be both. The law firm clearly lists a separate collection agency as their client, the law firm shows no evidence that they actually own the debt. Yet they pull my credit report, their correspondence says it is coming from a debt collector, their demands for payment say that I should pay them directly.

I guess it will be a little more clear when I see the complaint in writing. But if they are the law firm and some other collection agency is their client, then the law firm cannot also be the debt collector, right?

I need to clear up this confusion so I can defend myself properly.

[Guest usctrojanalum]

But if they are the law firm and some other collection agency is their client, then the law firm cannot also be the debt collector, right?

No. A debt collector is any third party collecting a debt. I highly suggest you speak with an attorney located in your area.

[the-g]

OK I just read something interesting on this and wish I could post a link, but I'm still under 20 posts soo...It's on this site, an article by Kristy Welsh entitled "Debt Collectors Suing Consumers Naming Capital One As Plaintiff".

This part caught my attention:

How to tell if Capital One (or indeed any credit card company) is NOT the real Plaintiff:

1. Look at past correspondence from the law firm. Does it say “This is communication from a debt collector” on it? If so, you can positively identify the law firm as the real Plaintiff.

Correspondence from the law firm suing me does have this wording on it. So does that mean the law firm is the plaintiff in the case?

[Guest usctrojanalum]

That part is an outright lie, and the source is not a credible one for information. Collection attorneys are required by Federal Law to put that statement on all correspondences sent to a debtor.