Jump to content

Does a JDB's attorney have permissible purpose?


Recommended Posts

I think because the Attorney represents the firm with PP, they can argue PP.

 

Now I do think this is abusive because the PP the debt holder (Asset) has is for "account management" not an extension of new credit, and it should be properly coded as such, which would make it a soft pull.  I don't know this for sure, or that you can win the argument but thought I'd throw it out here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pursuant to § 1681b(a)(3)(F), courts "have allowed parties to obtain consumer reports . . . for use in litigation, [where] the legal dispute typically [relates] to the collection of the debt owed by the consumer." Duncan v. Handmaker, 149 F.3d 424, 428 (6th Cir. 1998).

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.