1. Received letter and phone calls from bottom feeder CA. They pulled hard inquiry. 2. Sent validation letter. No response. Phone calls stopped. Question: Attempt removal of hard inquiry due to no proven PP, or let sleeping dogs lie?
My opinion, if they were "assigned" an account from an OC, or "bought" a debt that probably is permissible perpouse to pull a hard. I say live with it, you got them to shut up with the validation letter. Just my $.02, not wanting to be offensive.
chrisb - the little man on my left shoulder agrees with you, but the little man on my right shoulder says that since they can't validate, I've negated their right to pull the hard one in the first place. I'm leaning towards leaving it alone, but it does pi$$ me off.
Re: Re: Bottom Feeder Hard Inquiry I guess the question is, did they pull the hard before you asked for validation, or after. If they pull a hard inquiry after you've asked them to validate, that violates the law plainly, and you sue for $1,000 because pulling a hard inquiry should easily be considered an act of debt collection. Until they validate, they can not do anything towards collecting the debt, which includes adding the debt to ones credit report, or dinging the report. I understand the frustration, but you would have to (and I hate to say this) apply for credit, get turned down, and have excessive inquiries as one of the reasons you were turned down to show "damages" and try and get them, and that still would probably be a long shot. I hate all the skumbag collection agencies as much as the next guy. If they ding your credit report with an inquiry, then place their collection on your report, then you validate, I would expect them to remove the collection if they can't validate this. If they haven't placed anything on your report, I say let them off with a pi$$ed off letter complaining that they haven't validated the alleged debt and perhaps ask how a debt they have no proof of as being yours gives them permissible purpose to ding your credit report . . . threaten to sue without actually threatening, just inform them that you've got that possability and see if they remove it. But then if they don't remove it, I say don't waste your time. PP inquiries are very hard to get anything done with, and some bottom feeders will get nasty with you if you start playing hard ball. But then again, it might be fun to try and trap them and get them to do more than just a PP violation to get some $$$. If it were me, I'd probably just let it go. ChrisB
Re: Re: Bottom Feeder Hard Inquiry Civil liability for knowing noncompliance. Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or $1,000, whichever is greater. I think this covers a lack of actual damages?
Re: Re: Re: Bottom Feeder Hard Inqu Yes, but in your quote "knowingly without a permissible purpose" . . . if they were assigned to collect this debt from an OC, that likely gives them enough PP to get the credit report. I just think it would be very hard to get a judge to state that they don't have permissible purpose if they've been assigned to collect a debt. Just playing the devil's advocate, but hey if the original poster wants to shell out $125 to file and hope to get a $ settlement. I would guess that if it goes to court, I wouldn't expect to be able to win. ChrisB
They pulled the hard one before contacting me. BTW, this is an SOL item - about 10 years old. Since I've vented, I'll just take the high road and let time deal with the inquiry. After lurking for a while before joining the forum, it seems that there's too much latitude with CAs regarding what they can pull. I think that the FCRA should be modified to require only soft pulls. CAs would get the same info, but wouldn't have the ability to enjoy the last hurrah by poisoning your CR. As a P.S., the bottom feeders buy these SOLs for about a penny each, but receive a surprisingly profitable return on their investment. Not a bad business model.
I would think that if the account is out of SOL....therefore they have no legal right to collect....therefore no right to pull a hard. I would go after them. NV Bone Doc True health comes from within
Yeah, that was my original premise. And I saw it as a matter of principle. That said, and stepping away from the forest, what's worth what? Objectively, it's a skirmish - not a major battle - and probably not worth fighting (that's the mature Sheepshead talking). Now if you REALLY want to know how I feel <g>...
Or let sleeping dogs lie? Sheepshead ====================== THESE SLEEPING DOGS bite with over charges on insurance and loans. The END ************************* LB 59
Probably not worth fighting Sheepshead ====================== So keeping your current insurance and interest rates isn't worth fighting for right? The END ************************* LB 59
This needs to be put in perspective. The hit to my score was insignificant, and when I posed the original question it was based on principle, rather than "I'm buying a home and don't want this on my CR." We each have our own agendas, and mine was whether or not there's a *quick fix* to a bottom feeder pulling the hard one on an item way past SOL. As I've indicated, I believe the bigger picture requires a legislated fix to prevent the indiscriminate poisoning of our CRs.
This happened to me once. A CA (collection attorney) pulled a hard on my report for an account that the OC had agreed (in writing) to delete only 2 months earlier. I called the CA and inquired why they pulled a hard for an uncollectable account . They faxed a UDF and it was removed the same day.
1*The hit to my score was insignificant, 2*when I posed the original question it was based on principle, rather than I'm buying a home and don't want this on my CR." Sheepshead | ================ 1*The score is not the only consideration as many or all of your creditors and insurers can rise their rates based on a Collection noted on your credit Report. 2*But do you want to get jacked on your current insurance and loan interest when they see this collection noted on your report(s)? The END ************************* LB 59
You got them to shut up with the validation letter. chrisb ================================================================================================================================ Wrong: If there on the CR. they're speaking loud and clear saying overcharge this person for insurance and loans.
I would think that if the account is out of SOL....therefore they have no legal right to collect....therefore no right to pull a hard. I would go after them. NV Bone Doc ===================== You said it!
I'm leaning towards leaving it alone Sheepshead | ========================================= And what if it don't leave your insurance & loan cost alone? The END ************************* LB 59
If it were me, I'd probably just let it go. ChrisB =========================== When they raise your insurance and interest rates because of the collection on the report I guess you will just let that go too, Rite?
