1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft

Accounts closed ==> termination of creditor/debtor relationship ==> no permissible purpose

Yes you have them on violation. There's another thread with similar issue titled "Jackpot - No Permissible Purpose"

 

Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft

FCRA does NOT distinguish between a hard inquiry and a soft inquiry. The question of "actual damages" does not arise.

If a burglar breaks in into your house, but did not find anything valuable and left, would you say that you really did NOT have any damages since you did not lose anything?

True, a soft inquiry does not ding your FICO score, but they invaded your privacy by pulling your report, when they had no right to. Statutory damages; $1000 per violation.

 

Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft

Was the account closed with $0 balance?

 

Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft

Oops snake, it does

You see, as long as you owe money on this account, technically speaking, the creditor/debtor relationship still exists ... and that will be their justification for pulling an inquiry on you.

Here is stuff from another thread titled "I won lawsuit #4 for $1000" ... by 'greenvan'

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft

Reading between the lines from greenvan's statements, once the account is *SOLD*, the original creditor does not have a right to collection, and their permissible purpose ceases.

So I guess, it is back to original assertion: yep, they are in violation.

When you say they 'admitted', you have it in writing from them, I assume ?

Regarding your second question, they can verify from their internal records. They must maintain these records, since per FDCPA, collection agencies must contact the original creditor when validation is requested by the consumer on a debt, obtain proof (includes complete payment history) and forward it to the consumer.

Disclaimer: I am NOT a lawyer. What I have written is purely my opinion... please do not take my statements as legal advice.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft

If that's the case snake, you have them on another violation also. Once the account is sold, the balance on the older account must show zero. You cannot have both the CA and the OC list the same balance twice; one of them must be zero.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft

oops .. double post

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft

That of showing a balance on your report, even after selling the account. Yes, I am guessing that it's showing more than $0 on your report.

If you are asking if I am guessing that this is a violation, I am not. I am reasonably sure (but not 100%) that it should be reported as zero. This concerns 'maximum accuracy' per FCRA requirement ... once the account is sold off, the balance on that account for all intents and purposes is zero. The new lender (or collection agent) can start reporting with a new tradeline and the new balance. Reporting in any other way, is inaccurate, and is a violation.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft

Snakeman, its failure to update the report (Section 623(a)(2)), see my BUTCH *H*E*L*P* thread for my exploit with FNBM.

http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...ad.php?s=&goto=newpost&threadid=50655&pgnum=1

They recalled the account when I disputed it over a year ago, and I've been fighting with them ever since.

When the OC makes any kind of change, or realizes that any of the information which they have been reporting is inaccurate, or unverifiable, they are required to update, or delete immediately.

Harris Opinion
http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/harris.htm

 

No current business...NO PP

 

Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft

Hard or soft it was not permitted.
It's not about damsge it's a Question of was the law broken or was it not. ?