Ouestion about accessing credit files

[truth4all]

Who is legally allowed to access your credit files. Your original creditor is naturally.
Can an ATTORNEY for a Plaintiff access your credit files? Wouldn't the Plaintiff/original creditor have the only access to your credit files legally if they say they still own the debt?
I know collection agencies can access them but they have been assigned or bought the debt so that would make it an authorized inquiry.
My point is this.
IF an collection attorney pulls a credit report in HIS name and not the name of the Plaintiff is he pulling an unauthorized inquiry or does this mean he has purchased the debt and is now owner of the debt?
He cannot sue you in the name of the Plaintiff/original creditor if he has purchased the debt. The is fraud.
Can he sue you in the name of the Plaintiff/original creditor if he has been "assigned" the debt for collection ?
And, is he authorized to pull an inquiry on your credit files if he has only been assigned the debt?
thanks for the help

[truth4all]

ANYONE KNOW ???
Just point me in the right direction and I will research it,
The Credit laws are not specific on this.

[seeker]

If you search the FCRA, (I think) there is a section on "authorized access" that may give you some starting pointers -- SJ -- didn't you have a thread here somewhere about challenging (I know! questioning!) the validity of inquiries -- how did that work out?

That may be my next hurdle with the CRAs --

If you find that thread, any one, bring it forward, please.

Seeker

[truth4all]

I been the route of disputing inquiries and the CRAs don't dispute inquiries.

I am looking for specific information as to what constitutes specific "other legitimate business needs".

This was shown to me..

Attorney Use of Credit Reports of Opponent Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act

Description
Attorney representing patients in suit against a dentist obtained credit reports on dentist and his daughters. Appeals court upheld trial court verdict that such use was not business need allowed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act and upheld damage award.

Topic
Consumer Protection

Key Words
Fair Credit Reporting Act, Business Need

C A S E S U M M A R Y

Facts
McKinnon represented the patients of Bakker (a dentist), who were suing Bakker. McKinnon obtained credit reports on Bakker and his two daughters as background work for the litigation, supposedly to make sure he was not judgment proof and had not been transferring assets to his daughters. Bakker and his daughters sued McKinnon for violating the FCRA, for obtaining credit reports for purposes not allowed under the Act. District court held for plaintiffs, awarding each $500 compensatory damages and $5,000 punitive damages. McKinnon appealed.

Decision
Affirmed. The credit reports were "consumer reports" within the meaning of the FCRA. McKinnon’s use of the reports was not a legitimate "business need" under the Act, which specifies such needs to be credit transactions, employment purposes, insurance, government licenses, or other legitimate business needs.

Citation
Bakker v. McKinnon, — F.3d — (1998 WL 514652, 8th Cir.)
or
152 F. 3d 1007 (8th Cir., 1998)


It seems to me that a Debt Collection Attorney who pulls your credit files has either been ASSIGNED the debt or PURCHASED the debt.
In either case they cannot sue you on BEHALF of the original creditor if so.
That is deceptice practices and down right fraud.

They would have to name THEMSELVES as Plaintiff and NOT the original creditor.
After all why would they need to access you files if the original creditor/Plaintiff says you owe the debt.
It would seem they are trying to find out if you are judgement proof as in the case above.
Am I right?

[Jerseee]

truth4all,

1. Who's credit report is it?

2. have the alleged debts been validated?

Think before answering these questions and you may find the answers to your own questions.

have fun

[truth4all]

I must be missing the boat. Sorry.

It's my credit files and I had never heard of this attorney at the time he accessed my files.
I have since then and we're way past validation.
He's suing me regarding a credit card and and he has named the bank as plaintiff.
He says the bank still owns the debt.

If the bank still owns the debt then I think he did not have the right to access my credit files UNLESS "representing" the plaintiff/bank IS considered a "legitimate business need".
That is what I am trying to ascertain.

Personally I think he has purchased the debt and he is suing me claiming the bank is the Plaintiff when he is OWNS the debt.

Sorry if this is something I SHOULD know. I don't, and I cant find an answer in the FCRA.

Thanks for all of your help.

[Jerseee]

truth4all,

Not a problem, glad to help if I can. I have another question for you to help you begin to see things a little more clearer before dealing with this "attorney".

My question is: If they are your credit files then why don't you have control over them?

Originally Posted by truth4all

I must be missing the boat. Sorry.

It's my credit files and I had never heard of this attorney at the time he accessed my files.
I have since then and we're way past validation.
He's suing me regarding a credit card and and he has named the bank as plaintiff.
He says the bank still owns the debt.

If the bank still owns the debt then I think he did not have the right to access my credit files UNLESS "representing" the plaintiff/bank IS considered a "legitimate business need".
That is what I am trying to ascertain.

Personally I think he has purchased the debt and he is suing me claiming the bank is the Plaintiff when he is OWNS the debt.

Sorry if this is something I SHOULD know. I don't, and I cant find an answer in the FCRA.

Thanks for all of your help.