I have a few inquiries that were not initiated by me and by no means have any right to be there. While other companies will take them off if you request an investigation and they're shown to be invalid like anything else... TU won't. I was on the phone with Customer Screwus Representative Imadamnedididot today and was told that because they are factual (meaning someone got my report) they cannot and will not be removed (after getting 2 form "we don't investigate inquiries" letters). I asked the TU appionted moron if she was aware that those hard inquiries negativley affected my score. She said yes. I said if I had her SSN and applied for credit a bunch of times in her name it would drag her score down, right? She said yes. I said, wouldn't it bother you? She said yes.. but there's nothing we can do. She said the FTC concurred on TU's stance as well. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I don't know if this is true and have not researched it because my eyes are 3/4 shut and I'll be going to bed early tonight. At any rate transunion is a bunch of incompetent fools and I've had it. I'm still fighting with them over a deletion the CA sent to them to delete. The other CRA's did it.. they say they're waiting for "verification" tha this was their intent. Ech... Enough. I'm rambling. Anyways has anyone figured out a way to sue a CRA (namely TU) for blatantly refusing to investigate inquiries? An idea? A hypothesis? I've had it with these people and I would like to try and sue the crap out of them. I'm not an I'll sue you kind of guy, but after their 5.3 million dollas settlement I'd think a good lawsuit might make re-think their stance. Has anyone done this and won? Have any ideas about it? I'd be willing to guinea pig an idea if it sounds plausible enough to me.
I know that Lizardking was going to court with TU regarding inquiries. I thought it was this month. Are you in Houston? Charlie
As a matter of fact I am... would it benifit me? Is Lizardking taking them to court in Houston? If so, Lizard give me a time and a place and I'll take notes, and no I am not kidding. I wil be there with a Dunn & Bradstreet Tshirt on. These people infuriate me. TU is my WORST report. Funny thing was it was my best when all of my reports were horrible. Now it's the worst because they insist on being a$$holes. I have $900 in collections accounts (2 of them) that I have letters from the CA telling me they were sent for deletion. I have faxed them twice and mailed them once to TU and they tell me they couldn't use them because the account#'s were not referenced. I wonder how much my score would jump with $200 in collections accounts as opposed to $1100. I wonder? So, I faxed the letters back to them today with the account #'s circled... in the line that started "RE: Account #..." So it's safe to assume I have it out for them. Or they could simply investigate an inquiry at this point.. or just tell me they would... Telling me they refuse to do something on a report that affects my financial wellbeing is going to get them sued... again. Ahhh... I'm ranting and if anyone takes offense to it I apologize, but there's no one here but the dog and she hates my credit rants.
Mr. Texas, I disagree with the TU woman that told you that the FTC agrees with TU's position -- in fact, just because she told you that gets my antennas all out of whack. They interpret the FCRA and FDCPA provisions for their benefit and theirs only until the FTC chimes in with a different opinion or a court does. This is the only reference to their position that I've ever been able to locate: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/cohan2.htm 5. When a re-seller furnishes a consumer report to a lender, and subsequently both the lender and the consumer claim that the request for the report was initiated in error by the lender, is the national repository that reports the "inquiry" permitted to remove the inquiry from its file at the request of the re-seller? No. If a CRA supplies a consumer report, it may reflect that event by an inquiry notation. There is no legal or policy requirement to display the inquiry (other than to the consumer in connection with disclosure pursuant to Section 609(a)(3)). The fact that a consumer report was requested "in error" does not nullify the fact that the report was furnished; that information must be retained by the CRA so that it can comply with Sections 609(a)(3) and 611(d), among other reasons. Soooooooooooooooo (those "o's" are for you, charlie) while they have told you part of the truth, they didn't tell you that there is no legal or policy requirement to display the inquiry at all, except to the consumer. YOU have a right to know who's been receiving your report -- there's no requirement it be displayed for God and the rest of world and certainly none that relates to scoring. YOU and only you have the right to know because the CRA's are supposed to assure confidentiality and they can't without placing additional requirements, or even verifying the existing requirements, on those receiving your report. Those who pay TU to see your report, that is. It isn't in their best interest to allow you to dispute them, because then you would file charges as well, then TU would be forced to be responsible for trampling on your privacy and if they had to start paying for their failure to protect your information that would offset the profits they get from those paying TU to distribute it to them. I don't believe they can get out of their duty to investigate, they are required to investigate, it is seperate from the requirement that they tell you everyone who received a copy of your report, with or without a permissable purpose. Sassy
Thanks Sassy. Very Informative! I'll read the full page on the link you provided once I can focus again. 2 days.. no sleep... just a little more work to get done...
