I had a unauthorized inquiry removed after I threatened to sue. Can I still sue even if they removed it. They still saw my credit report when they weren't authorized to. I still have the CR that shows their inquiry. Wouldn't them removing the inquiry basically be an admission of guilt, if they had pp why did they remove?
I think it might be more hassle then it is worth. You got the inquiry off of your credit report and that is the important issue.
What was the basis, even if erroneous, for their inquiry? Was it an "accidental" pull of the wrong persion? Or did they have some other, non-PP motive to specifically inquire about you? I think it is important to establish that the proper and ethical behavior of a legitimate business on making an error is to promptly fix it. Even this simple concept appears lost on some, who still believe a credit bureau is a private club. You might insist on some written explanation of how the error was made.
I think it is important to establish that the proper and ethical behavior of a legitimate business on making an error is to promptly fix it. 1*Even this simple concept appears lost on some, who still believe a credit bureau is a private club. You might insist on some written explanation of how the error was made. ontrack ================= 1* It's been replaced by most with this: The entire credit industry is based on the premise of "deceive, trap, and indebt". This works the way most carnivals operate. DECEPTION is key in this industry. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
In a broader philisophical context, the relationship between two parties places limits on their behavior. Businesses and their vendors have an ongoing relationship of value to both. It would be business suicide to treat a customer or vendor in the manner employed by many CAs. But a debtor is not a CA's customer, and there is no expectation of an on-going relationship beneficial to both. This provides financial incentives to the CA to act outside even legal limits. Similar incentives exist to the sub-prime lenders who can consider their customers captive, although as we have seen, they sometimes get burned. The least constraints on behavior are felt by purchasers of old debt, where only intimidation is likely to produce a payback. They have NO customer relationship, and no incentive to ensure the validity of their "debt" or that they are attempting to collect from the correct party. The legitimacy of their tactics may be based on no more than Ollie North's concept of "plausable deniability", which places a challenge on a legal and regulatory system that requires "proof" before taking any action. What I find interesting, however, is that the Internet makes available information on the common practices of businesses in much the same way that CRAs provide that information on consumers. The normal and occasional excesses and institutional incompetence are clearly visible, as is systematic illegal behavior practiced as a concious business model. The range of terms available in the marketplace are visible, both as advertised, and as actually practiced. This helps nullify the advantage of firms engaged in the ethical equivalent of "bait and switch" at the expense of consumers they don't deserve.
They never replied to my intent to sue letter yet. It was just taken off my report. I pull it daily via PG.
Going through this with T-Mobile. They ignored my first letter. Sent the second letter to registered agent, demanding $1000. Yesterday, time was up. In the mail was a letter from TU saying the inquiry had been deleted. I did not request deletion, so T-Mobile is trying to clean up their screw up. I am choosing to file suit on Monday. They ignored my first letter - they didn't give a crap until I threatened to sue, then they just deleted it. They should not have looked at it in the first place!
In the mail was a letter from TU saying the inquiry had been deleted. I did not request deletion, so T-Mobile is trying to clean up their screw up. I am choosing to file suit on Monday. gmaof1 ================= Right on! This is why the purple line in my Sig. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>
I am simply sick and tired of allowing collection agencies, credit bureaus, and the rest of them do as they choose because most people do not want to take the time, money or effort to enforce their rights. Was I young and dumb when I got into this mess? Heck yes - and I didn't care! Have I paid the ultimate price? Heck yes! I have not been able to purchase a home, have a car loan with a outrageous interest rate, and subprime credit cards. I have paid more in interest than I could have ever owed to these yahoos! I had accounts that were mine and those that were not. I have setteled on a few, even paid the entire amount on a few. It all depends on the response from them. If they treat me like the human being that I am, then I will take care of things that I shoud have when I was young and dumb. If they treat me like they are better than me, or ABOVE THE LAW, or simply ignore me, then they are acting no better than I did years ago. I have paid for years. It is now their turn. All I asked T-Mobile to do in the first letter was provide me with PP or delete the inquiry. They chose to ignore me. Why be nice now?
Re: Re: No Pp Inquiry Removed, Still Sue? It's getting better all the time!!! In todays mail is the following: Dear XXXXXX T-Mobile USA< is in receipt of your letter dated April XX, 2004 regarding an inquiry on your credit report. In order to investigate this matter, we will need your social security number. Please send this infomation to my attention at the address provided below, or if you prefer you may provide the number to me over the phone at 877-290-6323. Upon receipt, T-Mobile will investigate the matter and advise you of our findings. Thank you. Very truly yours, Idiot rep from T-mobile My planned response is this: Dear Idiot rep. I did not need to give you my SS# in order for you to pull a credit report before, so it will not be necessary for me to do so now. Your time to investigate is up. You have had more than 60 days already. Investigate this- (I will attach the summons!) Remit check for $1000.00 within 5 days or see you in court! Funny thing is that I gave them until April 30. This letter is dated the 29th. Nothing like waiting until the last minute!
Re: Re: No Pp Inquiry Removed, Still Sue? I would think that since they corrected their error you have no further grounds for action. Poochie ================ Can you back back through the traffic lite and erase the fact that it was red when you ran through it?
Re: Re: No Pp Inquiry Removed, Still Sue? My concern is that the CRAs basically leave the barn door open to anyone who says they have PP. There are a number of reports of CAs allegedly pursuing old debt (out of SOL, and long past 7 years) against consumers, where the consumer has lived at the same address for many years, and somehow magically the address associated with the "debt", at which the consumer has never lived, shows up on his credit report, in support of the legitimacy of the debt. If this was a case of identity theft, the consumer would have been locatable by the original creditor at the time of delinquency. Since this did not happen, but instead the erroneous information shows up while the account is in collection, we can assume that the original creditor did NOT consider the consumer to be the one responsible for its debt. Another explanation could be that some CAs are posting false information, perhaps in support of their collection, or to substantiate the "quality" of debt they resell. All information submitted to a CRA is (presumably) required to be from an identifiable source. The CAs are required to have their PP certification on file. Has anyone requested "All" information from a CRA, and received more than the usual truncated credit reports? In particular, where you have found erroneous address information, have you ever been able to get to the source, or have you always just got the usual "you should contact each of your creditors to see who is submitting an erroneous address"? Either the CRAs collect and retain source information with each item submitted, or there is no way they can maintain "maximum accuracy" since they have no way to track or block sources of erroneous information. Their information would be "unauditable", since information from multiple sources could not be used to reject unreliable users. The "creditor" with the weakest checks would present an open door to an identity thief, since the "identity" in a CRA database is the union of all identity information submitted, various subsets of which are adequate to establish "legitimacy".
I have never had an account with them. There is no collection account listed on my report in error. I did apply with them in November 2003. They pulled a hard then. That was fine. (I chose to not use their service then) What was not fine, was them pulling ANOTHER hard in Febuary. I did not apply again. I had no contact with them. Whether or not they "fixed" it is irrelevant. They NEVER HAD PP!"
Originally posted by Poochie I would think that since they corrected their error you have no further grounds for action. ****************************** Can you back back through the traffic lite and erase the fact that it was red when you ran through it? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> Whether or not they "fixed" it is irrelevant. They NEVER HAD PP!" gmaof1 ======================== They never take it off the report when we make it right so why should we take it off the docket when they do?
Closer to going thru a stop sign without a complete stop. If you are polite, the officer might only give you a warning. They had PP and pulled "recently". Sloppy, but with the inquiry removed it is difficult to argue they acted deliberately with intent to damage you.
