Yeah, I've been thinkin about this. I would'a told em to delete the inq. and I'll consider dropping my suit. THEN NOT DROP IT AFTERALL.
I like the Bayhouse letters but in my humble opinion C asks too many questions and makes not enough demands. Though you can't argue with her results! That is where I got the inspiration to even attempt this so many thanks to Bayhouse and C... In my letter posted above I ask no questions, I state simple facts and make a simple demand.
I think the beauty of her questions lies in her none-too-subtly tipping her hand as to the line of questions they would have faced had they squared off with her in small claims court. If they couldn't answer those questions rationally (which they obviously couldn't), then they would look foolish to the judge. They apparently agreed and decided to cut their losses. I see it as sort of like interrogatories and other pre-trial mumbo-jumbo. It exists mostly to let the two sides size up each others' case and determine if it can be won, and, if not, how best to minimize the damages.
I think you should just keep writing letters and remain logical. And if the AG participates in illogical activity, then you know more about what they're worth and how to use them. Since you presented no evidence that the violation is widespread, I doubt you'll get competent help from the government; it can't police every single case. But, the laws put the power into the hands of the individual citizen-- the so-called "private right of action." No phone calls unless you're prepared to record them. This is a case about privacy, and providing even more information about you would be ironic and counter to the entire notion of privacy. You've gone this far. How about finding some Web space and posting scans of the letters? That tells the ultimate story.
I don't know that that is true-- the part about corresponding. I have this, however, from a TransUnion credit report: "EXCESSIVE INQUIRIES ON THE CREDIT REPORT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON YOUR CREDIT SCORE. LIMITING THE NUMBER OF CREDIT APPLICATIONS YOU COMPLETE MAY IMPROVE YOUR CREDIT SCORE."
Check out this pic: http://www.htmlcenter.com/jetta/wfnnb.gif It will show that WFNNB/Lane Bryant pulled my credit on 8/15/02. I have never had an account with them. I have had an acct with WFNNB/King Sizes and one with WFNNB/Today's Man. Both accounts were closed and fully paid back in 1996. I am SERIOUSLY pissed off that companies can just pull credit whenever they want. When I called Experian, they said, if they pay and they have a business name, blamo they can get your report. If I was to send a letter, would I send it to the address on the pic above? Thanks, Allen
allen, You and I seem to run into alot of the same problems. On July 22, WFNNB/Victoria's Secret pulled an AR on my Equifax report although I have not had an account with them for over 2 years. I would definitely contact them on your issue because it is a hard inquiry and can affect your ability to obtain or maintain credit. Dani
Did you ever use that victoria secret card? wink wink sorry bad humor... all this studying for the gmat has gone to my head! 4 days left
Yes. Let me put it this way I have one of the best underthingyabob collections in Virginia. Now I just let my husband pick them out...what can I say, I am lazy. Dani
oh wow... its funny that you mentions Lane Bryant... I got a hard inquiry put on my credit report.. I called the local Lane Bryant store and found that it was a cothing store for women sizes 14+... I am a skinny DUDE.. why would they pull a credit inquiry on me... if anyone has any sample letters tiops or whatever that been pass aournd please sned a copy my way..I am not going to bother with Experian and go straight to the source...
cibamotto... i intend on sending them a letter next week. i would do it today but from 2-9 i have gmat studying... i have 2 inquiries on there one from WFNNB and one from WFNNB/Lane Bryant. Then another AR from compucredit. All 3 of those are getting a nice little note from me.
I posted about a month ago about an unauthorized inquiry that suddenly appeared on my report. In that case, I called the company in question and was stunned at how quickly the inquiry was removed from my report. (It took about a week) Strangely, another unauthorized inquiry appeared last week. (From a different company) I sent a certified letter on Wednesday. They received it on Thursday, AND THE INQUIRY WAS REMOVED THAT DAY! Thank goodness we know how to check our reports and what to do if stuff like this happens, but I don't like the trend. I, for one, believe that the penalty should be increased. (Although the threat of having to pay $1000 seems to work pretty well!)
I have a bunch of unauthorized inquiries on my credit that I have been disputing with the inquirers as well as the CRAs. I am getting ready to file suit in small claims court against the inquirers, and I am exploring the possibilities of also filing against the CRAs. They won't investigate inquiries, so it seems to me, that by reporting these inquiries, they are in violation of two sections of the FCRA: 1) They are required to investigate any item of information disputed by a consumer. 2) They are barred from furnishing to anyone but me a record of inquiries in connection with a transaction not initiated by me. This seems pretty straightforward to me. I disputed; they refused to investigate, and they are furnishing to others a record of inquiries in connection with a transaction not initiated by me. The law is neither obscure nor ambiguous on these points. Is this wishful thinking, or do I have a case here?
I have an inquiry on my report dated 9/2001 from Allstate insurance. I wrote to them telling them I never had insurance w/ them & to remove it. They responded by telling me it was permissible for "underwritting of insurance". I don't know what that means...but why would they have permission to "underwrite" anything if I don't even have insurance w/ them????
