Hi all, My name is Gwen and I'm new to the board and making a renewed attempt to clean up several blemishes on my credit report. Following some of the advice I've read on this board, I'm trying to acquaint myself with the laws and I am currently focusing on the FCRA. In my reading I came across something that seems to directly oppose what I thought was true about inquiries and permissable purpose. I thought the only time someone could do a hard pull on your credit is if you're applying for insurance, employment or credit. In reading the FCRA is seems to say that a Collector could do an inquiry as well: § 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b] (a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other: (3) To a person which it has reason to believe (A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer; or (B) intends to use the information for employment purposes; or (C) intends to use the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; or Am I reading this wrong? ETA: Section Number
I sent a Non-permissable purpose letter (cmrrr) to a CA and they responded by doing another hard pull.
Welcome to Creditnet Gwen! Yes, many CAs will do a soft pull, but they can do a hard pull if it's for the purpose of trying to collect a legitimate debt from you. Seems unfair, but that's the way it is. Have you sent a DV letter to this CA already? If so, did they respond appropriately?
Hi Josh, Thanks for the response. Yes I sent a DV (cmrrr) and they responded by doing another hard pull. I haven't received a response to the DV yet.
If you sent your DV letter within the proper time period and they haven't validated your debt, then they're violating the FDCPA by continuing collection activities.
Josh, this is what I sent: During a recent review of my credit files from the three major credit reporting agencies I was incensed to find an inquiry posted by YOUR COMPANY on 08/25/2011. I’m sure you’re aware that the credit reporting agencies regard inquiries as a statement of fact and will not allow a consumer to dispute them. They maintain that if the inquiry is on file then the company listed did in fact view the consumer’s record. Since it is unlawful under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for a person to view a consumer report without a ‘permissible purpose’ I am writing this letter. I didn’t apply for credit with you, insurance, or a job so why did you pull my credit report. This is what I know: From the FCRA § 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n] "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." From the 1998 FTC opinion letter Greenblatt: "Any person who procures a consumer report under false pretenses, or knowingly without a permissible purpose, is liable for $1000 or actual damages (whichever is greater) to both the consumer and to the consumer reporting agency from which the report is procured." Also from the Fair Credit Reporting Act: § 617. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681o] (a) In general. Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of (1) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure; (2) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court. Please explain your permissible purpose for your obtaining my credit file, in writing, with accompanying documentation i.e. a contract with my signature as proof. Should you not have a permissible purpose, delete your inquiry immediately and arrange for payment of $1,000 by August 15, 2012 To me. I look forward to this matter being resolved expeditiously. Sincerely, Me Did I quote the right acts? Was it worded strongly enough?
Oh, I should add that they haven't tried to collect from me, there's no collection account it's just a hard inquiry.
Well, at least you don't have a collection on your credit reports too...yet. It's a shame that you have this new hard inquiry to deal with though, because the original one probably wasn't having any effect on your FICO scores since it had been about a year. Still, the new one shouldn't be hurting your credit scores by more than 5 points, so I wouldn't get too worked up about it. Most people tend to really overestimate the impact of a hard inquiry on their FICO scores. That said, I can certainly understand why you're annoyed that this CA won't provide validation yet continues to pull your credit. Do you have any idea what this debt might be for? If it's legit, I frankly wouldn't be surprised if the collection shows up on your credit reports soon too. How long ago did you send the letter below?
Is the company a collection agency, or another type of creditor? An inquiry is still collection activity. Even if they're just trying to snoop to see what they can dig up. So, there is a Permissible Purpose if you apply for or currently have a credit, employment, or insurance relationship with them (or they are acting as an agent for someone who you have a credit, employment, or insurance relationship with).
I sent the letter on July 19. I just got the green card back and I noticed they did the pull before they actually got my letter. I'm waiting to see what happens now. I think they're one of those law firm collection companies. My daughter used me as a cosigner on an apartment and she left before the lease was up. She's unemployed so I think they're going to try to go after me for the balance.
Crap! I just got the DV letter back and it's a bill from college from a couple years ago. I do owe it! This is definitely an example of poking the bear! The good thing is that I receive tuition assistance from my employer so this is something that was obviously overlooked. I'm going to take care of this immediately. If you could have seen the look on my face when they supplied me with all the information I asked for....priceless!
I think some of the permissible purpose comes from having the account assigned to them. By co-signing a loan, you established a business relationship, which was later assigned to the collection agency. I'm not entirely sure, but pursuing a lack of permissible purpose could be a tough one. (more bad news) If you co-signed for a loan, and that loan goes into default, it can (will) appear as though YOU were the one who defaulted on the loan and be recorded as such on your credit report. If you're trying to keep your report clean, it would be in your best interest to make this go away (search on "non-disclosure agreements"), even if you end up paying it off. You might also look into your state's landlord-tenant laws. In Wash. State a renter who leaves a lease early is responsible for only the time the unit is empty and the landlord must do what they can to get a new tenant (the renter must also help find a replacement tenant). It's been a while since I researched that, but you might look into your state's laws on that. If anything, you might have cause to dispute the amount owed and get the CA off your report by showing they are reporting inaccurate information.
