A collection agency that I am exchanging letters with pulled a soft inquiry on my Experian file five times yesterday (it literally says 6-7-01, 6-7-01, 6-7-01, 6-7-01, 6-7-01). I don't know what this means, but I'm holding my breath. This same agency had their entries deleted from TU in the last round.
Any body ever wonder if cra encurages such inquiries in order to sell more reports? ----------------------------------------- ============== ================================
They must have noticed activity on my credit file and they started sending me notices saying "We see you're applying for credit..." and asking for payment. It's for an old phone bill, but this agency has the entry with different dollar amounts listed four times on my report. I figured I'd just pay it and be done, so I called Pacific Bell and they told me they have no record that I owe them any money. I sent a letter to the collection agency advising them that Pac Bell told me I don't owe them anything. I have yet to hear back from them but for the five inquiries from yesterday.
I have a possible reason. Once I tried to get my report on Worthknowing.com but after 4 or 5 attempts I kept getting "We can not verify your identity" and not getting my report I quit. After I ordered my hard copies I found that TU had 5 soft inquiries from Worthknowing.com (all 03/2001). Maybe they had some difficulty accessing your report (either information wise or software error wise) and had to try several times. It seems odd that someone would pull your report 5 times. -Dave
Seems clear-cut. If the collection agency knew that the creditor had no record of you owing the money, then the agency had no permissible purpose by which to review your report under the rules of the FCRA. In fact, accessing a credit file with no permissible purpose is punishable by incarceration. In this case, what are your rights under the FDCPA?
Interesting...Then does a "soft inquiry" entitle them to escape the "permissible purpose" scrutiny. The only notation on my reports that states "for a permissible purpose" is a CapOne inquiry that I authorized by requesting credit...The other section says that they are requesting my credit for some permissible purpose for example: -other creditors wanting to offer or extend credit -employment -potential investor -your current creditors But they state that as an example...I wonder who can claim "permissible purpose" and how far they can stretch the wording of the FCRA (or in the FDCPA) to allow creditors who believe you owe them money but you do not. For instance a CA who has purchased debt that they believe you owe and may have proof they purchased it, when you have since paid the original creditor. -Dave
The question in court would be: What did they know, and when did they know it? Like in Erin Brockovich.
