I am liking the fact that 2 inq's have vanished from my report, however I am suspicious why. Reason being it is from an old judgement in 2001, and the judgment collector was snooping on me, once in late 2003 and once in early 2004. I thought that those inq drop off just as any inq would in 2 yrs. So, that means to me that the odds are good the CA had them removed by their choice. I never asked for removal, nor made ANY reference to it. I have also not had ANY contact with this CA in over 3 years. Any thoughts??
Maybe they did not have permisable purpose to pull your reporty and rather than paying you $1000 they decided to remove the inquiry before you started asking the right questions..
they did hav PP as a judgement owner, that is why it's questionable to me. The judgment has never been paid, but I have been investigating the situation for about 8mos now. i think they bought a non-exsistant debt as a debt buyer, as it was a car repo from 1998, but a repo nulls an auto note therefore there is no contract, obligation or debt to sell/buy. I am sure they bought in a huge portfolio from the bank.
Do you have any other inquiries? Do you pull your reports through one of the services like PG? If so, all of your pulls might have "bumped" it off.
Opinions? Yes, absolutely and of course. The CA is the client of the CRA. If the CRA can help its client then it will. In this case, that "help" was provided by destroying a record that is crucial to establish your cause of action against the CRA's client. Please let us know which CA and (more important to me) which CRA was involved in this cover up. thanks
Slightly off topic, but you're not seriously thinking that a repo removes one from liability for the remaining balance after the car is sold. (lol) I think you are saying that you think the original promissory note is void somehow, but I don't even see how that's true. In case of repo, the debtor still owes any balance due after the car is sold. There is ALWAYS a balance due, as the creditor charges storage and a list of other frivolous fees before selling.
yes gold, it's in the UCC and I believe all the states have adopted it. At least my state the repo occured in has. A repo DOES null any obligation to a debtor as far as the contract is concerned. But you are correct as to the deficiency balance, however the bank normally files suit relatively soon after the auction to protect thier interests, not 2 yrs later like in this case. And most banks won't bother with it anyway if it's under 5-10 grand in a lot of cases because the legal fees to collect it are too high and not worth thier interest and time. This CA got a default judgement because I was not properly served in 2001. And the total they sued for was way too much for the year car I had to be a def balance, or at least a legal def balance so a lot things do not add up. And to the PG pulls knocking off inqs, I thought that only accurred to the older inq's, not new ones. If it is the case, then why are ONLY those CA inq's gone now and not the others? THat's what I mean that it is questionalble, to say the least!
which CRA are we talking about? I gave you the skinny on it above..that is likely what is happening. A CRA is not the most honest entity.
