CA pulled hard inquiry!?!

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by freddiemil, Aug 4, 2002.

  1. freddiemil

    freddiemil Well-Known Member

    WTF? I was good enough to settle with them on an old account and they go and pull a hard inquiry. Any suggestions? I never authorized them to do so.

    note: I've been negotiating with them to delete an old charge-off. Is this decent ammo?
     
  2. LKH

    LKH Well-Known Member

    Has it been paid in full as per negotiation,ans if so, when? If it hasn't been paid, unfortunately, a ca can pull your report.
     
  3. smogtek

    smogtek Well-Known Member

    LKH,

    Even during the validation process? I sent validation letters at the same time I disputed with the CRAs.

    The item was deleted while I was in validation and the CA has pulled 1 hard and 1 soft inquiry during the process and the item was NOT on my reports when they pulled the inquiries..
     
  4. Kinetix

    Kinetix Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure if all CRA's do this but, if I remember correctly I think it's TU that put's alittle heading under the inquiry "Permissible Purpose = Written Authorization" or "Collection Purpose" you might want to check for that.
     
  5. LKH

    LKH Well-Known Member

    If you have sent them a validation letter and they have yet to respond, and they pulled your report AFTER they received your validation, then they have no permissable purpose to pull your report as that would constitute continued collection activity, which is prohibited per FCRA opinion letters.
     
  6. LKH

    LKH Well-Known Member



    December 23, 1997

    Robert G. Cass
    Compliance Counsel
    Commercial Financial Services, Inc.
    2448 E. 81st Street, Suite 5500
    Tulsa, OK 74137-4248

    Dear Mr. Cass:

    Mr. Medine has asked me to reply to your letter of October 28, 1997, concerning the circumstances under which a debt collector may report a "charged-off debt" to a consumer reporting agency under the enclosed Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In that letter, you pose four questions, which I set out below with our answers.

    I. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report charged-off debts to a consumer reporting agency during the term of the 30-day validation period detailed in Section 1692g?" Yes. As stated in the Commission's Staff Commentary on the FDCPA (copy enclosed), a debt collector may accurately report a debt to a consumer reporting agency within the thirty day validation period (p. 50103). We do not regard the action of reporting a debt to a consumer reporting agency as inconsistent with the consumer's dispute or verification rights under § 1692g.

    II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute.

    III. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA to cease collection of a debt rather than respond to a written dispute from a consumer received during the 30-day validation period?" Yes. There is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a debt collector to continue collecting a debt after a written dispute is received. Further, there is nothing in the FDCPA that requires a response to a written dispute if the debt collector chooses to abandon its collection effort with respect to the debt at issue. See Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F.2d 1025, 1032 (6th Cir. 1992).

    IV. "Would the following action by a debt collector constitute continued collection activity under § 1692g(b): reporting a charged-off consumer debt to a consumer reporting agency as disputed in accordance with § 1692e(8), when the debt collector became aware of the dispute when the consumer sent a written dispute to the debt collector during the 30-day validation period, and no verification of the debt has been provided by the debt collector?" Yes. As stated in our answer to Question II, we view reporting to a consumer reporting agency as a collection activity prohibited by § 1692g(b) after a written dispute is received and no verification has been provided. Again, however, a debt collector must report a dispute received after a debt has been reported under § 1692e(8).

    I hope this is responsive to your request.

    Sincerely,

    John F. LeFevre
    Attorney

    Enclosure
     
  7. freddiemil

    freddiemil Well-Known Member

    wow. thanks. that helps.
     
  8. smogtek

    smogtek Well-Known Member

    LKH,

    This is the timeline:

    Jun 10 - sent 1st validation letter.
    Jun 12 - signed green card.
    Jun 17 - received "partial" validation, no signatures.
    Jun 20 - sent 2nd validation letter.
    Jun 24 - signed green card.
    Jul 10 - CA pulled hard inquiry.
    Jul 10 - CA sends letter "mere itemization" is only validation required by FDCPA.
    Jul 18 - sent 3rd validation letter.
    Jul 26 - CA's attorney sends me response.
    Jul 26 - CA pulled soft inquiry.
    Jul 30 - I filed small claims lawsuit
    Aug 4 - I find soft inquiry on CreditExpert.

    It seems to me they had no permissible purpose for pulling any inquiries.

    The validation should stop everything and even if it didn't, they did not have anything on my report to look at.

    Am I missing something here?
     
  9. G. Fisher

    G. Fisher Banned

    What was the July 26 attorney's response?
     
  10. smogtek

    smogtek Well-Known Member

    Greg,
    My 3rd letter to them included their violations and demanded $5,000 for the violations.

    Keep in mind, I twice asked for validation and twice received computer-generated account ledgers. there was nothing with my signature, but they explained that away by saying, "No signature is required as you act under implied consent when presenting for medical care. Medical bills are open book accounts and contract law does not apply".

    And I quote:

    Dear Mr Smogtek,

    "I have been requested to respond to your July 18th letter to XXXX. I have reviewed your letter and each of your contentions. All of your contentions are without merit.

    XXXX has twice provided you with sufficient validation of the debt. They have no further obligation. The letter you reference does not support your position, but even if it did, the letter clearly states it is merely an opinion of a staff attorney, and was not the official position of the FTC. Even if it were, the opinion of the FTC is not established law. In any event, XXXX has fully complied with its obligation to you.

    The 30 day validation notice is required only the first communication and that was fully complied with.

    XXXX has sent all proper notices to the credit bureaus. In fact, the Experian report you complain about demonstrates that the item does not appear on your otherwise dismal credit profile.

    There is nohting that prevents XXXX from continuing to attempt to collect your outstanding indebtedness. Your dispute is noted, but you are not the final arbiter of your debt.

    If you are unable to obtain credit, it is no doubt the result of the number of collection accounts, public records and lack of sufficient credit history.

    Your demand for settlement is rejected in its entirety. XXXX is well prepared to resist any of your frivolous threats."

    Very truly yours,

    (name deleted to protect the guilty)
     

Share This Page