Inquiry Shenanigans!!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shennagin Update

The Greenblatt letted certainly DOES apply here, since it specifically addresses the incidence of pulling a CRA file with litigation pending or possible. With a CRA dispute, litigation is a possibility. In fact, it is the only disputre resolution method left to an individual consumer BY FCRA.

The interest rate change in student loans is mandated by contract according to the Prime Rate, and a certian "credit worthiness" is nota condition to qualify for that interest rate. Remember, when you took out teh studnet loan, you didn't have to have a job, income, assets or any immediate prospects thereof, just the ability to attend college and keep a 2.0 GPA. Creditworthiness was never a factor.

No matter how one twists the facts, the college is guilty of a non-PP pull.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shennagin Update

That's EXACTLY why you should be suing the collge - an Inquiry is self-verified. The fact that the file was pulled verifies the truth of the inquiry, so the ONLY issue is whether or not the entity pulling it had a RIGHT to do so.

 

Re: Shennagin's Abound.

Start simple and state what you want. The CRA to whom they report probably has a glossary of credit tems explaining the different types inquiries. Quote it.

I would then connect the definition of the SOFT the the PP definition [ sec. 604 ]. The key here is YOUR account is being REVIEWED. I think they have a right to look at the mistake you've identified - they just need to code it properly.

If they refuse, the GOWEN letter seems like a good reference, but I'd save it for a follow up. Perhaps they'll add some more violations. Did they mark your account as In Dispute on yor file? Have you succeeded in getting them to remove the lates?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shennagin Update

First, an apology to the Original Poster - I know this thread had deviated a bit from your question. The only reason I jumped in was to question FLYINGBLIND's advice.

In Greenblatt, one group has retained counsel, notified the brokerage firm and arranged an early dispute resolution conference.

That's not really the same as disputing the accuracy of a TL. The original poster has an active account with the creditor. And the OP is disputing the accuracy of the reporting. Where is the litigation that takes it out of Section 604? I would go so far as to say we are asking for our account to be reviewed when we dispute the accuracy of a TL. To the best of our knowledge, there hasn't even been a response to the dispute! There is a huge difference between an early dispute resolution conference with counsel and an instance of disputed accuracy that has yet to be resolved.

The OP disputed the reporting. Do you think any judge is going to refuse to let the OC see the report?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shennagin Update

There is more than one type of student loan. Look at the OP's post - it doesn't even match your definition. My Stafford's are based on the Prime and never pulled a CR, but I had to go outside the university for my SLSs because my CR was bad. And I paid a bit higher for the poor CR and those rates never adjust.

Your posts annoy me because they all have some good info, but there's a lot of misleading BS mixed in.

 

Re: Re: Re: Shennagin's Abound.

That's great! When the same thing happened to me, it took the lousy CRA more than 30 days to update - hope your's goes quicker.

You've probably already asked for a copy of the UDF for your records, right?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shennagin Update

To my somewhat Less than Erudite Critic:

The specific facts surrounding Greenblatt are different than the OP's, but the principles are strikingly similar. The FTC, in Greenblatt, basically said that Permissible Purpose extends only to those purposes allowed by FCRA, and peering into a file just for the sake of seeing what they peerer put there in the first place isn't one of them. The FTC also goes on to say "litigation or potential litigation". My position, and it is well founded in fact and law, is that any dispute is potential litigation (especially with someone as litigation prone as I am).

Will a Judge allow them to peer? I hope not, because that would open up the floodgates of every CSR at any credit card company being allowed to pull a hard inquiry whenever you have a question about your account, whenever you exercise your rights under Fair Credit Billing Act, whenever you return goods purchased on a credit card, whenever ANY transaction takes place involving a card holder.

In disputing the accuracy of a trade line, you are asking for your ACCOUNT to be reviewed, not your account with everyone else in the world, and that's what a pull is. To follow your argument, the school could come back and say "Sorry, Mr. OP, you missed a payment on your Mastercard, so the 60-day late with us remains". It's the account with THAT particular lender that is being questioned and the lender doesn't have to pull a credit report to investigate that.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shennagin Update

To my somewhat Less than Erudite Critic:

The specific facts surrounding Greenblatt are different than the OP's, but the principles are strikingly similar. The FTC, in Greenblatt, basically said that Permissible Purpose extends only to those purposes allowed by FCRA, and peering into a file just for the sake of seeing what they peerer put there in the first place isn't one of them. The FTC also goes on to say "litigation or potential litigation". My position, and it is well founded in fact and law, is that any dispute is potential litigation (especially with someone as litigation prone as I am).

Will a Judge allow them to peer? I hope not, because that would open up the floodgates of every CSR at any credit card company being allowed to pull a hard inquiry whenever you have a question about your account, whenever you exercise your rights under Fair Credit Billing Act, whenever you return goods purchased on a credit card, whenever ANY transaction takes place involving a card holder.

In disputing the accuracy of a trade line, you are asking for your ACCOUNT to be reviewed, not your account with everyone else in the world, and that's what a pull is. To follow your argument, the school could come back and say "Sorry, Mr. OP, you missed a payment on your Mastercard, so the 60-day late with us remains". It's the account with THAT particular lender that is being questioned and the lender doesn't have to pull a credit report to investigate that.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shennagin Update

You really don't get this, do you? Read your CC agreement. They can look at your file whenever they wish to verify that you still meet the conditions of your cardholder agreement. But you have an account with them, so it will be coded as an ACCOUNT REVIEW.

But you know what? HARD, SOFT and ACCOUNT REVIEWS are all CRA and FICO constructs. The FCRA makes no distinction. An inquiry is an inquiry to the FCRA. And Section 604 gives your creditors access to your file under certain conditions.

 

Shennagin Update

Well, I see both sides of this debate. I mentioned it before, and the letter the OP received mentioned it,

(i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer; or

Leaves a very wide open door if you took it to Court IMMHO.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shennagin Update

Section 604.a.3.A gives gives creditors a broad definition:

intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer;

It is the ligitious context - clients represented by counsel and early dispute resolution meetings that changes the business relationship and eliminates permissible purpose. Had the company reviewed CRs that might have been pulled when new clients created accounts, would they be in violation? No, They were reviewing information gathered when they had a legitimate business need.

This is just silly. Anything has the potential to become potential litigation. The standard is if it is reasonable to expect the outcome to be litigation. Clearly, if they pulled after an ITS letter was sent, they would be barred, but in response to a disputed accuracy? It not a violation of the FCRA to be inaccurate. It's a violation to fail to correct inaccuracies, so until the end of the dispute period, there isn't much on which to base litigation.

 

Re: Shennagin Update

Hey olivse -

who is the CRA?