Consumer complaint received 2024-12-13 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Improper use of your report — Reporting company used your report improperly
Company: RAS LaVrar, LLC
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
RE : XXXX Bank XXXX credit Card illegal credit report pull and access by RAS LaVrar XXXX XXXX collector and attorneys for TD Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX and extinguishment of debt or reporting {$0.00} balance mandatory -- -Schultz claims and alleges that XXXX, possibly with the express premeditated approval and direction of its counsel and debt collector, RAS LAVRAR LLC, willfully violated the FCRA, FDCPA, FCCPA and other statutes by knowingly and unlawfully obtaining his credit report multiple times after XX/XX/XXXX including the criminal XX/XX/XXXX credit pull of RAS LAVRAR LLC ( RAS XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( SEE EXHIBIT B, attached hereto ). Since XX/XX/XXXX, RAS commenced at least XXXX public record lawsuits in XXXX against XXXX, all of which have been dismissed, with prejudice, for which at least XXXX XXXX cases have been involved RAS including the illegal credit pulls described herein, including a federal case for which RAS was and was found to be in contempt of court on about XXXX multiple occasions set forth below. To wit, on XX/XX/XXXX, RAS, as attorney for TD, sued XXXX in XXXX [ XXXX Bank XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX ] ( SEE EXHIBIT C, attached hereto ) filing prohibited documents resulting in courts XX/XX/XXXX Order of Dismissal. The filing of such lawsuit clearly constituted a willful violation of the FDCPA and FCRA as intended solely harass, threaten and intimidate XXXX, without the intent to prosecute it, despite XXXX multiple CFPB complaints and disputes to CRAs and TD claiming that {$0.00} was owed. TDs relentless FCRA and FDCPA acts and violations subsequent to XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Cease and Desist Notices filed in CFPB complaints and served upon TD and RAS and filed in 50 page debt validation notices by XXXX on numerous occasions constitute grounds that RAS and TD had no entitlement to access XXXX credit reports. RAS and TD have thus received constructive notice of the consequences of past criminal credit pulls but they have continued knowing the criminal consequences would result in further AAA proceedings, including this case. XXXX contends that each and every XXXX of the multiple credit pulls violated XXXX separate FCRA provisions : XXXX that prohibits obtaining a credit report for an improper purpose, and XXXX that prohibits obtaining a credit report under false pretenses. XXXX has a plausible claim for each of the separate and distinct violations. More importantly, evidence exists of conduct that credit pulls have been wrongfully deleted from XXXX XXXX credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX believed to conceal the illegal credit pulls to avoid civil and/or criminal liability. The FCRA prohibits a person from using or obtaining a credit report for any purpose unless " the consumer report is obtained for a purpose for which the consumer report is authorized to be furnished under this section. " XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( f ) ( XXXX ). The FCRA narrowly circumscribes the purposes for which a person XXXX obtain a credit report.Seeid. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( listing exhaustively all purposes for which a person XXXX obtain a credit report ). Among other purposes, a person XXXX obtain a credit report to " use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer. " Id. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). The statute also requires the " prospective user '' of the report to certify the purpose for which the credit report is sought and to certify the report will be used for no other XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( f ) ( XXXX ) ( requiring certification according to the procedure set out XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ). XXXX also alleges that TD violated the certification requirement by illegally accessing credit reports. TD ( and/or its XXXX RAS LAVRAR ) failed to certify as the user of the report the true purpose for which the information is sought. Whats more, to comply with XXXX ( f ), a person seeking a consumer report must both obtain it for a purpose authorized by the XXXX the purpose according to XXXX ( a ). Failing to do either will give rise to liability. XXXX alleges both. XXXX alleges TD obtained his credit report for use solely in litigation. XXXX disputed any and all claims of TD further alleging that TD owed XXXX huge amounts for statutory and punitive damages for TDs willful violations of the FCRA documented in numerous direct and indirect disputes filed in CFPB complaints in the prior 24 months. XXXX also demanded that TD permanently delete each and every TDs accounts from CRAs as the continual reporting of incomplete, conflicting, facially false and inaccurate data were grounds to bar further credit reporting on grounds of privacy. XXXX further demanded that all disputes of any kind be resolved through XXXX pursuant to TDs arbitration agreement. XXXX clearly demanded arbitration and filed his election to arbitrate any and all disputes including XXXX claims against TD. XXXX demanded that TD file arbitration papers and pay the arbitration fees so that the elected arbitration could move forward. TDs lead counsel jumped the XXXX without getting all its ducks in a row without having any idea of the issues and disputes by filing XXXX XXXX notices despite XXXX cease and desist written demands to TD. Not only did TD intentionally violate the cease and desist demands by mailing multiple Debt Validation notices, but TD and/or its counsel RAS LaVrar , LLC illegally and subsequently pulled XXXX credit report for the sole purpose to ascertain how XXXX would XXXX to litigation and the extent to which a judgment could be collected. Pulling XXXX credit reports had no real purpose except for different agents or employees wanting to take a peak for no real purpose other than to harass. RAS LaVrar LLC had already effectively pulled XXXX XXXX reports directly or indirectly for TD on at least XXXX occasion from XXXX XXXX so pulling it for TD again on XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX were each illegal and improper with no purpose. The true purpose XXXX have been an attempt for attorneys trying to get more business