Back in October my husbandâ??s parents bought a new car. My husband and father share the same first and last name. My husband is not a Jr. and is middle name is not the same. Well, on my husbandâ??s TU reports there is an inquiry for this car dealer: ADP/WILLIAMS BUICK PERMISSIBLE PURPOSE â?? CREDIT TRANSACTION I tried to dispute with TU and of course I got the letter stating I have to contact the OC. I just got off the phone with the car dealer and he is trying to tell me the CRA has to do it. I explained to him that the CRA told me the OC creditor has to, that it is illegal for the CRA to. Any answers to what I should do now.
Well then, did they get a good deal or did they have to pay more because of his credit? Did they end up pulling his father's report anyway? I can't see any court deeming this anything but an extremely easy error to make. There is nothing that forces the CRA to delete an inquiry, whether permissable or not. The right thing to do is to get the car dealer to code the inquiry as PROMO or ACCOUNT REVIEW. Failing that, they can explain to the CRA that it was a genuine error and most of the CRA's will delete, even though it is technically illegal to do so. Just so you know, my opinion isn't really the one held by most creditnetters, so wait for the other replies )
That's the funny thing. My in-laws have A+++++ credit, and they got that deal with 0% finiancing for two years. I don't think they every paid ANYTHING late. The dealer must have known something when he pulled my husbands because his score is in the mid 500's, and they surely would not have got that good rate with my husbands score. So I am thinking the dealer must have seen his mistake right at the start and probably could have fixed it right then and there.
Send a letter CERTIFIED R/R to both and tell them to DELETE and send you $500 or "I WILL SEE YOU IN SMALL CLAIMS COURT"
they can explain to the CRA that it was a genuine error and most of the CRA's will delete, even though it is technically illegal to do so. jambe ============ What is and why?
It is illegal to delete the inquiry. It makes no difference if the inquiry was in error, the FCRA clearly requires that a CRA keep accurate records of who viewed the file, in order to disclose same to the consumer. TU actually has it right in their assertion that inquiries are a matter of record...
Jambe has a valid point... I never thought of it like that. The car dealer truly did pull a report so the information is truly accurate so it is 'technically' illegal for them to delete the inquiry (either party). Hmm, interesting.
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. So, nothing says an inquiry must be disclosed to other creditors. If an inquiry is pulled by mistake, it should be recoded so as not to hurt a persons score and so it isn't shown to potential creditors.
One would hope that it would be recoded, but the law doesn't specifically require that this be done. An interesting thing though, is that by giving out inquiry information to creditors, even by merely including it in the scoring I think, they have essentially made it part of your file. By so doing they have opened it up to possible deletion through 611(a). This creates a real problem, in that if they delete it per 611(a), they are then in violation of 609(a)(3). The only possible solution I can see is to 'remove it from the file' and never show the entry to anyone but the consumer. Of course, this is only a concern when there is an issue as to the completeness or accuracy of the inquiry, but clearly any impermissible inquiry presented to creditors as legitimate is inaccurate. There is an error in the way inquiries are dealt with, both in the law and with the CRA's. It seems that, for all practical purposes, congress intended that a CRA should keep track of inquiries for record keeping purposes in order to disclose to the consumer who was viewing their file, and when. Fair, Isaac and others have found a way to use inquiries for a purpose they were never intended. What is odd to me is how insistent the CRA's are that 'hard' inquiries must remain in your file for two years. There is no such requirement! Certain inquiries, for employment purposes, must be recorded and disclosed to the consumer for two years. But, If a CRA so chose, they could keep any 'hard' inquiry in your file for seven years, given that 'hard' inquiries are almost universally considered derogitory. It's amazing how people, even those who consider themselves informed, can be duped into believing all manner of crazy things by merely being told repeatedly, by many different sources, that such things are true. Witness the insanity that unfolded as a result of September 11, 2001.
So what this boils down to is they are using their required compliance with the law as a means to trash our credit by lowering our scores.!
It really should come at no surprise... What would accurately assess new credit obligations is if the entity making the inquiry reported back to the CRA when they actually issue the credit applied for. To make attempts at aquiring credit by no means is a solid determination that such credit was actually granted. The assumptions currently made by scoring models using inquiries are fundementally flawed in this respect, and of course in many other very similar ways. This, of course, is coming from my very limitted understanding of what is truly going on. I think, for the most part, we all pay way to much attention to the number of inquiries and worry needlessly about it most of the time.
When using information for anything other than it's intended purpose the information becomes incorrect; therefore inquires are inaccurate information. LB 59
"Bumpage" is indeed illegal. Not our actions in generating such bumpage, but the actions of any CRA in allowing the bumpage to occur in the first place. I don't know that it would be a $1,000 violation though. It most likely is not willful noncompliance on their part, but instead simple oversight and the resulting workarounds inherent in the IT world. Were someone to point out their violations in clear and certain language and the CRA to then not correct the problem expediently, there would most likely be willful noncompliance involved. Though, as I am not a lawyer, my sound reasoning is surely suspect )
I disagree. They have every right to consider the inquiry as a negative item, and to then include it as part of your file. Unfortunately this seems, at least to me, to put them in a legal catch-22. They can't legally delete the inquiry record, but they can't legally leave inaccurate or incomplete information in the file. Of course, there is a simple way out for them. Stop delivering the inquiry information to anyone but the consumer, and don't use the information in any scoring decisions. I somehow doubt that this is going to happen though )
*beams with pride* Thanks. I usually am quite determined once I find a new interest. You say keep studying, so how's about dishin' me out some'o your yummy case law? )
