Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d they actually did not have a permissible purpose to run your credit. herauntsis ------------------------ Ther is no permissible purpose to ruin his credit. LB 59
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d Very Interesting Question! The SOL defense is an affirmative defense, means you have to raise that as a defense in court or the creditor CAN get a judgment and collect on an 11 year old debt. Only one state that I know of actually discharges the debt at the end of the SOL (Minnesota or Michigan, I donâ??t remember which it is). So, the CA could sue you on an 11 year old debt and the info they obtained is being used in the collection of that debt. If you failed to show up in court and yell â??SOL Your Honor!â? they would get a default judgment and you would be paying! Everyone seems to think the SOL makes the debt â??go awayâ? it does not, it only gives you a defense to be used in court and you must raise it (an affirmative defense vs a bar against a suit even being filed). JohnM
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d So now we are back to debt validation -- I am thinking that if they can't prove the debt belongs to you, then they also can't prove permissible purpose.
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d Bingo! If they can prove it was an old debt of yours they did have a permissible pupose. But the FTC allows a CA to cease collection effort rather than validate if they choose. And an FTC opinion letter stated that even if a report was pulled in error the fact that it was provided can stay on the credit report. Tough question to call here? My advice "Nutcase" them, they may fold! JohnM
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d This is very interesting to me. I agree with the info you've been given. The sol doesn't affect whether or not they can try to collect the debt (and it's only an issue when you go into court).... If you have a debt it can be continued to be collected upon (if you believe in the assignment of debts not becoming accord and satisfaction...) but that's another issue but it actually brings out a more important issue. Fundamentally, this collection agency is collecting on a debt that beforehand it knows it can't validate. This is a different argument than one we normally discuss. If the Ca knows it has no proof of a debt.. then in essence, it's buying ideas of debts.. theories of debts... perhaps debts... so the collection agency doesn't know for sure it does or doesn't have a valid debt... BUT, it does know it can't validate the debt.. and if they can't validate the debt (knowingly so) then what's their permissible purpose for being in your file? blackmail... anyway, if you didn't ever write to them and say that the debt is past the sol etc (Eg: admitted the debt was yours by knowing when the sol even is) then just use a validation letter and keep stating you have no knowledge of the debt.. since they can't produce validation.. it should be treated as a fraud account (although a fraud account presupposes that someone actually indeed opened an account)... which without validation, you don't even know that fact... now do you... it's all based on presuppositions...and if the ca has no proof of any debt...then they can say they thought they had a debt... but how do you really know if that's even true or now? all you know is that this CA has definitely been in your file... Honestly, perhaps this is the initial way a ring of id thieves steals your info... pull your report via a CA, capture your info... sell/use it... then when you complain about them being in your reports... they say "oops...sorry...we won't collect on this anymore"... but your info is already out there and in their hands... You really don't know how/why your info was really pulled... so approach it that way. Perhaps.. file a criminal complaint against them for poking into your file...
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d One other thing... the FTC has an opinion letter out there that collection inquiries in and of themselves connote collection activity on your reports... since it is picked up by the software, we think, then the collection activity is hurting you even though a collection account isn't there (and anyone looking at your report will think you have an issue since a CA is in your report)... I'd hammer the permissible purpose issue... but I also want you to understand they're poisoning your file as long as the inquiry lasts... and that's unrealistically unfair to you... so get it removed file an atty gen complaint file an ftc complaint file a bbb complaint (why not dispute with the bureaus the inquiry (they'll say no)
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d Marie, You have focused in on the "scam" aspect of debt resale. CA #1 trys to collect, you say to them 'validate", they go away....3 or 4 months pass and then a letter arrives from CA#2 saying "we now own this debt, pay us" and the cycle starts again. CA#1 has violated the law by reselling that debt to CA#2, that is continued collection activity, but has anyone actually has sued CA#1 in a case like this They removed the record from the CRA, we focus on CA#2. It's a shell game, three card monty, dazzle and confuse them. If we start suing the CA that resold the debt maybe they would think twice. JohnM
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d Can you give me a link to that FTC opinion, please, or tell me what it is called so I can find it on FTC site? Damn, if this is correct, my suit is sunk.
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d Well ... I've approached these issues several times. Each time a CA pulls an inq (or does anything else for that matter) it's predicated upon the presumption of the debts legitimacy. That's what the dunning notice means when it says, in the miranda warning: "If you've not disputed this debt, in writing, within 30 days, we may assume the debt to be valid. Keyword=assume. It's their assumption of the debts validity that allows them to do certain things, such as sue you, or pull inqs. Once you dispute the debt the right to ASSUME the debts validity is GONE until proof is proffered. One can see how the burden of proof issue is a floating butterfly and is based upon a preponderance of evidence. That said; nobody can pull your report without this presumption to the validity of the debt. Which btw is established with an Estoppel by silence component. They wrote to you about the debt and by silence, you failed to respond. This is what triggers the presumption. We hear it all the time from CA's. Look we wrote to you and you failed to respond. The law says: "either knows or consciously avoids knowing." The scenario John and Marie describe are classic cases of the CA consciously avoiding knowing. Further, once it is established that the debt cannot be validated their collection efforts are inappropriate retroactively back to day one, although NOT illegal. All inqs. and derogs should be removed at once. The FTC says they SHOULD do it in 5 days (FTC V. PCM). In the case above presumption of the debts legitimiacy was REMOVED when a val. demand was sent. The assertion on the debtors part that they DO NOT in fact owe the debt IS evidence, and stands until proof is furnished. At that point presumption returns to the CA. This ca, in this case has no right to poison the file with a collection inq because they've been on notice that their presumption of the debt is not appropriate. Marie is right on ... the only other reason to continue collection is extortive in nature.
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d I disagree that they had a permissable purpose as the debt is uncollectable and unreportable. Which reminds me, I think you should send a cease and desist as well, that would make any further action a clear violation. That is not what the FTC letter says, nor the FCRA, that is how the CRA's interpret the letter and what they want you to believe. Sassy
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d Which letter are we talking about here? Can somebody give me a link or the name so I can look it up, pretty please? Thanks
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/cohan2.htm http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=31182 Also, do a search on Marie's previous postings, hospital and inquiries. Nodding with her above post. She's done a lot of research and posted very detailed messages on permissable purpose -- all of them good. Sassy
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d Oh, wow -- great links, thanks a whole bunch! The way I read this FTC letter, the CRA has to retain the inquiry in its files so that it can comply with 2 sections of the FCRA: the one that has to do with reporting all inquiries to the consumer, and the one that requires them to send, at the request of the consumer, a corrected report to everyone who has received a copy of a consumer report. It does NOT, however, require the CRA to include those inquiries on future reports pulled by anyone other than the consumer. So what we are talking about here is that we basically want the CRA to turn them into soft inquiries. That way, they are within the law, and we don't have any non-permissible purpose inquiries on our reports. P.S. Sorry about asking for links and such -- I don't seem to have much luck with the search button.
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d The debt is unreportable, but it is collectable. Nothing prevents a CA from asking for the money. The debt did not "vanish" it is still there. I mentioned earlier that every one seems to think the debt goes away it does not. The SOL statutes do not make a debt uncollectable , it does gives you an affirmative defense once a suit is filed. By the way the above question is not part of FCRA or FDCPA law it is part of the UCC. Sassy, This is what the FTC opinion letter says: If I were a lawyer for a CRA, I could make a good argument that the quote above says, if a report is furnished â??in errorâ? the fact that it was furnished can be reported. After all what are these mysterious â??other reasonsâ? mentioned, could one be reporting it in your file! I would bet that is the argument the CRAâ??s us to say, â??we donâ??t dispute inquiriesâ?. The CAâ??s are getting smarter to, I had one do an AR inquiry which is does not affect your FICO score, so no damage could be proved. JohnM PS When I get time Iâ??ll look up the court case on the SOL question, it spelled this out better than I can. I didnâ??t mark the link in my bookmarks, but I did find this concept to be against my understanding of the SOL until I read this court opinion. (Does anyone else have the link?) PSS I personally do not agree with the logic used above, but I bring it up as what the CA may use and what a CRA might say.
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d 1*The debt is un reportable, 2*but it is collectable. 3*The debt did not "vanish" it is still there. 4*I mentioned earlier that every one seems to think the debt goes away it does not. 5*The SOL statutes do not make a debt uncollectible JohnM ============== 1*This is an 11 Yr. old paid debt and a paid debt is not reportable after 7 years. 2*A paid debt is not collectable. 3*A paid debt does as paying it cancels it. 4*But paying a debt voids it. 5*Paying it does. LB 59
LB The original poster did not say this was a paid debt. THe poster even implies that it used to be on the credit report, by saying it is no longer on his report. What makes you say it is a "paid" debt, did I miss a post? JohnM
Re: Can CA pull hard inq on 11 yr d Butch, Nice reply, I agree with your reasoning on the burden of proof. I didn't realize that the "Estoppel by silence" doctrine is what they hang their hat on! I also agree that all derogs should be deleted, (in this case they have aged off and the point is moot) but that one FTC opinion letter is weird, why do they say even if requested in error inquires should not be removed? They don't say they cannot report it, They say they are not required to "display" the inquiry, but they don't say they cannot "display" it. I would think if they prohibited the display or reporting of it they would say so in clear terms. Do you have a link to FTC v PCM and does it address the inquiry issue directly? JohnM
LB The original poster did not say this was a paid debt. The poster even implies that it used to be on the credit report, by saying it is no longer on his report. 1*What makes you say it is a "paid" debt, did I miss a post? JohnM 1*No you did not miss a post. I got two different threads crossed. Sorry my bad ! I didn't screw up was just cross threaded/LOL ###################################### However the following comments regarding paid debts still apply. 1*The debt is un reportable, 2*but it is collectable. 3*The debt did not "vanish" it is still there. 4*I mentioned earlier that every one seems to think the debt goes away it does not. 5*The SOL statutes do not make a debt uncollectible JohnM ============== 1 An old paid debt is not reportable after 7 years. 2*A paid debt is not collectable. 3*A paid debt does as paying it cancels it. 4*But paying a debt voids it. 5*Paying it does. LB 59 LB 59