by contacting creditors listed on XXXX credit reports. RAS LaVrar represented other banks XXXX accounts which XXXX has closed arbitration demands and a closed XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for willful FCRA XXXX for which RAS refused to dismiss XXXX cases despite a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. So pulling XXXX credit reports for TD is certainly illegal. It violates the FCRA, FDCPA, XXXX, FS Sections XXXX, Floridas Extortion Statute Section XXXX for {$10000.00} penalties per violation, Floridas XXXX enacted Adult Protective Services XXXX, XXXX. XXXX through XXXX, and Section XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) of the CFPA prohibiting unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices to obtain a consumer report for use in litigation or ambulance chasing or for mounting a joint attack with XXXX creditors. XXXX does not appear in the exhaustive list of purposes for which the FCRA authorizes a person to obtain a credit XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ; see alsoBakker XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( rejecting the argument that the defendant, " an attorney representing clients in litigation,... had a business need to obtain credit reports on the opposing parties '' ) ; XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( " [ T ] rial preparation generally does not fall within the scope of XXXX. " ). Given the timing, TD might plausibly have obtained XXXX credit report for use in litigation or mounting an attack with other creditors of XXXX by counsel for TD or for attorneys illegally seeking more clients. The public record in XXXX XXXX and XXXX courts demonstrate that XXXX has filed or ordered by a XXXX XXXX XXXX to file XXXX separate arbitration cases with the XXXX resulting in XXXX XXXX case closures due to confidential settlements which RAS and TD seek to uncover illegally for use in litigation. In XXXX pending AAA cases, RASs paralegal, Litigation Legal Assistant, XXXX XXXX, during XX/XX/XXXX fraudulently wrote to XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX with extensive reply communications criminally claiming that it was counsel for the Respondent Chase in AAA cases and was criminally granted access to XXXX XXXX case files to again assist TD and other potential clients of RAS in litigation to harass, threaten, intimidate XXXX with privileged private information. RASs egregious conduct of illegal abusive and deceitful debt collection practices, approved by its clients, including TD, must be punished with statutory and XXXX fold punitive damages. XXXX also adequately alleges a willful violation of the statute as the credit pulls were after the cease and desist notices and within a short time of sending multiple the XXXX XXXX Notices. Evidence exists that there is a pattern of retaliatory conduct by clients of RAS LaVrar in violating cease and desist notices and pulling credit reports illegally for litigation, harassment and ambulance chasing. XXXX alleges TD and its attorneys, RAS LaVrar obtained the report multiple times for use in litigation even though the statute, which sets out an exhaustive list of permissible purposes, nowhere authorizes the use of credit reports in litigation or ambulance chasing. These actions plausibly " ran a risk of violating the law substantially greater than the risk associated with a reading that was merely careless. " XXXX, XXXX XXXX at XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX. The statute plainly says a consumer reportingagency XXXX " furnish a [ credit report ] under the following circumstancesand no other. " XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( emphasis added ). Separately, the FCRA makes it a crime to " knowingly and willfully obtain [ ] information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses. " XXXX XXXX. XXXX. This crime, contained in the same subchapter as the rest of the FCRA, is enforceable by the FCRAs private right of action.Id. XXXX ( " Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer .... '' ) ; id. XXXX ( " Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer .... '' ) ; seeKennedy v. XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( holding a civil cause of action exists under XXXX to enforce XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( same ). The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has addressed the meaning of " false pretenses '' in XXXX of the FRCA. Consistent with every other court to address this issue, it now holds, under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) that intentionally obtaining a credit report under the guise of a permissible purpose while intending to use the report for an impermissible purpose can constitute false pretenses under XXXX v. XXXX Fed XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( per XXXX ) ; XXXX XXXX at XXXX ; see XXXX XXXX AT & XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). Negligent misrepresentation of the purpose will not suffice for liability under XXXX ; the offending party must intentionally misrepresent his purpose for obtaining the credit report. Just as XXXX alleged enough to state a violation of XXXX ( f ), he has alleged enough to state a violation of XXXX. XXXX alleges that TD, through its debt collector and attorney XXXX, " knowingly and willfully made false representations [ to XXXX, XXXX and/or XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX obtain information, '' " failed to disclose [ its ] true motivation in obtaining information [ to XXXX, XXXX and/or XXXX XXXX ], XXXX and " knowingly and willfully obtained information ... [ from XXXX, XXXX and/or XXXX XXXX XXXX for use in XXXX XXXX ambulance chasing. '' XXXX has valid claims for willful violations with statutory FDCPA damages of {$7000.00}, {$1000.00} for each of the XXXX related violations, plus at least XXXX fold but more appropriately XXXX fold punitive damages of between {$9000.00} to {$80000.00} for each of the XXXX violations [ {$70000.00} to {$630000.00} ] on this issue alone far exceeding Chases frivolous claims of less than {$900.00} plus barred penalties. Given that a crime was most likely committed under XXXX, punitive damages must be awarded on the highest range possible following the XXXX v. XXXX Banking, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) jury award with the extinguishment of disputed credit card debt of TD currently claimed to be {$1300.00}.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation