Just an attempt to clarify the misconception about inquiries. -THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN A so called "hard" or "soft" inquiry. THE LAW DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE 2. -The credit inquiry, REGARLESS where on the credit report the reporting agency may choose to place it, STILL HAS TO BE PERMISSIBLE to be legal. -Some will argue that it makes a difference because a "hard" inquiry affects your score or the puller "sees" more on a "hard" inquiry. -First, the laws are "Strict liability" meaning THERE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE "DAMAGE" to have a violation. -Second, it is not WHAT they saw, it was the mere fact they looked. Here is a good analogy: Say a "peeping Tom" peeks through your keyhole in the door of your bedroom, to see you lying in bed reading a book. He really didnt see anything "too private". (so called "soft inquiry") Now, what happens if he sees you having sex with your wife/husband? (so called "hard" inquiry) In the second case, do you call the police, and why???? CAUSE IT'S FRIGGIN' ILLEGAL RIGHT???? and an invasion of your privacy Well, why wouldn't you call the police in the first case???? IT'S ALSO FRIGGIN' ILLEGAL! and an invasion of privacy right? Simply put, It the mere fact the "peeing Tom" looked, and not what they saw when they looked. -DAMAGE to your credit score is IRRELEVENT!!!!!! -There is also an arguement that pullers and the reporting agencies use, and actually put on the "inquiries" section of credit reports. "The companies listed below received your name, address and other limited information about you so they could make a firm offer of credit or insurance. They did not receive your full credit report, and these inquiries are not seen by anyone but you." -Look familiar ? -ITS A SCAM!! DONT FALL FOR IT! -In order to get a copy of your credit report, the potential puller requests a list of names who meet certain credit criteria. Because they have requested a specific set of criteria, THEY ALREADY KNOW ELEMENTS OF YOUR CREDIT REPORT, therefore by receiving "your name address and other limited info", they have in fact accessed your consumer credit report. See Cole v US Capital on the FTC website http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...inc.pdf+cole+v++++credit+report&hl=en&start=2 [/url] -This will probably come as a shock to some, and will probably been disregarded by the resident "experts", but research it yourself
Also interesting reading on this issue is FTC v. Trans Union, and Trans Union v. FTC, on the issue of using CRA files as the basis for target marketing. Actually, it is not disregarded by a lot of the resident experts... In fact my arguements on my own PRM debacle have been making this point for months... "No Such Thing As A Non-PP?!?!?!" And in my case, their isn't a contract since I didn't apply for credit, and they admitted as much (and in the letter where they admit that they obtained additional information from the CRA, they admit that not only won't I be receiving a firm offer of credit or insurance, but the exact opposite, that I was going to be permanately removed from their marketing lists), but they still inquired of additional information from the CRA, after they were informed by me, that I was PRM BLOCKED. (So there is no arbitration clause to be concerned with.)
Jam.... I am researching this issue for federal court cases.. Do you have any cases on point in which a consumer has "opted out", and the reporting agency has documented the "file blocked for promotional purposes", but there are PRM inquiries after the opt out date? The TU v FTC is close, but it deals with target marketing alone and not exactly on point. Thanks
As far as a 'case' law precident goes, I don't think that there is any. I had repeated PRM's on EX to one company starting about 2 months after they placed the PRM BLOCK on the file, and every other month or so for a few times after. I had one PRM on EQ to one company a little over a year or so into the PRM BLOCK. The only reason I didn't blow a gasket with those CRA's, for those PRMs, is that they properly disclosed them, so at least I knew they had peeped. The problem with PRM BLOCK cases, is that opt-out status is probably only elected by so few consumers, that cases of 604(e) election not being followed being the basis of a suit is slim to none. What caused the debacle that I am going through is that the CRA which I am fighting apparently decided to only place the 'standard' fraud alert PRM block on for only six months, instead of two years, as their competitors do; even though I had requested that the PRM BLOCK be permenant. And apparently, my questioning their supreme authority is hitting a little too close to home, since they've decided to illegally retaliate against me.
Probably the only times it would be worth litigating a PRM after PRM block case would be with on-going identity theft that could have been prevented had the PRM block been in effect, resulting in damage to the identity theft victim.
-why? -It kinda defies logic, and goes back to the misconception that a "PRM" is a "soft" inquiry and not a violation. -There is NO difference in a PRM access when there is a PRM Block, and an account review access when you dont have an open account. -It all boils down to invasion of privacy. If you have a promotional block, then any promotional inquires would be impermissible -Just need to find a case on point.
It's like the company I'm fighting trying to claim that they don't have a PP to check 604(e) status, since its not tied to any account (one of the limits in a PRM), when 604(e) status is a condition for a 604(c) request.
No mythology here. The difference between a hard inquiry (those which can be seen by others), and soft inq's. (those for your eyes only) are that HARD'S DO lower your score. There's also a "hard" vs. "soft" deletion. .
Re: Re: "Hard" vs "Soft" inquiry my -Yes sir, but the point was you dont have to wait for your score to be affected to take action or for the inquiry to be impermissible
Re: Re: "Hard" vs "Soft" inquiry my I so love the difference between the hard & soft deletions... grrrr... I am going to love drafting a letter (to both the C&D DF, and the CRA via the BBB) to dispute the retaliatory re-addition of an account which was soft deleted by the DF, by the CRA because they didn't want to respond to my inquiry... At least this way I can make it a hard deletion...
Re: Re: Re: "Hard" vs "Soft" inquir -When corresponding with them, refer to it as a "Bullseye", that is the term for a "hard deletion". Then they will know you know your sh*t
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Hard" vs "Soft" inquir Knowing my sh*t is what got me promoted to Priority Handling...
