Yep, although you might wanna make sure and wait for another person here to confirm this as I am not completely sure. Better yet, why don't you e-mail the Lending Tree guys because they can answer you better...

Have you read the FCRA? Collectors are allowed to pull your report for collection purposes..

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

(a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other:.

(1) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, or a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury..

(2) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates..

(3) To a person which it has reason to believe.

(A) intends 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; or..

Ok, Irish eyes, now you know. You have the opinon of an expert in FCRA matters and you can believe what he says is correct...

QuestionCan a CA permissibly pull a hard inquiry for an account that has previously been disputed with the OC and the OC has agreed to delete from all CRA's?.

This may sound like a "chicken or the egg" type of question. But how can a CA have a permissible purpose if there exists no permissible account?..

I hear you and I have a very similiar situation I am working on right now..

They don't, they can't but it is normally a matter of failure to communicate between the two when it happens. Simple matter of failure to communicate...

This is really an issue of Credit Scoring. The FCRA speaks to Collectors being able to pull reports, but it doesn't specifiy how the report is coded. As such, consumers suffer from these hard inqs. Many collectors do this to damage your credit scores and others simply "miscode"..

I would write to the collector and ask their permissible purpose.Inform them that they can recode it if it is they are referencing account # ___. If they do not remove or reccode it, you should send them another letter of intent to sue. If you get an informed Judge, you have a good shot of deletion. But the key is to sue for statuatory damages of $1,000 per violation, this makes the deletion settlement more likely. I have had success using this method..

Good luck...

My gut instinct is to ask nicely for a deletion and if that fails, go straight to small claims for the $1k permissible purpose violation. If I fax them the CRA deletion letter from the OC before court, I've basically shown all my cards (not smart)...

Thank you for your quick to judgement answer, obviously I realize they can pull your report, hence the question of how to make sure the inquiry is coded properly as not to hurt ones score..

I was basically asking if there is some legal back up somewhere that I was missing in order to force their hand at deletion or recoding. Thank you for those who tried to help...

Thank you you have hit the nail on the head here. Say I send the pp letter and they don't budge. What legal backing do I have for a $1000 violation, technically they can pull so where is the violation of the FCRA? Are you saying roll the dice and see what the judge has to say?.

Will2win, has your sucess been deletion/recoding or actually going to court and having a judge decide?..

Get off your high horse. I asked you a simple question. Your question or post was " you decided your inq's should be recoded". I wasn't making any judgment. Some of you people have serious ego problems. Ask a question, get an answer you don't like, and you make some snotty remark.



This is another reason I had left. I should have stayed away. BTW, your question or post gave absolutely no indication that you had read the statute or that you knew what it said..

BBauer apparently didn't find anything "judgmental" in my answer..

Furthermore, if I was trying to be judgmental and not trying tohelp, would I have bothered to post the pertinent statute? I think not. So, you just go right ahead and try to get it recoded and see how far you get. It won't work, they have every right to pull a HARD inq. if it is a legit acct...

I agree that you are correct and didn't have issue with the fact that they are allowed to pull a report. My issue is that since they pull hards "because they can" why can't the consumer protect themselves by challenging that..

I wanted iformation on challenging them in regards to changing the coding, not on the fact that they pulled it at all..

I do appoligize for my snappy remark and realize that is was unnecessarily harsh. I thank you for your opinion...

I may be off the wall and out to lunch, but I think that in order to resolve some of these problems one has to look at why the law was written and therefore how. One needs to look at the context in other words. It seems to me that FCRA was written in the context of regulating what credit bureaus do and how they do it with their protection in mind and not so much the consumer's interests or protection. We already know from congressional record and comments by media that while the original intent of Congress was consumer protection the credit bureaus jumped into the fray with all their might and money. And they were few and they were powerful. They were well organized and well lobbied.

Congress originally wanted to put a strong rope on them and snub it up tight. But the credit bureaus put all their might against it. What we ended up with was the proverbial watered down result. They had to accept at least some minimal and reasonable restraints but in the end the consumer really lost. Thats because the few consumer advocates didn't haveanywhere near the power the credit bureaus did and the public didn't raise a hue and cry against the bureaus so they pretty much got the best of the deal..

