Hello, I am quite new to all this so forgive me if I make any errors. I have been checking out the posts to this board and find it wonderful to see others going through what I am. There is so much information here it could take a lifetime to read it all. I would like to ask a question that I can't seem to find the answer to in any previous posts. I have a closed credit card account (settled two years ago) but the company continues to hit me with a soft inquiry everytime I file a dispute with trans union. The soft then dissapears after a few months. I sent a letter to TU asking them to not permit this activity. they responded that I must take it up with the credit card co. I sent them a letter demanding that they stop (certified mail). They hit me with two more softs since then. I called and got through to the credit disputes dept. that requests them. They told me they only pulled one but that it was permissabe for them to review my account with them via TU whenever I file a dispute with TU. I think they have no right to pull a soft or hard after the account closed. Am I right, or is a Soft acceptable?
They cannot verify information based on the very entry that is being disputed. They clearly had no permissible purpose. Saar
"verification, n. - additional proof that something that was believed is true" Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University. What I mean is their purpose was anything BUT permissible. Saar
once an account is closed then there is no permissible purpose. permissible purpose applies to any person who views your credit file. person = person, corporation, small business, partnership, martian, etc. etc. etc. If the 'person' in question viewed your consumer file without permisible purpose then they in violation of the FCRA. good luck getting your $$$ out of them. I posted a letter here a few weeks ago don't remember the title of the thread though. out of the ten letters I sent, four were returned with an invalid address, two have sent irrelevant replies, and the other four went into a black hole..... anyway, let us know what happens, if anything.
Thanks for your reply. I felt fairly confident that they had no right to pull my file. The one thing I was uncertain of was the difference between a soft and a hard pull and how a judge may interpret that. These are soft pulls and therefore have no impact on my score. The reason I am interested is that I want to sue them and use this as leverage to hopfully settle for a deletion. Your right about getting a response on this. The first letter I sent was very specific and to the point. their response was not even close to a response on the issue. I am trying to decide if I want to send them another letter or just sue in small claims. The only evidence I have against them are the TU reports. I don't know if that is enough. I was hoping for a response that confirmed their activities. (not likly to happen I guess). I did manage to get through to a person in their department that handles disputes from the credit bureaus. He did admit to pulling one and thought that was acceptable.
PAE Read you post on MBNA. Sound like the same issue and a similar response. Were your inquiries hard or soft? Did you have any prior relationship with MBNA? Have you thought about small claims court?
hard, no prior relationship. I have considered court but I made a boo boo on the letter (wrong dates). I'm going to wait a few weeks and try again.
PAE, I had an account with BoA which was sold to another company 5 years ago and they(Boa) reported as trasfered /charge off prior to bk and they have pulled my report (hard enquiry) twice this week. They were listed in bk also. I have faxed them a letter saying they do not have permissible purpose and they are in FCRA violation and I have demanded $2000 within 10 days. I have confirmed that they have recieved it. She said it was a mistake she pulled twice and she is argueing that she can pull any time. They have been denying my dispute every time(6 times) with CRA. What is the best thing to do here next?. Thanks
I sent out 10 letters demanding payment for impermissable "soft" inquiries. Two companies sent me an irrelevant response. The other 8 didn't respond at all. However, actually filing suit in Small Claims court gets their attention. The major issue that you are going to face is proving that the defendant pulled your credit report knowingly. It has been my experience that the defendant will claim negligence. In the case of negligence, you have to have incurred damages (not likely with "soft" inquiries). Section 617 of the FCRA states that you can seek the amount of your damages incurred up to $1000 for negligent impermissible credit report access. If you can prove that the defendant accessed your report without permissible purpose knowingly (or willfully), you are entitled to a minimum of $1000 per violation according to section 616 of the FCRA.
Now, mind, this hasn't worked yet. I have yet to get $$$ for any of this. Christine over at bayhouse.com did manage to get money for an inquiry though. that's my disclaimer... If they are claiming that they have a permissible purpose I would ask them what section of the FCRA grants them said pp. the actual sections are 604 and 616 that define a permissble purpose (604) and give the consumer relief (616). read up on those and read the bayhouse website (wells fargo thread). best of luck, let us know what happens! PAE
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. ICS said that they had a pp, the didn't deny pulling it (in my case). also, the puller (ICS in my case) already had fair warning vis a vis the FCRA to not pull. What would be their defense? 'we didn't know we pulled'??? reminds me of a quote from the last boyscout (movie with bruce willis) about his friend 'accidently' boffing his wife...... can't repeat here. also, you might want to throw 619 at them, can be fined or jailed!
