When I called CSC Credit the other day to investigate inquiries, she said that as of last week they don't dispute inquiries anymore. What up with this?
CSC credit services is an affiliate of Equifax Information Services. Not a suprise Because inquiries are not specifically mentioned in the FCRA or FDCPA, it is unclear what "authority" to use if a consumer wishes to "dispute" inquiries. Determining the "permissible purpose" is the closest "theory" that consumers have in their "tool chest." The credit reporting agencies have started to catch on, and are attempting to confuse consumers, probably in an attempt to keep down the complaints, by using "detailed vagueness" In the past, the inquiries section of most credit reports listed "permissible purpose" ie AR- account review or PRM-promotion etc, and explained what each meant. Now it is not so clear There is good news though. There is case law, I just cant recall the cite at this moment, that says if a consumer requests the "permissible purpose" of an inquire, and the furnisher fails to respond, the court assumes there was NO permissible purpose. So, DISPUTING an inquire may be the wrong approach, because inquiries dont seem to be "disputeable". A better route is to request the permissible purpose of the inquires. Call the credit reporting agency and ask what the "puller" gave as the permissible purpose, then call the "puller" and ask the same.
Yeah, I'm dealing with this right now in my lawsuit. I tried nicely to have the CRA give me the information. Thier answer was that they have a contractual agreement that the party pulling the report will do so only when a permissible purpose exists--i.e. there is no check to make sure a valid PP exists--it is left up to the person pulling the report. Since the agreement on this is a contract they won't voluntarily provide the copy of the contract with the person pulling the report. Therfore they will be receiving a subpoena next week to produce it. Its just a scam that they are trying to get away from non-pp lawsuits. Generally these are slam dunks against them and the creditor who pulled them. If they make it as difficult as possible they can discourage some of the lawsuits. Its also bad for business between the creditors and CRA and THAT is what they really care about. Just wondering if anyone else out there may know how I can compel the creditor to pony up the $1000 to the CRA for the non-pp. I'm sure I'll get my money but I want it to be as painful as possible for both of them. I think that once I get the copy of the contract from the subpoena and the trial is over I'll report the CRA to the better business bureau. I'm also contemplating a suit against the CRA for willfull enablement of identity theft. By giving someone a carte blanche to pull reports under only their own policing efforts they are putting my (and your) info out there for anyone to access. Look for the local credit agency that provided the report to the creditor. They have an agreement with CSC-Equifax where they resale the reports to contracted creditors. That's where the rubber meets the road so to speak. In my letter I've already gotten them to refute information that the defendant in the non-pp lawsuit has provided. Can you say perjury? LOL...this is really getting fun now. Take care and good luck with your inquiry problem.
Subpoena'g the "contract" is a GREAT approach. HOWEVER, if you filed in federal court, MAKE SURE THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS APPEARS WITH THE RECORDS IN ORDER TO TESTIFY "suit against the CRA for willfull enablement of identity theft. By giving someone a carte blanche to pull reports under only their own policing efforts they are putting my (and your) info out there for anyone to access." -NOT sure what "willfull enablement of identity theft" is, but it sounds neat. -THe credit reporting agencies are NOT liable to a consumer for impermissible access. PARTICULARLY if they have their "subscriber" sign a contact with a "permissibility clause" Although, most the credit reporting agencies still require a "purpose" each time a report is accessed. -BUT, using the credit reporting agency's "policy and procedure" and their "custodian of records" against the plaintiff is another GREAT idea. Good luck PS- Im 13/13 in state court, and 5/5 in federal. ALL the federal cases settled WAY b4 trial
hiding90, Why wouldn't inquiries be able to be disputed? They are on your report and until about 2 years ago ALL 3 CRA's would let you dispute inquiries. Then one by one each changed the law, evidently, to fit their morals, since the FCRA didn't change. How can they change the inquiries dispute deal when the CRA must ONLY report 100% accurate tradelines on your report. Charlie
CSC Credit told me they did not dispute inquiries anymore due to changes in the FCRA? Why all of sudden would they be able to dispute them and now they won't? Is there anywhere in the FCRA that states that we cannot dispute inquiries?
TRADELINES are account information. And the accuracy of them is part of the design of the FCRA. PRIVACY is the other aspect. Inquiries are "invasion" of privacy. If the "invasion" is lawful (permissible) then there is NOTHING you can do which REQUIRES anyone to investigate and or remove them. A credit reporting agency determines the "permissibilty" of the "pull" PRIOR to releasing the information.(the contract with the subscriber) SO there is no need, nor requirement to "investigate" inquiries because they are not liable based on their beleif the contract is valid, and most likely it is.So why should they even bother. My guess is someone realized they didnt have to and stopped. All is not lost however. Because the reporting agencies are required to provide "creditor contact" information for information on your report, including inquiries, a consumer can REQUEST the "permissible purpose" of the pull FROM the "puller." THEY DO NOT HAVE TO REPLY HOWEVER. BUT, there is at least one case which states failure to reply to a consumers request for the "permissible purpose" of a pull, CAN be taken as there was no permissible purpose. I CANT THINK OF THE CASE THOUGH. (help?) That is relying on case law, which most consumers are not able to "play well with" IF the "invasion" is NOT lawful (impermissible), then te consumer has remedies available under the FCRA 616 (B) : http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#616 A way to get around this? Yeah, just call the reporting agency and ask "hey, what did they say their permissible purpose was for accessing my account. I am just curious? Its never failed me)