It was very different in FDCPA. The public had screamed loud and long about the abuses heaped upon them by collectors and the collectors didn't have the collective clout that the credit bureus did nor the money to fight. But the big banks did and they jumped in with all four feet. They got original creditors, meaning them, off the hook and out of harm's way. Although Congress stated that FDCPA was intended to be a shield rather than a sword, bill collectors took it on the chin. Consumers often fail to see the differences..

It took me a long time to see how you meant that or at least probably meant that and as a result I almost made a boo-boo. It seems to me now that you probably meant "how they coded it" not how the law is coded..

While I must admit that I am as green as a gourd and probably about as dumb as a fencepost I simply fail to see how you can force them to do that which they are not forbidden to do under the law. That is another "hidden" part to all law that folks often don't stop to think about when they feel wronged. They can do anything at all which is not expressly forbidden them to do by the law..

If it is not forbidden by the law they can do it and they probably will...

Thanks Bill for your insight and perspective. I just thought since we use some loopholes to our advatage in other areas of credit repair, I could find one here..

I guess the reasoning that "they pull a hard because they can" is really the strong point here. There is nothing stated to protect the consumer and limit the collector..

Since CA's are not really about goodwill gestures of deletion, I guess I am stuck between a rock and a hard place until that loophole opens up somewhere...

I agree with all the talk of Hard and soft Inq. I myself would like a few of these gone from my report or recoded. However, before I waste all the time fighting this issue. How significant of a Neg. is a hard inquiry..

I am under the impression that I get about 5 - 20 neg points for high number of inq. Is this true??.

If true, then I don't think it's worth the effort to fight it...

OK, I think maybe y'all are missing the real issue here. When you have a collection inquiry, it is not just the fact that it is a hard inquiry, it is the fact that it is coded as a "collection" inquiry..

Now, all hard inquiries count, but a "collection" inquiry is devastating, especially if you have gotten the underlying account off your report, but the CA continues to pull inquiries. It is called "poisoning" your credit file..

Your real problem is that.

You have a collection agency after you..

The inquiries are a by-product of the real issue. You've got to get rid of the CA, and the account that they have, in an effective manner, so that they do not dare put collection inquiries on your reports..

Am I making sense here?.

So, put your creative mind to work on the real issue - getting rid of that account and that CA, in a manner that makes them think twice about peeking at your credit file again. Cause if they don't peek, you don't get an inquiry. They are peeking to see if there's any way they can get money from you..

Finding shortcuts and loopholes will help with the immediate situation sometimes, but in the end, you have to do a thorough job of chasing them ALL off for good. Otherwise the problem isn't solved, it's just delayed til another time. They will be back, & they will do something else, and you will be starting over again...

No, not a chance!.

ROFLMAO!!!.

You bet your boots you make sense lady!.

It's exactly what I keep harping on all the time...

What about the CA's that pull your report, send you a collection letter, but then fail to respond to your Validation letter? If they can't validate a debt, did they really have a permissible purpose? This happened to my husband. They never put a Trade Line on his report because the debt was over 7 years old. I didn't send anything after the Validation letter, figured they had dropped it. Was this a bad move on my part? If there is no Trade Line and no response to the Validation letter, do you need to send anything to follow up?..

My turn to jump in and to add to Breeze's excellent response..

I've always subscribed to the view that if a CA had your account, then their pulls should be coded as ARs, however, I just ran across this on the Credit Expert site:.

This would seem to allow the first inquiry to be HARD..

Interestingly, ANY thing insurance ralted in EX has a soft code.....

Yes. The permissible purpose is collections. Plenty good enough for government work..

You assumed something. Never assume anything. Those firt three letters in the word should answer the question of what you become in net effect if you assume anything..

Well, maybe and maybe not. If you just love the idea of the sheriff showing up at your door in that shiny police car with the pretty lights on top and standing there in that neat uniform and knocking on your door then just do nothing. Your turn may very well be soon forthcoming. On the other hand if you don't even want to see that sucker with that big pistol on the hip then maybe you ought to get a bit more concerned about it now before it's too late. (LOL).

Maybe you need a concentrated plan of attack and a few letters to send out. Debtors do not live by validation letters alone. It takes a whole lot more than that and the reason is that because one little violation is not going to hang the thug out to dry...

