Re: Re: CA inquiry- force them to code soft My problem is that the CA pulled a hard inquiry on an account that the OC had months earlier agreed (yes, I have this in writing) to delete from all CRA's. Would the "collections purpose" umbrella shield any CA who attempted to collect the non-debt. My theory is that if there is no debt, there is no permissible purpose. This is the $1000 question for me.
Re: Re: CA inquiry- force them to code soft I appreciate the advice. What letter do you send to a CA that is past the SOL, has not answered a Validation letter and has made no further contact with you? I don't think I've seen that addressed. As I said, there is no TL, so I can't complain that they haven't removed it.
Re: Re: CA inquiry- force them to code soft Do you really enjoy kicking sleeping dogs? Best be careful lest they jump up and bite you. That is not the real reason for validation in my opinion. Validation is better used when the dog is at least growling at you a little bit. Curling up his lips at the very least, showing his teeth indicating that he has intent to bite you. If he is peacefully snoring away in the noonday sun give him a wide berth and leave him alone. Tread softly and don't even take the chance he might jump up and bite you. (LOL)
Re: Re: CA inquiry- force them to code soft Bill what do u suggest we do w/ CA's reporting past the SOL then, just dispute as not mine and cross your fingers?
Re: Re: CA inquiry- force them to code soft Please ignore the advice I gave KAK. Get out a bloody club and whack him a good one. He jumped up out of his noonday snooze and tried to turn your leg into a fire hydrant. Probably He thinks there is and the credit bureau won't argue with him so you lose. If thats all its worth you need to whack him a few more times. At a $1000 a whack times maybe 4 or 5 or more whacks and it will be worth your time to go do the numbers on him. And that creditor too. He should have kept his word. I'm doing a case like like that right now only it was the dog that broke his written word not his master.
Re: Re: CA inquiry- force them to code soft I'm a guy who kicks lot of metaphorical dogs, but I think there is some goos implicit advice in Bill's comment above: Inquiries, hard or soft only stay on the report for two years. If you've dicovered someone pulled something yesterday, then maybe you need to pursue it. If it's been sleeping a while - maybe you didn't know about it or have been planning what to do, maybe it's better to just let it drop off. Before I would agressively pursue a PP issue, I'd be pretty sure I was in the right and I would be prepared to take it to court.
Re: Re: CA inquiry- force them to code soft LOL Bill do u talk in riddles all the time...I swear I have to sit and think through everything u write!! Tell u what, that does an old brain such as mine good every now and then!
Re: Re: CA inquiry- force them to code soft I have always wondered if the CA practice of creating multiple hard inquiries on a credit report could be the basis for a libel suit. The elements of the tort of libel are Identification Defamation Communication/Publication Fault Damages A credit report clearly identifies the individual consumer. The element of defamation is satisfied in that the inquiries are intended to give the impression that the CA is actively attempting to collect on multiple accounts. Note that the language above indicates that an inquiry is created on the transfer of an account to a collection agency. The element of communication is obviously satisfied where the credit report has been provided to third-parties. This could be proved by other inquiries subsequent to the CA's inquiry. With respect to fault, it is fairly simple to argue that the multiple inquiries are either due to malice or negligence. Either basis is representative of culpable behavior. Damages - This is why one needs to apply for credit and to be turned down as a result of the CA's poisoning of the credit report. I see a slander lawsuit as a way of getting around the permissible purpose a CA has under the FCRA. Does anyone have another take on this?
Re: Re: CA inquiry- force them to code soft No. Every once in a while I get accused of saying something that finally made at least a little bit of sense. Tell you what, my friend. We do see an awful lot of just idle chit chat and joking and what have you on this and many other boards. I don't allow much of it on my board for the very simple reason that I just don't have the room for it that they do over here otherwise I would. But the whole point is that even though some of it may seem to be nothing but useless and mindless chatter it pays good dividends to pay close attention because lots of times people do make excellent points and sometimes without really meaning to. I wish I had a buck for every time I read a message which seemed to be nothing but chatter but in the process the poster brought some little point that solved problems for me or taught me something I desperately needed to know. If I had dismissed it for what it seemed to be at first glance I would have missed that valuable information. There are a couple of posters here that really get under my skin from time to time but dang it, seems like just about the time my displeasure is at it's peak and I'm about to lash out at them they somehow manage to pop off with something really worthwhile. Kind of goes to prove the wisdom of what Father Flanagan used to say, "There is a little good in the worst of us and a little bad in the best of us." Truer words were probably never spoken.
