Quick summary:

On March 9, 2001 I posted Dispute with Wells Fargo resolved in a week ...

NOT!

While I got their letter promising deletion of the account, I ended up filing a Small Claims complaint on 6/12/2001, when the account was STILL incorrectly reported on my credit.

On 7/19/01 Wells Fargo ran my Equifax credit report.

Because I was out of town when the court hearing was scheduled, I had to DISMISS the law suit on the Friday prior to the October 15, 2001 hearing.

My first fax to Wells Fargo regarding the inquiry was originally posted at:

FCRA: $1000 minimum for credit inquiry w/o permissible purpose???

Via fax to 925-686-7551

Wells Fargo
Legal Department

November 5, 2001

To whom it may concern:

As per my Equifax credit report, Wells Fargo obtained my credit file on 7/19/01.

I don't recall applying for credit or employment with Wells Fargo.

From the FCRA § 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n]

"(b) Civil liability for knowing noncompliance. Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or $1,000, whichever is greater."

From the 1998 FTC opinion letter Greenblatt at http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.htm:

"Any person who procures a consumer report under false pretenses, or knowingly without a permissible purpose, is liable for $1000 or actual damages (whichever is greater) to both the consumer and to the consumer reporting agency from which the report is procured."

Please explain your permissible purpose for your obtaining my credit file. Should you not have a permissible purpose, please arrange for payment of $1,000 by November 15, 2001.

Please respond via fax to 206-202-4653.

Sincerely,

Christine Baker

------------------------------------------------------------

CONFIRMATION OF YOUR FAX TRANSMISSION
FAX STATUS: SUCCESSFUL TO 19256867551
COUNTRY: 1-NORTH AMERICA
TRANSMISSION: 06-Nov-2001 04:01:33 GMT.
DURATION: 1.9 Minute
TOTAL COST: $0.21

My second fax to Wells Fargo was originally posted at
Introduction/q for Christine - Suing for deletion of unauthorized inquiries:

Via fax to 925-686-7551

John P. Weber
Operations Manager
Legal Process Department
Wells Fargo
Concord, CA

November 26, 2001

Re: Christine Baker - unauthorized credit inquiry with Equifax 07/19/2001
Please provide your permissible purpose for this credit inquiry or pay $1,000 by December 7, 2001

Mr. Weber:

I noticed that Wells Fargo obtained my Equifax credit file on 7/19/2001. As I do not recall applying for credit or banking with Wells Fargo in many years, I hereby request you provide me with your permissible purpose.

If you did not have a permissible purpose, please send your payment of $1,000 (as per the FCRA) to

Christine Baker
(address deleted)

Should I not have a satisfactory response by December 7, 2001, I will take legal action.

Sincerely,

Christine Baker
...@bayhouse.com
fax: 206-202-4653

--------------------------------------------

CONFIRMATION OF YOUR FAX TRANSMISSION
FAX STATUS: SUCCESSFUL TO 19256867551
COUNTRY: 1-NORTH AMERICA
TRANSMISSION: 27-Nov-2001 00:53:02 GMT.
DURATION: 1 Minute

On Monday I received this Wells Fargo response:

December 4, 2001

Christine Baker
(address deleted)

Re: Equifax Credit Inquiry

Dear Ms. Baker:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letters dated November 6 and November 27, 2001 addressed to John Weber. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding.

I have researched the credit bureau inquiry of 7/19/2001, which you brought to our attention in your letters.

It is Wells Fargo's position that we had a permissible purpose to review the Wells Fargo tradeline showing on your credit report. We obtained this report because you sued the bank, Case No. 0101CV927SC, filed on June 12, 2001 in Kingman Justice Court, alleging that the bank was improperly reporting your credit card to consumer reporting agencies. We believe the Fair Credit Reporting Act permits a creditor to obtain a consumer report in this situation. If litigation is brought against a creditor for not correctly reporting one of its accounts, the creditor must be able to obtain a copy of the very report that is subject of the litigation. The "permissible purpose" may also be viewed as having arisen in connection with a business transaction that was initiated by you - the lawsuit against the bank.

If I can be of more assistance, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Susan Barnes
Senior Counsel

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Susan is in Iowa, and the letter has NO phone or fax number.