Just thought I'd update my signature so you wouldn't take the last line out of context. Here's how it was used
"Judy Thomas has three words of advice for consumers who are trying to eradicate incorrect information from their credit reports: Document, document, document." -- LA Times You're not going to trial with verbal evidence, are you? Were the inquiries made by collectors? If not, by whom? What was their (supposed) permissible purpose? See "The Inquiry Inquiry" in the 8/11/02 updates on http://creditscoring.com.
Charlie, is Lizardking's suit in Houston? If it is, I will be there sitting along side Mr. Texas. Give me an "L". Give me an "I"........ I can't wait to see how that turns out! Tex, I feel your pain!
You got it Lisa. We'll be the cheering section. I swear, if it is, they'd better keep any "throwable" objects away from me.
Sassy pretty much sums it up. While I agree 100% that the inquiry should remain, I also feel it should be coded as a NON PERMISSABLE inquiry, and NOT count towards any score or other risk decisions. The FCRA is clear on inquiries being recorded and stored. The CRA's have just found a loophole in using the number of inquiries against you. It obviously makes no sense to always assume that you are actually granted credit when you apply for it. What they *should* do is notify the CRA they pulled from the approve/deny status and then the scoring software could just count the approved credit inquiries. This would then be a true assesment of the amount of new credit being taken on by the consumer. BUT, since there is much more money to be had in charging MORE for credit, who wants to do anything that results in credit costing less? My take at least...
If this was the case, I don't think any of us would have a problem with an unauthorized inquiry. I don't have a problem with the AR & AM inquiries--they don't count against me, I don't care. Just don't hold me responsible for something I have no control over! TU's stance is still ridiculous. If I had to isolate just one thing as my favorite CRA quote over the last year, it would have to the the TU rep in the Priority Dept telling me...... TU Rep: Our system is so technologically advanced that it would be impossible for a creditor to pull your file if they did not have a permissible purpose. That is why we don't investigate inquiries--they are all factual and made with a permissible purpose or they wouldn't be there. Me: Are you telling me that your system can SENSE the intention of the end user and accept or deny the request before it happens?" TU Rep: Absolutely! TU Rep: Why are you laughing? I don't find anything funny! Click. Dial tone...... Yep, that would be my favorite!
I found out a world of information at this link regarding laws in TX. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html You need Business and Commerce Code chapter 20 for the Texas State FCRA Texas Finance Code chapter 392 for the Texas FDCPA and chapter 391 for furnishing false credit info. Also, some of theses laws reference Texas Business and Commerce Code chapter 17 for civil liability You should really study these laws in TX. They really mean business against Credit Reporting Agencies. I belive you have grounds for extreme lawsuit against TU.. Anna
That's quite funny LisaMC! As to my comments, I wasn't suggesting that they are currently coded that way, but only that they SHOULD be.
Jambe, I understood what you meant. The ridiculous nature of this whole issue just floors me. There is truly only one remedy.... If they are held by the FCRA to report all inquiries, there has to be a mechanism whereby we can dispute unauthorized inquiries for EVERY cra or the inquiries must be removed from the scoring model. They are having their cake and eating it too! Hopefully Lizardking's lawsuit will get someone's attention!
Is there a thread with updates about Lizardking's suit? Sorry about this, but I can't seem to get any results with the search button.
This is the nutshell version thread: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=167753#post167753 Sassy
