NON PP ? acct IIBK soft inq "AR"

I just had the same thing happen and I sent a letter. It's not whether it's a hard or soft pull, it's a matter of their right to pull your CR. As you filed a BK on this acct., they no longer have PP to pull it.

 

Re: Re: NON PP ? acct IIBK soft inq "AR"

Look at the sample letters..... 'dispute'. There are several, just pick the one to suit your situation. Rather than dispute a collection account, you're disputing a public record.

 

Re: Re: Re: NON PP ? acct IIBK soft inq "AR"

my error --- I'll dig mine out and post it for you

 

Here is mine Phinfan:

Unhappy Individual
PO Box xxxx
My Backyard, MI xxxx

Non-PP Puller
Stupid Street
Anytown, __ xxxxx

June 28, 2004

To Whom It May Concern:

During a standard review of my credit files from the three major credit reporting agencies I was dismayed to find an inquiry on Experian posted by Stanford Federal Credit Union on January 2004.

As you are probably aware, the credit reporting agencies regard inquiries as a statement of fact and will not allow a consumer to dispute them. They maintain that if the inquiry is on file then the company listed did in fact view the consumerâ??s record.

Since it is unlawful under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for a person to view a consumer report without a â??permissible purposeâ?? I am writing this letter.

I don't recall applying for credit or employment with XXXXX Credit Union in the last 10 years.

From the FCRA § 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n]

"(b) Civil liability for knowing noncompliance. Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or $1,000, whichever is greater."

From the 1998 FTC opinion letter Greenblatt at http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/greenblt.htm:

"Any person who procures a consumer report under false pretenses, or knowingly without a permissible purpose, is liable for $1000 or actual damages (whichever is greater) to both the consumer and to the consumer reporting agency from which the report is procured."

Also from the Fair Credit Reporting Act:

§ 617. Civil liability for negligent noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681o]
(a) In general. Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this title with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of
(1) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure;
(2) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.

Please explain your permissible purpose for your obtaining my credit file. Should you not have a permissible purpose, please arrange for payment of $1,000 by July 14, 2004 to the name at the address listed at the top of this page.

I look forward to hearing from you to resolve this in an expeditious and amicable manner.

Sincerely,
Agrieved Consumer

 

Phinfan, my situation is the same - a pre-bk creditor. I didn't include that on mine but now that they haven't responded, I'm upping the ante..... or the cost to them (if I can... have to research that here shortly). Are they still showing on your CR? If yes, does it show that the account was included in a bk?

Because I'm trying to get rid of any bk accounts and mine doesn't mention it, I didn't inform them. And really, I'm not certain if I should have or not.

And the answer to your question is that if they are reporting a balance and / or actively updating your TL, then that is "collecting".

I have a meeting with my attorney Wednesday to ask him just how hard I can hit them for doing the same thing - that is if they don't fold on the demand I'm preparing to fax to them on Monday morning.

 

| Fico Score Questions

bumped to top
******************************************************