Jump to content

Gearing vs check, permissible purpose for credit pull, and not being the assignee and


Recommended Posts

Please any advise on how there was an ftc staff opinion on how, in gearing v. Check, pre-litigation is not a permissible purpose for a credit pull?

Also, in the same case, from what I understand, the CA is not allowed to be an assignee and and attorney for the OC?

The CA/ attorney firm is listed as only a CA on myself and my spouse's CRs, with the comments section stating"charge off or collection, account placed for collection". However, they filed a chapter 61, listing themselves as the attorney for the OC, but yet they put the "mini miranda" quote for CAs at the bottom of the papers I was served with.

I feel this a misrepresentation of the status of the debt, its status, as well as misleading and deceptive, a it has confused me... Sorry, I need help, please!:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can not see how Gearing v Check Brokerage has anything to do with permissible purpose, it seems to have to do with unlawful subrogation of a claim.

However it is pretty well settled that lawyers can not pull credit for the purposes of litigation. The one way they can possibly get out of it is if they are a collection firm as well with collectors actively attempting to collect outside of litigation.

The Greenblat letter from the FTC make this quite clear:

FCRA Staff Opinion: Cosgrove-Greenblatt

There are a ton of case law citations if you do some Google searches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This collection firm, claiming to have been collecting on the debt for the OC. But they are reporting it as a chargeoff, under their name. But now they say they are the attorney for the OC.it seems like they are passing it back and forth, so they can ram up bogus charges. Not only that, but because I'm trying tip fight it, they are causing just about $1000 into 4500 with 10% interest!!!! It seems to me, they just run up the charges, and god forbid you defend yourself! I don't remember any communication with them before this suit. The OC says that the attorneys are a third party in order to get money. If it wasn't for them portraying themselves this way on my CRs, and confusing the matter in making me think it wasn't the original collector, I would have tried to settle with the original collector. It seems as if they found a way to further abuse consumers than what the FDCPA ment to prevent. They didn't even try to collect. They just take every case from this medical facility, pull their credit, then turn around and sue. Kramer & Frank are horrible! I need help bad. We live paycheck to paycheck and cannot afford this.:-(((XhelpX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.