BTW George, great word! Out of respect for picantel, no CRA names will be mentioned in this post. Please keep true to this in your replies, if any ) If any CRA is removing inquiries solely because of an inadequacy in their system, that is a grave and serious violation of the FCRA. BUT, if we are doing something legitimate that is resulting in a CRA system deleting inquiries, it is indeed their problem, not ours. Obviously it is a gain for us. I stress the word legitimate, because I feel that any attempt at deception in the credit 'repair' game will come back to haunt you. However, it is in no way dishonest to say you were adversely affected by a credit decision based on your credit file, even when you were actually granted credit. Unless you were given the best terms, and no one could have gotten better terms, information in your file did indeed result in adverse terms being offered. *steps off the soapbox*
Jambe, not to be argumentative, but...(my turn on the soapbox) Even though I aspire to be wholly "legitimate" in the process of credit disputing, I have found that playing the game using the CRA's 'rules' has always left me with anger and resentment. Ideally I would agree with you. But the CRAs don't play the game legitimately either. If every representative were well versed on the FCRA, and provided exceptional customer service, and if the CRAs operated under the edict of "innocent until proven guilty", and if they didn't lie so much, then I could see playing the game honestly. But because they have the home team advantage, play according to their own rules, lack basic FCRA knowledge, sustain inadequate technical systems, and give the consumer a punch in the tender areas as often as possible, I don't mind taking advantage of their weaknesses. Actually, I've made most of my progress based on the simple tasks of making them adhere to federal law. If any entity has been more suspicious and practiced illegitimately in my experience, it has been the CRAs. As far as "deception" in credit repair. What is more deceiving than FICO? So why is it held as a closely guarded secret? Because one creditor denies me because of one CRA FICO, but would approve me if it had used an alternate CRA that had a good FICO....isn't that decieving? And how can my FICO be the sole source for approval if other things are not taken into consideration that directly apply to the situation? If you ask me, most anything learned and accomplished by the members of this board that has resulted in their benefit, is acceptable. It's a war and I have no intention of losing. If they want to meet me at the armistace table, I'm willing. But until they stop firing, pass me more ammunition. That's just my take on it. I respect those who disagree, and understand why.
I can't really argue with you, or your reasoning. I can only add that if you plan to take them to task, then you must be as pure as you can be in the process. However, if you do not intend to go all the way to court, ever, then I say use whatever you want, short of outright fraud, to accomplish the goals you have in mind. I certainly wasn't preaching morality...
I don't mind following a moral path. And I agree that credit repair should be legitimately accomplished. However, I also believe in fighting fire with fire. As I said above, most of my progress has been made by catching CRAs in violation of federal law. It's too bad that they can't be managed against a moral code. I have documented that several CRA employees have knowingly lied to me. And I would agree that we should be prepared enough to go all the way. Until a more perfect world comes along, I'm going to make the best of what I have.
One key point: Remember the CRA's MAY keep information for the prescribed periods of time in the FCRA. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO MAINTAIN ANY INFORMATION IF THEY SO CHOOSE. A CRA may delete inquiries or accounts without having violated the rights of anyone. They time limits are maximums only. Now, if by legitimately pulling reports exposes an inadequacy in their system that deletes information, we can only assume the CRA designed their system that way. So I see no issues with "bumpage" if I am legitimately pulling reports. The online systems simply give the consumer much more access than they have ever had in the past.
Accounts yes, inquiries a most definate NO. The CRA's have a legal duty to keep track of who accesses your file, and they must provide you with this information in their consumer disclosure. Read the other thread here that goes into much more detail about this...
