The past week has been a real pain. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, I noticed a hard inquiry from NCO that came from nowhere on my TU. I'm also in the middle of trying to get my last CA off my EQ report. Well, I sent off validation request, they replied with a photocopy of a letter giving my balance. I replied that this isn't validation and delete or I'll see you in court. Of course, they also didn't put the account in dispute. I also sent off a procedural request to EQ, since they of course marked it as checked. Well tonight, I see a hard from them on my EQ. I have searched and read these boards high and low and I'm not really sure of the following: 1. What is the consensus on a CA doing a hard while its in dispute/validation? Some say its a violation, others say its not clearly stated by the FTC as one. 2. Is this considered attempting to collect a debt while in dispute (which isn't marked in dispute)? 3. What should I send them next? I was ready to send off an ITS tomorrow until this hard showed up. Thanks for any suggestions.
I wouldn't worry about the inquiry right now. I don't think a court considers checking your report to be a collection activity. I would send the second validation letter if you have only sent one, then if you don't get an appropriate response, follow up with the ITS.
Ok, I was going to send this combo "I've asked for validation and I'm pissed off about the hard." estoppel letter. As I have not heard back from you since my second notice of dispute received by you on July 25, 2003, and since you have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt, under the doctrine of estoppels by silence, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists. I have tried to deal with your company in good faith and resolve this matter amicably. I have given your company ample time to properly validate this tradeline. You have not done so, and, you have now obtained a hard inquiry on my credit report. Although it is legal for a collection agency to obtain inquiries, I did not apply for credit or employment with your company like a hard inquiry implies, nor give you permissible purpose to pull such an inquiry. Also, since this account is in dispute and review, the inquiry should be reflected as an account review (A/R) inquiry. Your willful non-compliance of your legal requirements is unacceptable. Let me once again outline what action needs to be taken. Since you have not validated the above referenced tradeline within the given timeframe, you are to immediately delete this incorrect account, in the form of a Universal Data Form, from files with Equifax. You also need to notify Equifax that your inquiry on Aug. 5, 2003 was an account review, or have it deleted entirely. Fax proof of these actions to me immediately! Furthermore, since you are unable to validate this tradeline, it is lawfully assumed that you are unable to verify this account with the credit reporting agencies as well. Please be advised that failure to comply with my requests will result in a lengthy and expensive legal battle with your company. I will not hesitate to file suit for these violations. Federal and State laws entitle me to damages for these violations, which are easily proven. For the purposes of 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., blah,blah,blah. Thank you, and I look forward to your resolving this matter expeditiously, as time is of the essence. Sincerely, Any feedback would be great. Thanks!
But wouldn't it be? I thought what gave the CA permissable purpose, was the fact that they are pursuing collection activities. If they are unlawfully able to pursue those activities, wouldn't performing the INQ be unlawful as they have no Permissable purpose? If that is the case, that's a $1000 violation right there you could sue on. All that is subject to my interpretation to posts I've read here. I might be wrong, so I'd ask for someone else to back me up. I'm still a newb = )
Well, after I sent that fax/letter, they called me at home (wasn't there, saw it on caller id), and sent me a letter asking me to call to discuss the case. I'm not calling, they know what they have to do. The account is still being reported, (as well as the inquiry) although its marked in dispute again, my guess by EQ since I sent them a procedural request. I also sent a complaint to the FTC. If nothing changes by the end of the month, I'll send ITS!
I'm sure they're going to say that they didn't pull the inquiry to COLLECT--they just needed to see what the credit bureau was showing. Of course, we know that they reported it themselves, but based on some of the cases cited here, they may get away with saying that they're just checking the status, not collecting.
Re: Re: I'm really starting to get pissed! The CRA puts what "THEY" told them to put..."THEY" do not need to PULL to see what "THEY" put there!!! "THEY" should have what "THEY" told the CRA to put in their own computer system!!! It is just another chance to HURT the consumer...a little bit more!!! JUST STICK ONE MORE PIN IN THE CONSUMER...
Re: Re: I'm really starting to get pissed! I agree with you, GEORGE, I'm just questioning whether the courts will agree. I think it depends on how knowledgeable the judge is. You know the judges often tend to agree with the creditor, especially if he is representing himself. I'm sure the CA only pulled the hard inquiry to hurt the score. But you just have trouble proving it, and proving what effect it has on the score, therefore on your ability to get credit.
Re: Re: Re: I'm really starting to get pissed! HOW CAN THEY NOT HAVE ACCESS IN AN INSTANT WHAT THEY TOLD THE CRA TO REPORT??? It would be normal to have that information as part of the "ACCOUNT HISTORY" on their computer!!! I have AOL...I can access WHO SIGNED ON WHEN...HOW LONG THEY STAYED...TOTAL SIGNED ON TIME FOR THE MONTH... Why would a CREDITOR or CA need to look at a credit report to see what they told the CRA to print???
Re: Re: Re: I'm really starting to get pissed! "IF" you WIN with anything I said...I want $100 (assuming you get more than $500)...HOPE FOR $1,000+ COSTS (costs include lost day of work, gas to and from, lunch, fee you paid for court, etc)
Re: Re: Re: I'm really starting to get pissed! George, if it goes to court, and I use your arguments, and I get cash, $100 goes your way!!! I'll keep you guys posted on whats happening, and, if I'll need any more words of wisdom in court! They've got till the end of the month; if its still there, no ITS, straight to sue. I've aleady threatened them with legal action. They've had more than enough time.
Re: Re: Re: I'm really starting to get pissed! CHASE never reported my BOGUS 30 day late to any CRA because it NEVER HAPPENED...they researched it on their computer system and agreed that it NEVER HAPPENED!!! THEY DID NOT PULL A "HARD" TO SEE IF I HAD A 30 DAY LATE REPORTING ON MY CLOSED CHASE ACCOUNT!!!
Re: Re: I'm really starting to get pissed! Yeah, that's what those AR type Inquiries are for, to REVIEW an ACCOUNT, hence the AR code (Account Review.) This is all they need to do at most, and these are Soft Inquiries, meaning no other creditors sees them, and an AR inquiry I think means they only see what they are reporting, not the whole CR, which is all they should be concerned with to begin with. You could argue that pulling a Hard is continued collection activity, cause the CA knows that a Hard will lower your FICO, and thus they are forcing you to comply for fear they may do this again and lower your score even more ... it's kinda like extortion, pay us now or quit requesting Validation from us, or we will keep pulling a HARD on you and drop your score even more. If they just to to "review" what is reported to the CRA cause somehow they just can't figure out what in the hell they sent them, then they can very well do a SOFT AR Inquiry. FedUp2003