My problem is that the CA pulled a hard inquiry on an account that the OC had months earlier agreed (yes, I have this in writing) to delete from all CRA's..

Would the "collections purpose" umbrella shield any CA who attempted to collect the non-debt. My theory is that if there is no debt, there is no permissible purpose. This is the $1000 question for me...

I appreciate the advice. What letter do you send to a CA that is past the SOL, has not answered a Validation letter and has made no further contact with you? I don't think I've seen that addressed. As I said, there is no TL, so I can't complain that they haven't removed it...

Do you really enjoy kicking sleeping dogs? Best be careful lest they jump up and bite you..

That is not the real reason for validation in my opinion. Validation is better used when the dog is at least growling at you a little bit. Curling up his lips at the very least, showing his teeth indicating that he has intent to bite you. If he is peacefully snoring away in the noonday sun give him a wide berth and leave him alone. Tread softly and don't even take the chance he might jump up and bite you..

(LOL)..

Bill what do you suggest we do w/ CA's reporting past the SOL then, just dispute as not mine and cross your fingers?..

Please ignore the advice I gave KAK. Get out a bloody club and whack him a good one. He jumped up out of his noonday snooze and tried to turn your leg into a fire hydrant..

Probably.

He thinks there is and the credit bureau won't argue with him so you lose..

If thats all it's worth you need to whack him a few more times. At a $1000 a whack times maybe 4 or 5 or more whacks and it will be worth your time to go do the numbers on him..

And that creditor too. He should have kept his word. I'm doing a case like like that right now only it was the dog that broke his written word not his master...

I'm a guy who kicks lot of metaphorical dogs, but I think there is some goos implicit advice in Bill's comment above:.

Inquiries, hard or soft only stay on the report for two years. If you've dicovered someone pulled something yesterday, then maybe you need to pursue it. If it's been sleeping a while - maybe you didn't know about it or have been planning what to do, maybe it's better to just let it drop off..

Before I would agressively pursue a PP issue, I'd be pretty sure I was in the right and I would be prepared to take it to court...

LOL Bill do you talk in riddles all the time...I swear I have to sit and think through everything you write!! Tell you what, that does an old brain such as mine good every now and then!..

I have always wondered if the CA practice of creating multiple hard inquiries on a credit report could be the basis for a libel suit..

The elements of the tort of libel are.

Identification.

Defamation.

Communication/Publication.

Fault.

Damages.

A credit report clearly identifies the individual consumer..

The element of defamation is satisfied in that the inquiries are intended to give the impression that the CA is actively attempting to collect on multiple accounts..

Note that the language above indicates that an inquiry is created on the.

Transfer.

Of an account to a collection agency..

The element of communication is obviously satisfied where the credit report has been provided to third-parties. This could be proved by other inquiries subsequent to the CA's inquiry..

With respect to fault, it is fairly simple to argue that the multiple inquiries are either due to malice or negligence. Either basis is representative of culpable behavior..

Damages - This is why one needs to apply for credit and to be turned down as a result of the CA's poisoning of the credit report..

I see a slander lawsuit as a way of getting around the permissible purpose a CA has under the FCRA..

Does anyone have another take on this?..

No. Every once in a while I get accused of saying something that finally made at least a little bit of sense..

Tell you what, my friend. We do see an awful lot of just idle chit chat and joking and what have you on this and many other boards. I don't allow much of it on my board for the very simple reason that I just don't have the room for it that they do over here otherwise I would..

But the whole point is that even though some of it may seem to be nothing but useless and mindless chatter it pays good dividends to pay close attention because lots of times people do make excellent points and sometimes without really meaning to..

I wish I had a buck for every time I read a message which seemed to be nothing but chatter but in the process the poster brought some little point that solved problems for me or taught me something I desperately needed to know. If I had dismissed it for what it seemed to be at first glance I would have missed that valuable information..

There are a couple of posters here that really get under my skin from time to time but dang it, seems like just about the time my displeasure is at it's peak and I'm about to lash out at them they somehow manage to pop off with something really worthwhile..

Kind of goes to prove the wisdom of what Father Flanagan used to say, "There is a little good in the worst of us and a little bad in the best of us.".

Truer words were probably never spoken...

Did you pursue this? How did it turn out?..