My husband had an AMEX account that got kicked to GC services - we paid in full within one week and nothing more happened. I recently reviewed his credit report and found a hard inquiry from GC services. There is no derog on his AMEX account and no entry for GC services. Should my husband pound his chest about PP and demand removal or $1000, or should we leave it alone and be grateful there's no derog info? Thanks Poochie
YOU should look at it less as a "inquiry", and more as an invasion of privacy. Would you let the mail man look through the mail slot to see walking around the house nude? Sure he "kinda" had the right to be at the mailbox, but NOT LOOK IN IF HE DIDNT HAVE MAIL. AND FOR SURE NO PERMISSION to look at you nude Kinda the same with credit reports. Although nothing new, IMPERMISSIBLE access has just recently come to light as the pervasive problem it is. "Inquiries" are not mentioned in the law, which makes it hard to request OR demand deletion. THERE IS NO PERVISION FOR THIS. BUT, impermissible access is. Dont bother requesting or demanding deletion. What if they just say "why?", what is your answer ? TAKE IT FOR WHAT IT IS, INVASION OF PRIVACY, and act accordingly SUE THEIR "PANTIES" off and see how they like it AND REMEMBER, CONSUMERS DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE DAMAGES IN COURT for violatios of the FCRA. (case cits avail) It is "Strict liability" meaning we dont care WHY you did it, JUST THAT YOU DID IT
I love your attitude!! Can you bottle some of that and send it my way? I see your point but what if they decide to add a collection account to hubby's clean report? Thanks for the reply, Poochie
*We* know why the creditor took a quick naughty peek, but how do we prove that we did NOT apply for credit? Better yet how does the OC prove we did? In the oldie days, to apply for credit typically involved my signature on a credit application form. Now in the web era we can apply on-line with no actual signature, no password. Anyone with my SSN & name and address could (fraudently) apply for thousands of credit cards and loans on the web. Now when I get wind of these inquiries and sue for my $1000 how does the OC prove that it was *me* that applied and not my bozo neighbor? I file suit and all they can say is -- well we received data transmitted on a web page. No signature. Am I about to get rich? Can I sit my kids down to apply for credit for a few hours and then turn around an sue for false inquiries? Get my meaning??
I think I'm confused - hubby didn't apply for credit...the inquiry was posted by a debt collector - a practice I've seen referred to as "poisoning." Meaning that, although the collection account doesn't appear on my husband's report anyone scanning it could see that a collection agency was sniffing around. My understanding is that a debt collector does not have permissable purpose to put a hard inquiry on his credit report for the purpose of attempting to collect a debt. I'm concerned that if we make a ruckus about it the debt collector will put their negative tradeline on my husband's credit report as a retaliatory gesture. The collector in question is GC services. the OC didn't pull the inq, the bill collector did.
"*We* know why the creditor took a quick naughty peek, but how do we prove that we did NOT apply for credit? Better yet how does the OC prove we did?" -FORTUNATELY, as a consumer, we dont have a law REQUIRING US to show we have a permissible purpose. IF the question is asked, IT IS THE "PULLER" WHO HAS TO PROVE IT WAS PERMISSIBLE "In the oldie days, to apply for credit typically involved my signature on a credit application form. Now in the web era we can apply on-line with no actual signature, no password. Anyone with my SSN & name and address could (fraudently) apply for thousands of credit cards and loans on the web." -Probably unintnetional, BUT YOU HAVE JUST IDENTIFIED ONE OF THE STRONGEST COURT "COMMENTS" REGARDING CONSUMER CREDIT TO DATE!!!! -The following comment is from a case where a person was a victim of ID THEFT and disputed the account as "not his"-because in reality it was not! BUT if you know the process-the CRA asks the creditor/collector WHO's account is this?"- the creditor says "its his" (which it is by ID THEFT). SO it is verified by the CRA right? -Well, the court asked the creditor (Gateway) why they sait it was the guys account when they were asked by the CRA. They said "because it is an account in his name, THATS ALL THE CRA ASKED. IF they had asked if it was a FRAUDULENT account, we would have said YES!" -Based on that info, the court commented: "1The fear of identity theft is not false hysteria, but rather is a way of life in the digital age. In 2003, the Federal Trade Commission reported that over twenty-seven million Americans were victims of identity theft in the past five years, including almost ten million people in the past year. Federal Trade Commission, FTC Releases Survey of Identity Theft in U.S.: 27.3 Million Victims in Past 5 Years, Billions in Losses for Businesses and Consumers, http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/09/idtheft.htm (Sept. 3, 2003). Businesses involved in the credit reporting industry need to be aware of this growing problem and must take reasonable precautions against reporting fraudulent tradelines. Credit reporting systems that were adequate in the past may be flagrantly inadequate in this new age. Under the FCRA, credit reporting agencies have a duty to update their systems to continue to strive for accuracy when new dangers, such as identity theft, change the definition of what constitutes â??reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of . . . information.â? 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)." -GRAHAM v CSC CREDIT SERVICES, INC., GATEWAY, INC., and CITIBANK d/b/a/ HURLEY STATE BANK, United States District Court District of Minnesota
Re: PP ITS or don't wake the CA bea Okay, I've muddied the thread waters by bringing up two issues in one thread. 1) Would you recommend that she sue the CA and let them squirm when the judge requires proof that CA had a permissible reason to pull? Alternatively, would you recommend that she ITS hoping that they will not retaliate and will trade her lack of filing suit in exchange for non-verification of the TL? 2) Perhaps this should be a new thread, but in theory if I were a scammer couldn't I have an accomplice apply on-line for several credit cards and then then sue the OC for invading my privacy? That's $1,000 per bad inquiry. I could quit my day job! Tell me what's stopping me, besides my sweet natured honesty? G.H.
Thats a misunderstanding Pooch. They can put a hard inquiry on his report in attempting to collect a debt. The FCRA does not distinguish between hards and softs, only inquiries with pp (including collection), and promotional inquiries that do not give out identifying information. If hubby's Amex did go to this CA (even for a week), they could probably prove they had PP.
AND REMEMBER, CONSUMERS DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE DAMAGES IN COURT for violatios of the FCRA. (case cits avail) Will you provide the case citation on this one...sounds interesting.
Re: Re: PP ITS or don't wake the CA Thanks JLynn! Not that the other info on this thread isn't interesting...
Re: Re: PP ITS or don't wake the CA beast? -SURE There are several, but here is a recent one... WHARRAM v CREDIT SERVICES INC., EQUIFAX d/b/a EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., TRANS UNION LLC., EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., CSC CREDIT SERVICES INC., AND WELLS FARGO BANK, NA. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Minnesota In a motion for summary judgment, the defendant wanted the court to "dismiss" the plaintiff's claim beacuse he could not show he was damaged. The court commented- "Punitive damages are permitted in the absence of actual damages and therefore summary judgment based on the damages argument is not proper. Bakker v. McKinnon, 152 F.3d 1007, 1013 (8th Cir. 1998)" There are tons of other references too. Mostly beacuse the statutes are concidered "strict liability"