The scanned Wells Fargo December 4, 2001 letter

Via fax to 925-686-7551

John P. Weber
Operations Manager
Legal Process Department
Wells Fargo

Dear Mr. Weber:

Please forward this fax to Ms. Susan Barnes, Senior Cousel for Wells Fargo in your law department in Iowa ASAP as my deadline for settlement is THIS Friday.

Thank you,

Christine Baker

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christine Baker
(address deleted)

Susan Barnes
Law Department
7000 Vista Drive
West Des Moines, IA 50266-9310

December 13, 2001

Re: Credit inquiry without permissible purpose - Christine Baker

Dear Ms. Barnes:

1) You are asking me to accept your apologies for the delay in responding. I specifically asked in my November 5, 2001 fax that you respond via fax to 206-202-4653, yet you responded via SNAIL MAIL. Why don't you have fax and phone numbers in your letter?

2) You state in your December 4, 2001 letter that it is Well Fargo's position that the FCRA permits a creditor to pull a consumer's credit report when sued for incorrect credit reporting.

"If litigation is brought against a creditor for not correctly reporting one of its accounts, the creditor must be able to obtain a copy of the very report that is subject of the litigation."

a) WHY does Wells Fargo NOT know what it is reporting to the credit reporting agencies?

b) Why didn't Wells Fargo ask me for my credit report?

3) You state "The "permissible purpose" may also be viewed as having arisen in connection with a business transaction that was initiated by you - the lawsuit against the bank."

I refer again to the GreenBlatt FTC opinion letter, I gave you the URL http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.htm in my November 5, 2001 fax and apparently you didn't bother to read it. So here is another excerpt:

"1. Whether the requests for the consumer credit reports comply with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, §604, 15 U.S.C. §1681b?

No. Neither the dispute resolution conference, the imminent threat of civil litigation, nor the desire to craft a settlement offer provide the brokerage firm with a permissible purpose to obtain a brokerage client's consumer report under Section 604.

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."

Summary:

Litigation is NOT a permissible purpose to run my credit. If it is true that Wells Fargo has NO records of what they report to credit reporting agencies, well, looks like that should be another law suit, possibly by the FTC. I would have certainly supplied you with a copy of my report had you requested it, just like I supplied you with all the info on the March 2001 credit dispute.

Wells Fargo had NO permissible purpose to run my credit and to subsequently lower my credit scores.

I was denied credit based on my Equifax credit report and I suffered damages. Wells Fargo not only violated the FCRA, but failed to remove the inquiry to mitigate damages.

As I am extremely busy, I am once again offering to settle this matter on the following terms:

By December 14, 2001 - THIS Friday

1) Wells Fargo removes ALL inquiries from my credit reports.
2) Wells Fargo wires $1,000 into my checking account at Netbank.

The Bankers Bank, ABA: 06100341 - Netbank Routing number 061091977 - Netbank phone: 1-888-256-6932

For Further Credit (FFC) to:
Account Number: 15012956821 Christine Baker, 989 So. Main St. A-150, Cottonwood, AZ 86326
If your institution requests The Bankers Bank's address, it is 2410 Paces Ferry Road, Suite 600, Atlanta, GA 30339.

FYI: I dismissed my previous law suit against Wells Fargo ONLY because I was on a job out of town and simple couldn't attend the court hearing and Judge John Taylor in Kingman, AZ denied my request for a continuance. Lesson learned: I need to have legal representation as I travel extensively.

When I check my account on Monday and don't see your deposit, I'll start incurring legal fees. I don't have time for your legal games, that's for lawyers. It's 3 AM and I'm tired.

Apparently Wells Fargo pulls credit reports on everyone who sues them for their screwed up credit reporting. Wells Fargo has shown absolutely no remorse. It looks like Wells Fargo will only comply with the FCRA if ordered by the court or a regulatory agency. This is no longer a small claims case.

Should you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me via fax to (deleted) or e-mail to ...@bayhouse.com by Friday.

Sincerely,

Christine Baker

---------------------------------------------------------

CONFIRMATION OF YOUR FAX TRANSMISSION
FAX STATUS: SUCCESSFUL TO 19256867551
COUNTRY: 1-NORTH AMERICA
TRANSMISSION: 13-Dec-2001 10:06:46 GMT.
DURATION: 1.1 Minute
TOTAL COST: $0.12

Just faxed the signed settlement agreement back to Wells Fargo.

