Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft I take this back it was the wrong answer based on incomplete information from SnakeMan.
Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft Can't remember who the person on here was that said they sent a letter to the office of the president, but I contacted a similiar dept. and I think I have made an impression on a lady with some pull. She is helping me right now. At first I demanded a total deletion but then I saw this persons post and later talked to the lady explaining that I didn't want "a double whammy". I told her that even if they deleted the entire TL, my score would still drop and I shouldn't suffer because of their mistake. I told her about the age of an account playing a role in FICO score and even if it was a neg TL, it still showed a history. I then told her to go ahead and just update the account showing it "paid as agreed", "closed", and "0 balance". That should do the trick, and that is what she is shooting for. BTW, she asked me to fax over a copy of the update from Oct showing they messed up. After that she sounded like she knew I had them by the kahoonas. I also faxed her a copy of my EX showing their soft inquiry this month when they haven't owned this account in over a year. I should be good to go. SnakeMan
Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft Do they really have to have a PP to pull a soft? When I pull my report, I have tons of soft inquiries from places I have no accounts (Orchard, First Premier, etc). Usually a few weeks after the soft inquiries I get a promotional offer for a card (with sky-high rates) from them in the mail.
Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft My Fault! LOL The account was sold to another lender a year earlier making their soft pull of my report illegal! Is this not true?
Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft Hi Fledge, Welcome to the board. The law is designed to prevent them from accessing your private info. without your permission. Whether they access it via soft inq. or hard makes no difference at all. The fact still remians they had their nose in your stuff. See what I mean? .
Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft Thanks, Butch, for the welcome. I've actually been a fan of this board for several months --- but all of my questions so far have been answered by the ''search'' button. I entered the fray on this post because it raised a question regarding my understanding of hard vs. soft inquiries. I thought card issuers pulled a soft to see if you qualified for one of their promotional offers. It seems like I get a bunch of soft pulls right before I get offers for cards by the same issuers in the mail. Couldn't the Marin people say they were running a screening for an upcoming promotional offer? Just wondering ... Fledge EQ 624 EXP 647 TU 633
Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft 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. lakpr =========== Many times the CA cannot validate because the OC does not have such records. This being the case I don't believe the FDCPA actually mandates that the OC maintain any such records. This is good for us the consumer and I would hate to see such a requirement imposed on the OC. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft Remember, there is a difference between a "Promotional Purposes", "soft", and "hard" inquiries. Promotional Purposes is just like looking you up in the phone book, through the CRAs. These look like soft on most reports because half the time they are grouped into a general "Requests Not Seen By Others" category. But these pulls only get your name, address etc, unless you have optted out of the promotional purposes services by calling the opt-out # -- then you won't get these types of inquiries. Soft is a complete pull that doesn't show up when someone pulls your credit report, and doesn't get counted in your scores. Hard is a complete pull that does show up when someone pulls your credit report, and does get counted in your scores. The Promotional Purposes is the reason that totally unknown companies can pop up in your inquiry report. The CRA still needs to disclose to you that they gave XYZ Co some of your info, even though they only received your contact information.
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft Thanks, Jam, for the explanation. Too bad CRAs don't let us know which ones pulled the soft and which ones did the promotional inquiry. Some may get away pulling softs and we just assume it was a promotional pull. (Or maybe I'm just thinking about this a little too much today...) Thanks again.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft You can learn to tell the difference Fledge, and should. Jam did a good job of explaining it but look at it this way. Suppose a creditor wants to send out 100,000 offers. So they go to the CRA's and say search for those who are between 25 - 48, and pay their bills on time. So they do the search, and then give the creditor the names and addresses. They don't get "the report" only the headers. So they are not in violation for "having their nose in your business". Usually they say "PRM" before the co. name, for "Promotional." If you ever just see a company name without some letters before it, whether in the soft or hard catagory, they pulled your entire report. Take a look at your reports and see if you see any of those. .
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft It seems pretty obvious that I told the lady on the phone about not disclosing I was disputing. Then I send a ITS letter by fax, then the next day I have a soft inquiry? LOL....don't make me laugh! SnakeMan
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft It seems pretty obvious that I told the lady on the phone about not disclosing I was disputing. Then I send a ITS letter by fax, then the next day I have a soft inquiry? LOL....don't make me laugh! SnakeMan
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft I think EQ is the only one which uses the code "PRM" TU has a special section, or they did on the date of the report that I'm looking at, which says "The companies listed below received your name, addres, and other limited information about you so they could make a firm offer of credit or insurance. They did not receive your full credit report, and these inquires are not seen by anyone but you." I'm not sure how EQ's report differentiates the difference... The last 'full' hard copy EQ report I received was a year ago, why are they the only CRA which only updates the single tradeline that you disputed...
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft I know FDCPA does not apply to original creditors, and it does not impose any restrictions to maintain past internal records on the OCs. But FDCPA applies to buyers of delinquent accounts that the OC sells off, correct? ..... I'd be surprised if such buyers, knowing what law requires of them, wouldn't put a clause in the sales contract defining the responsibility to maintain the history of such accounts for a reasonable period of time on the original creditors. I gladly confess that I do not know the head or tail of the collection business. And I also agree with you, LB, that this is good for the consumer, and I'd like to see it remain that way, and want to see no law, FDCPA or otherwise, REQUIRING the OCs to maintain them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1st Nat Bank of Marin Pulled a soft lakpr: while i've never seen the contracts when a oc sells an account, they supposedly contain provisions that allows the ca to sell them back to the oc, and i am sure that in the event collections would have to be ceased because the oc can't provide validation that that would be able to be brought into play. all we need to know is that it goes bye byes, not where, when, how, or why... but i had one ca which swore up and down that they could validate the account that they purchased, the validation was for UNDER A BUCK of the accounts total, they kept swearing that they forced the seller to certify that all the validation materials were available before hand, and that they have it available in case of dispute, and apparently that still didn't help them...
