Hello everyone, a certain bottom feeding CA did a hard pull a few months ago on my CR. They have a account for me from 95 that I know is off my CR, and way out of SOL. They did 1 hard pull that I would like removed, and to prevent them from flooding my CR with more hards. Should I send them a letter for Validation? I'm just worried about resetting the date or something like that and having it re-appear again. I brought this up months ago, and was not gonna do anything about it, but its really bugging me, and I want it gone. Thanks as always!!!
Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old As far as you're concerned, you have no pre-existing business relationship with said CA, and have not initiated a request for credit, or for a job, or for insurance. I think this is a good case for a Non PP letter to the CA. If they come back claiming that they allegedly own an account for you which gives them the right to pull a hard on you hit them with a validation demand letter, and 30 days later (assuming you haven't gotten alleged hard proof from 9 years ago) send out an ITS. ChrisB
If they have an account they are attempting to collect, REGARDLESS OF AGE, they have a permissible purpose for the inquiry. It wont hurt to request it be deleted. But it may cause the collection agency to "start" again by sending letters etc. "As far as you're concerned, you have no pre-existing business relationship with said CA, and have not initiated a request for credit, or for a job, or for insurance" -Good point. Unfortunatly, you forgot the part about collection of a debt "FCRA 604 (A)(3)((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.." -The fact of the matter is a consumer never initiates a transaction with a debt collector. They have permissible access under FCRA by attempting to collect a debt.
Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old Hiding90, You have a point but not a sharp one. The fact is a debt from 1995 probably does not have valid proof as to who owes it. If you get a hard inquiry from a collection agency, especially if the name of the collection agency shows that is what it is, then an account which "LEGALLY" is not allowed to be shown on your credit report because you have already served your 7 year sentence from it magically is allowed to cause you damage. If a mortgage broker is looking at your credit report because you want to buy a house and they see a recent inquiry from a collection agency, the first thought through this mortgage broker's head is that you have a recent charge off that somehow isn't showing on your credit report. BAM you have a potential for a denial or a 2-3 point higher rate on a mortgage because of a CA inquiry. Look through my suggestion again. I say to send the non PP letter to the CA. If they "have an account they are attempting to collect, REGARDLESS OF AGE" as you point out, then they better have legal proof that it is your debt. Besides we don't even know all the facts. For all you know, this might have been a charge off in 95, with a settlement offer in 98 that was taken, so the debt may be now settled, and a bottom feeder CA takes the remainder of the debt and basically blackmails you by dinging your credit report on a paid and no longer legally reportable debt. ChrisB
-Further complicating the matter, because the debt is so old, it can be assumed the consumer never requested validation. Therfore, the law then gives the debt collector a RIGHT to "assume" the debt is valid. -This is where it takes all the "juice" out of a claim of impermissible access because a "puller" doesnt respond to a request for validation. -To be impermissible, there has to be KNOWLEDGE that the pull was impermissible. "FCRA 616 (a)(1)(B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater" "then they better have legal proof that it is your debt" -Here is the problem. THE DEBT COLLECTOR NEVER HAS TO PROVE ANYTHING! -I am not sure where this FALSE notion came from."PROOF" is nowhere mentioned in the statues as a "standard" the debt collector had to uphold. The law even goes as far as to let the debt collector "ASSUME" facts. -In addition, the debt collector NEVER EVEN HAD TO OR HAS TO RESPOND TO THE CONSUMER. -Sending an intent to sue letter for "non-violations" is a real good way to get yourself sued -YES, it may actually work to get the inquiry deleted. But the negative consequences may outway the deletion. -Either way you want to look at it, the law is on the side of the debt collector in this case (with the info provided by the poster), BE CAREFUL in however you decide to pursue this.
Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old Oh yea, I remember you. You owe me $125,000 from a $.36 loan I gave you back in 1977. I claim you owe me a debt, and I'm ChrisB Collection Agency so I have a legal permissible purpose to do a hard inquiry on your credit report. The permissible purpose for collection of a debt hinges upon the CA being able to proove that they even legally hold a debt that you owe. If that proof falls apart, the PP is no longer there. ChrisB
Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old A debt that is past SOL, past the reporting period . . . starting anything up with the CA is not going to happen. These CA's bought the debt for 3-5 cents a piece and aren't going to waste postage several times when the person who they're contacting indicates that they know their rights. There is no harm in sending a non PP followed by validation if their response is that they own a debt that you owe. More likely than not, they will if it is in their power request the CRA delete in inqiry, and delete your name from their files. Clean and dirty solution to the OP's question. There is no need to go on and on about how they owe a debt no matter how old it is. I swear, the more I read of your posts, the more I feel you do work for a CRA or CA or something else like that. If you can't add something constructive, don't add anything at all. Didn't your mother teach you that when you were 5? ChrisB
Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old "The permissible purpose for collection of a debt hinges upon the CA being able to proove that they even legally hold a debt that you owe. If that proof falls apart, the PP is no longer there. " -THIS IS SOOOOOO OUTRAGES IT IS SCARY. -I WOULD LOVE IF THIS WAS TRUE!!!!! -IF THIS WAS THE CASE, THIS WOULD BE SUCH A HUGE BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER!! -THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH "MANIPULATING" the law to fit your opinion. "There is no harm in sending a non PP followed by validation if their response is that they own a debt that you owe" -The validation period in which the collection agency was LEGALLY required to repond IS WAY WAY PAST.
Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old Actually, Ill play angels advocate. I agree with everything you are saying Chris. In fact when they dont delete it as a result of the intent to sue, the poster should sue right? My question is, under what authority can they sue, and what case cite(s) can you provide the poster to be able to show the judge when he asked "do you have points and authority for this ?" The case or authority which asserts that "The permissible purpose for collection of a debt hinges upon the CA being able to proove that they even legally hold a debt that you owe. If that proof falls apart, the PP is no longer there." ? Just trying to help the poster in the event they have to sue when the collection agency doesnt delete the inquiry.
Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old The facts are that: If there is no valid debt or proof of the debt, then the CA pulled a non-pp inquiry. The cost of a non-pp inquiry is $1,000 in statutory damages. It will cost the CA $5,000 in attorney fees to prove their point in united states district court. Sure, the law may be stacked in favor of the debt collector. But when it comes time to go to court, they cannot win no matter what they do in the long run.
Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old Actually, Ill play angels advocate. I agree with everything you are saying Chris. In fact when they dont delete it as a result of the intent to sue, the poster should sue right? My question is, under what authority can they sue, and what case cite(s) can you provide the poster to be able to show the judge when he asked "do you have points and authority for this ?" The case or authority which asserts that "The permissible purpose for collection of a debt hinges upon the CA being able to proove that they even legally hold a debt that you owe. If that proof falls apart, the PP is no longer there." ? Just trying to help the poster in the event they have to sue when the collection agency doesnt delete the inquiry.
Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old Actually, Ill play angels advocate. I agree with everything you are saying Chris. In fact when they dont delete it as a result of the intent to sue, the poster should sue right? My question is, under what authority can they sue, and what case cite(s) can you provide the poster to be able to show the judge when he asked "do you have points and authority for this ?" The case or authority which asserts that "The permissible purpose for collection of a debt hinges upon the CA being able to proove that they even legally hold a debt that you owe. If that proof falls apart, the PP is no longer there." ? Just trying to help the poster in the event they have to sue when the collection agency doesnt delete the inquiry.
Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old "If there is no valid debt or proof of the debt, then the CA pulled a non-pp inquiry. " -I sure hope I AM WRONG on this. -I just wish someone could show me SOMETHING that indicates I AM WRONG.
Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old So if I send them a validation letter, do I use the standard modified form letter, or do I mention the SOL, and age of the debt? Then if they fail to respond, who do I sue to have it removed? The CA, or CRA? If I sent them a non PP, I'm afraid they will tell me their PP is in the fact that they have a debt I owe them. Can something I do effectively reset the clock, and have this debt re-listed on my report? Thanks again everyone.
Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old if I send them a validation letter, do I use the standard modified form letter, or do I mention the SOL, and age of the debt? -Since they left you hangin, Ill put my 2 cents in -Because there is NO case law or authority (that I am aware of) which supports the assertion that if a collection agency fails to validate, their pull becomes impermissible, there really isnt a whole lot you can do (legally) -You can always send a validation request. There is NO TIME LIMIT FOR THIS. -BUT, the collection agency DOES NOT HAVE TO EVEN REPLY to a "tardy" request for validation.-Mahon V Credit Bureau -So, if they are NOT REQUIRED to reply, how can one ASSUME their failure to reply somehow "converts" their pull into IMpermissible ?? -Having said that, it is possible that the debt collector is not aware of this fact, and MAY delete the inquiry. -Question is, is it worth the gamble? Then if they fail to respond, who do I sue to have it removed? The CA, or CRA? -A better question is HOW do you sue and under WHAT authority? -Personally, I would feel a lot more comfortable having AT LEAST ONE case cite with me to tell the judge when he asks "how can you do this?" If I sent them a non PP, I'm afraid they will tell me their PP is in the fact that they have a debt I owe them. -Almost 100% they will -Thats what they will tell the judge too -In addition, because this is a permissibility case, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO EVEN ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF LIABILITY OF THE DEBT IN COURT Can something I do effectively reset the clock, and have this debt re-listed on my report? -Reset the clock? Legally, NO. -It seems to old to report is, but how often does that happen? -BUT, IT MAY CAUSE THEM TO PULL ANOTHER report, leaving you with ANOTHER inquiry. THIS TOO would be permissible. -Personally, LEAVE IT ALONE. The consequences FAR OUTWAY the benefits. -Have you tried to just call the reporting agency and ask them to remove it ?
Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old How do you know the inquiry is regarding an account from 1995? Since this TL would not even be listed, and the inquiry itself shows no information on what debt creates the PP, without inquiring about their PP, you have no way of knowing whether or not they have any. Even if they may have had PP in the past, you cannot assume that they still do. They may have sold the debt. If they don't reply, you also have no way to determine if they have any PP. The prohibition against inquiries without PP becomes meaningless and unenforcible. Should we just assume that any inquiry by a CA, or any CRA customer, is automatically with valid PP, which is what the CRAs assume?
Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old "Should we just assume that any inquiry by a CA, or any CRA customer, is automatically with valid PP, which is what the CRAs assume?" Honestly, YES! Thats the status of the law, at this point. YES IT SUCKS Unless you can find a case which dictates what a "puller" HAS TO RESPOND to a request for the "permissible purpose", we are stuck with it. I think the poster already knows about the account, and it was deleted due to being obsolete. The poster would know if this was paid or not, and I assume would have posted that
Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old Please explain how his statement is the status of the law at this point? If that were the case, why would there be specific statutory penalties for pulling a report under false pretenses? Granted there's nothing in the FCRA that requires someone to answer a non pp letter, but lets be honest, how many judges would be really happy to see someone that their first step was to sue without trying to resolve OUTSIDE of the courtroom?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old -It is UP TO THE CONSUMER to show the pull was not permissible. -If this case THERE WAS A LISTING ON THE CREDIT REPORT, but it was deleted from being too old (obsolete), and the "pull" was in regards to this account., HOW CAN YOU SHOW it was NOT permissible? -"False pretenses" also has to be PROVEN. -As does "KNOWINGLY" without a permissible purpose. -You are correct. A judge would prefer an outside settlement. -BUT, once IN THE COURT, the judge HAS to go by the law, regardless of the "common sense" or "logical" argument that may be presented. -Simply put, AT THIS TIME, IT IS NOT IMPERMISSIBLE IF THEY DONT REPLY. IT is HOWEVER, evidence in corroboration of non-permissible access ALONG WITH OTHER EVIDENCE. -By the way, I PERSONALLY AGREE THAT IF THEY DONT REPLY TO THE REQUEST FOR PERMISSIBLE PURPOSE, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ASSUME THEY DIDNT HAVE ANY. -I also personally think consumers should be able to dispute DIRECTLY with the furnisher, and have recourse -But not until we have CASE LAW on this, can this change
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hard pull from CA for old, old I know this is for a debt from 95 because it just came off of my CR not too long ago, and the bottom feeders were sending me letters to settle a debt they claim was $600 for $80. I also want to prevent them from future pulls. Thats why I want to do this. I've always been told to leave it alone, but if I get a CR pulled for a job, I dont want this stuff coming up.