They won't wire into my account, but I'm supposed to get a check for $1,000 within a week.

I'm releasing them from all liability (including the incorrect reporting) and they will remove the inquiry from my report.

No confidentiality clause included. While this site never came up, I guess they have been reading.

It took a few days longer than promised, but Fed Ex finally delivered today.

Normally I wouldn't care, but considering that I almost went to celebrate Xmas with friends out of town and I had told them that I needed to make arrangements .... Well, good thing I didn't go anywhere.

Sure is strange that a bank like Wells Fargo was unable to WIRE into my account, and that they had to mail it from Iowa to California to remail it to me.

Attached Images

 

Wow Christine, I am very impressed with your persistance and ultimate success. Keep up the good work!!!

Great job! Can't wait till you put the gloves on again, Christine. Who's next? Enjoyed this thread so much I made my wife read it!

Ok, I'm now a believer. Christine is my hero. Wow!

Doc

Thanks, all, BUT -- I didn't post this so that ** I ** can do this again. This is supposed to be inspirational.

YOU are supposed to get YOUR checks now!

Remember what it took to get that check:

I sued Wells Fargo for incorrect credit reporting. While I had to dismiss the law suit because I wasn't able to show up for the hearing, the account disappeared from my credit.

Wells ran my credit because of my suit. Then I got my $1,000 without having to go to court.

I don't know how many creditors run the credit in response to a law suit, and Wells Fargo probably won't anymore. But this is one FCRA violation that actually provides for serious $$$.

Don't be afraid to stand up for your rights!

I am using my own version of this tactic with my old landlord. I anm trying for a vacate of judgment and $500 in damages.

Thanks.

I hope it works, and sure would like to hear more about vacating the judgment.

I just found out that I might have shorted myself $1,500 by settling with Wells Fargo:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/d...1785.30-1785.35

"(3) In the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer credit report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, an award of actual damages pursuant to paragraph (1) or subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) shall be in an amount of not less than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500)."

So I went to look up "natural person" at findlaw.com:

"natural person -- a human being as distinguished from a person (as a corporation) created by operation of law"

That's what I thought. Haven't found yet what the California penalty for corporations is. Anyone?

I just went to find the FTC Opinion Letters on Permissible Purpose and they are gone from the FTC Website! Is it just me or is something shady going on?

Mellie, just checked the link above to the Greenblatt letter and it worked.

Also, please DO let me know if ANY links here don't work so I can fix it!

I'm new. Please redirect me if this isn't posted properly. After reading Christine's account of the unauthorized inquiry and a ton of other postings on BayHouse, I'm wondering: Could it benefit my husband to challenge the unauthorized credit inquiry Bank of America made on his credit in Aug. 2001? Wachovia had denied us a mortgage loan. He talked with a rep from B of A and provided her with a copy of his report from Wachovia, including FICO scores. He specifically requested that they not pull his credit unless they felt he could qualify for something withe them based on the info he was providing. They never told him that they pulled his credit and he did not make application for a loan with them. Now we're trying again for a mortgage loan and we discovered the unauthorized inquiry by B of A. Any suggestions?

I'd send them a fax asking what their permissible purpose was. They'll probably say that you applied for the loan.

Then it comes down to who the judge believes, BofA or you. IF it gets that far.

I sent a fax to a group asking what their permissible purpose was. They claim that because I spoke with (one conversation mind you) a credit counseling service they pulled a credit report. This was an initial consultation, no paperwork had been signed or anything. I was not applying for a debt consolidation loan so what gives.

They MAY be right - it's for a judge to decide.

The FTC states that anyone who you want to do business with is entitled to pull your credit, including every person you offer to pay by check.

I do NOT think that an initial consultation qualifies, BUT I'm not the judge.

I'd send them the fax stating that you did NOT apply for credit with them nor authorize their pulling your credit, and ** I ** would sue for my $1,000 if they don't pay within a week.

You may not get the judgment, but it would certainly be another reason to amend the FCRA and to get you your PIN for your credit file.

I'll personally pay your filing fees if you post (or let me post) who it is and, if you do NOT get your $1,000, the copy of the paper with the judge's signature. I'd like to post that (without your name and personal data) as proof that we need FCRA changes.