Need some quick advice here . . . Going to court tomorrow AM with a company that did a soft credit pull twice without Permissible Purpose. Got a call today indicating that this was a Bullseye Pull, in which they only receive access to their specific tradeline in order to make corrections as necessary. This type of pull does not show up in the inquiries section. Their claim is that there was no invasion of privacy, therefore they have not violated any statute. I just looked at my credit report online and it now shows these inquiries as being investigated. My suspicion is that the creditor has contacted the CRA and miraculously these inquiries are going to be recoded as Bullseye pulls (which wouldn't show up on my credit report). What can I argue in court? My guess is that they will argue a clerical error at the CRA and I very likely will lose. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
What was the nature of the soft inquiry before - an account review? Assuming you have evidence of the way the inquiry was identified before, you've still got them. Either they had PP - you had an ongong relationship or you did owe them money - or they did not have PP for an account review. Changing the status after the fact is just covering their tracks, ruins their credibility. CRA will never agree that they made a mistake. They would say, if you have time to get such a statement from them, that they can not change the data, only delete it or update it. The provider furnishes the data. You may not have time to get a written document, but you could have a phone conversation to that effect and document it.
Save the indications that the inquiries have been placed under investigation. Question the representative of the defendant in detail about whether he or she (or anyone at the CRA she knows about) asked for any changes in how the CRA reported those inquries. CRAs have audit trails in their software ... they can go back and tell who did what, and when it was done. The defendant's rep had better play pretty straight with you ... especially if they're coming into court with something dated in the past couple of days. The court should be allowed to draw its own inference that they've been playing games.
If you get the chance, say something along the following lines... "If somone broke into your house, looked aroung, but did no damage, would you still hold them accountable for burglery?"
IT HAPPENED...the inquiry was done...they did it!!! I ASSUME you have a copy of it, before they remove it... END OF STORE!!!! THAT WILL BE $1,000 PLEASE Or settle for $500 AND REMOVAL
Hehe. I think they really do have to steal something Dixie. Howbout "breaking and entering". Merlin, Send me an email. I have a PDF, regarding "Bullseye Reports" for ya. .
Burglary: "the act of breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony" Some jurisdictions require that the dwelling be occupied, and/or that it be nighttime when the crime occurs.
Re: Re: Re: HELP! Bullseye Credit Pull You don't. You require the prosecutor to comply with it. If it ain't night and/or nobody's home, it's a lesser charge like larceny, etc. "Burglary" is in those jurisdictions an enhanced charge carrying an enhanced penalty compared to behavior that is considered less threatening to the public. Historically and today, people would rather criminals break in when they're not at home, do their thing and get out (as opposed to, say, breaking in when they are at home, binding and gagging them then beating and raping them). That second scenario is also likelier at night when people are likelier to be at home. Hence "burglary" carrying a greater penalty.
Re: Re: Re: HELP! Bullseye Credit Pull Went to court on Wednesday. Presented my case -- all the normal stuff we discuss on CNet. Defendent argued that they only pulled a Bullseye report, something they've been doing for 23 years and never had a problem. She indicated that they only are able to view their particular tradeline. I presented a document from Experian's website which indicated that they provided a person's "credit history" with a Bullseye report. I further argued that it was irrelevant, because even according to a letter they presented from Experian, permissible purpose is required to pull a Bullseye. She further argued that they had the right to "review" my account because I had sent a letter disputing the accuracy. I provided the Greenblatt letter defining "account review." The judge seemed to have a "what's the big deal" attitude. I made the point that they didn't even know where the reports that they had pulled were -- there are two credit reports floating somewhere around that cannot be accounted for. He will provide his judgement in a few days. My guess is that I have about a 30% chance of prevailing. I'll keep everyone posted.
