Outline · Standard · [ Linear+ ] Ameriquest "pre-qualified" me! Didn't they just decline my application?, NO permissible purpose for PROMO inquiry - class action?

[Christine]

Isn't that something. After declining my mortgage application for *any* amount with a 20%+ down payment and ZERO debt, Ameriquest wrote to me:

"We've already pre-qualified you for The No-Stress Home Loan. To find out how much you qualify for, call us now at (888) 765-8574 or go to www.ameriquestloans.com."

And "In fact, your personal mortgage specialist will even complete the paperwork for you."

Hah, yeah, I'm aware how that works. Lie, cheat and lie some more.

I sure hope a law firm will file a class action for violating the FCRA.

§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b]

"© 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

(A) the consumer authorizes the agency to provide such report to such person; or

(B) (i) the transaction consists of a firm offer of credit or insurance; "

I did NOT authorize Ameriquest to order my credit, and this sure as hell is NOT a firm offer of credit.

Ameriquest is obviously targeting people with credit problems and I suppose my credit score sucks.

They don't even disclose which credit bureau supplied the report (page 2, first paragraph) -- I suppose they got a list of all consumers with low scores, I'll find out. Can't wait for discovery.

Legislators allowed those "promo" inquiries to get consumers good deals. Ameriquest (and others) abuse the system to target consumers with low scores, bankruptcies and/or or late payments - and they don't even make a firm offer of credit.

I didn't know that my credit report contained information on homeownership.

[Christine]

The FTC submitted it's Brief Of Amicus Curiae in support the plaintiff, Oneta S. Cole, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. U.S. Capital, Inc., Autonation Usa Corporation, and Jerry Gleason Chevrolet, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

If you don’t want to read the brief, here’s the 4/23/04 plain English FTC press release:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/04/fyi0427.htm

Target marketing has been the FTC’s pet peeve for many years and Trans Union was fighting the FTC with all they had, but eventually lost the long court battle.

From the 11/22/04 article Court should get to test-drive claim over credit report at http://www.edcombs.com/CM/News/News302.asp

“A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit that claims an auto dealer’s offer to extend credit was a sham used to gain access to the plaintiff’s credit report.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held Friday that there was enough disputed evidence to allow plaintiff Oneta S. Cole to pursue her claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Cole alleges that an auto dealership and a finance company violated the FCRA when they pulled her credit report before sending her an unsolicited flyer announcing that she had been “pre-approved” for credit.

U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah dismissed Cole’s suit after concluding that the flyer complied with the requirements of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. sec1681.

...”

Chicago attorney Daniel A. Edelman represented Cole before the 7th Circuit.

I’m thrilled that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC took this case, APPEALED and PREVAILED. Check their website for tons of great consumer law info, including FCRA, FDCPA and TCPA: http://www.edcombs.com

My case against Ameriquest is of course MUCH better than Cole’s because there is no question that the offer was a SHAM.

Ameriquest denied my application only a few months ago! I wasn’t qualified for ANY loan amount.