Thoughts on soft pulls from a CA

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by mindcrime, May 14, 2015.

  1. mindcrime

    mindcrime Well-Known Member

    Particularly for you jam ;)

    PRA does a monthly soft INQ on my report. Never anything in the mail, but they love calling from random numbers that through the magic of Google, allows me to see it's them. I never answer, and they never leave a VM.

    Any debt that is still unpaid is well out of SOL and reporting period. They know that too, otherwise they'd be reporting. Guess they're not as stupid as sometimes we hope.

    I've never attacked a CA from this angle before, and perhaps I'm looking at it all wrong, so I wanted to bounce this off you;



    Section 606 FCRA Disclosure of investigative consumer reports. --

    A person may not procure or cause to
    be prepared an investigative consumer report on any consumer unless
    (1)
    it is clearly and accurately disclosed to the consumer that an inves
    -
    tigative consumer report including information as to his character
    general reputation, personal characteristics and mode of living,
    whichever are applicable, may be made, and such disclosure
    (A)
    is made in a writing mailed, or otherwise delivered, to the
    consumer, not later than three days after the date on which the
    report was first requested, and
    (B)
    includes a statement informing the consumer of his right to
    request the additional disclosures provided for under subsection
    (b) of this section and the written summary of the rights of the
    consumer prepared pursuant to section 609(c) [§
    1681g]; and
    (2)
    the person certifies or has certified to the consumer reporting agency
    that
    (A)
    the person has made the disclosures to the consumer required
    by paragraph (1); and
    (B)
    the person will comply with subsection (b).
    (b)
    Disclosure on request of nature and scope of investigation
    . Any person
    who procures or causes to be prepared an investigative consumer report
    on any consumer shall, upon written request made by the consumer within
    a reasonable period of time after the receipt by him of the disclosure
    required by subsection (a)(1) of this section, make a complete and accu
    -
    rate disclosure of the nature and scope of the investigation requested. This
    disclosure shall be made in a writing mailed, or otherwise delivered, to
    the consumer not later than five days after the date on which the request
    for such disclosure was received from the consumer or such report was
    first requested, whichever is the later. [/I]

    Am I reading this wrong in thinking that if a business obtains a consumer's credit report, there has to be disclosure to the consumer? None of the above happens as far as I know.





    Then, there's section 604 Permissible purposes of consumer reports;

    This, IMO, is so floppy. What PP would a CA have on an account beyond SOL? What legitimate business need would there be? And IF it's okay for a business to obtain a consumers CR, but takes no action after obtaining the report, where's the line drawn. Checking up on me 12 times a year doesn't do anything for them. And calling but not leaving messages or sending Please Pay Us letters, isn't benefiting them either. It's a big stalker-ish on their part.


    .....your thoughts, always welcome.
     
  2. JoshuaHeckathorn

    JoshuaHeckathorn Administrator

    Not sure why jam didn't reply, but I came across your post and found it to be an interesting situation that I've seen quite a few times before as well.

    Did this CA ever back off over the past year? Or have they continued to do monthly soft pulls and try to collect the debt?

    Even though the SOL has expired, that doesn't necessarily mean the CA can't try to collect the debt. They can't sue you to collect the debt, but they can still try to collect in other ways if they want to waste their time. My assumption is that they could prove they have permissible purpose as well if they are truly the owner of the debt.
     
  3. jam237

    jam237 Well-Known Member

    It was posted in the wrong month... Real Life happens in May; and it doesn't let me to check the forums as usual as typically.

    The PP section of the FCRA, doesn't specifically state that the debt must be of a particular legal status; just that they have (or have a good faith belief that they have) a debt that you are the relevant creditor.

    The biggest part in your situation is the phone calls; that would be an FDCPA violation for causing the phone to ring for no other purpose than to annoy, abuse, and harass.

    I would send them a letter (a) challenging their PP; and (b) demanding validation of any and all accounts; (c) notifying them that I intend to sue for causing my phone to ring for no other purpose than to annoy, abuse and harass; and not providing the requisite notifications that they are a debt collector, and that any information would be used for that purpose, and that you had the right to demand validation of the alleged account.

    If they are calling a phone number that goes to my cell phone number, I would add the TCPA for an additional $500.00 per call made by automated dialer; and the additional FDCPA violation for causing charges to be incurred for their communications without meaningful disclosure of the collection purpose.
     
  4. JoshuaHeckathorn

    JoshuaHeckathorn Administrator

    If you can't tell, Jam doesn't mess around :)
     

Share This Page