What do you think? November 25, 2002 Trans Union Consumer Relations P.O. Box 2000 Chester, PA 19022-2000 Phone: (800) 916-8800 RE: xx/xx/xxxx AIG Credit Inquiry To Whom It May Concern: I recently received a copy of my credit report (Trans Union file # xxxxxxxxx). After carefully reviewing its contents, I noticed a credit inquiry, which appears on my report as â??AIG,â? dated February xx, xxxx. This inquiry was without authorization and for no legitimate business purposes. As such, it was not for permissible purposes and it is a very serious error in reporting. This letter is to formally notify you that by reporting this inquiry you are reporting inaccurate and incomplete credit information on my credit file. I am concerned that Trans Union chose to include this information in my credit profile and failed to maintain reasonable procedures in its operations to assure maximum possible accuracy in the credit reports you publish. Credit reporting laws ensure that bureaus report only 100% accurate credit information. Every step must be taken to make certain the information reported is accurate and correct. I respectfully request Trans Union provide me proof that the aforementioned inquiry was in fact authorized with an instrument bearing my signature and for legitimate business purposes. Failing that, the unauthorized inquiry must be deleted from the report as soon as possible. Additionally, please provide the name, address, and telephone number of each credit grantor or other subscriber. Please investigate this matter under those applicable provisions detailed within the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). A period of 30 days shall be â??reasonable timeâ? to investigate this matter, unless you notify me immediately otherwise. Failure to verify the above information within the 30-day time period constitutes â??non-verificationâ? and the inquiry in question must be immediately removed from my credit file and credit report. Also, be advised that the description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information is hereby requested as well, to be provided within 15 days of the completion of your re-investigation. Also, 15 USC sections 1681i(d) and 1681j of the FCRA require that I receive written notification of the appropriate corrections, along with an updated credit report (no charge), and an updated credit report be sent to anyone who received my report within the last six months. Thank you very much for your cooperation. I look forward to having this matter resolved as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me by calling xxx-xxx-xxxx. Sincerely, Hawg P. Hanner 123 Any Road Anytown, NY xxxxx-xxxx Phone: (xxx) xxx-xxxx Soc. Sec. #: xxx-xx-xxxx Encl. Copy of Driverâ??s License, Social Security Card and Birth Certificate to Verify Identity Copy of Credit File # xxxxxxxxx w/Item in Question Circled Hawg Hanner
Did you forget a copy of your passport? I have never had or will send in proof documentation of who I am. Your DL has your signature on it. NEVER send something with your sig to a CRA or CA. I would try and keep it simple in dealing with the CRA's starting off. You are dealing with simple minded people. You can always show your teeth and the FCRA later. My opinion. Charlie
I think the letter sounds great! Also, I agree with the last post about sending the additional info. Don't send them copies of anything. As long as you type your name, ss# and date of birth, that should be sufficient. Let us know how it works out.
Hawg, The letter is very good; however, I find it morally contemptable to challenge inquiries as they are a matter of record. Since this company did indeed obtain a copy of your credit report, I feel the inquiry should stay on your report the entire 2 year period. Anything less would simply be "wrong". You can always file suit against the company that got your report with out authorization, but challenging the inquiry is not the right thing to do! LOL just kidding, shoot it off ASAP.
The problem with your letter is that they are reporting accurate info. Your report was pulled. Nothing they are reporting there is innaccurate. The fact that it was pulled without a legitimate or permissible purpose is a different story. You should insist upon TU disclosing to you whether or not they obtained proof from the co. that pulled your report, that it was for a legitimate purpose, and if so, you want to see that info. However, all in all, I think your problem is with the co. that pulled your report. You should inquire of them why they pulled it and when did they get your permission to do so. If they can't give a valid explanation, then you may have a case against them.
It seems AIG like pulling reports without permission. They did that to me a coupl of years ago. It seemed it was pulled about the same time I was getting a check from them for an accident I was in. To bad I didnt know about this site back then and what I could have done. It has come off now.
Are you saying LKH that my letter does not clearly request that TU provide proof that AIG pulled my report? In other words, that's the extent of TU's responsibility in handling this issue, otherwise I have work directly through AIG to get the problem rectified? Hawg Hanner
What I am saying is this: you say in your letter that they are not reporting 100% accurate info. I say they are. They are reporting your report was pulled by AIG. That is accurate. Whether AIG had a permissible purpose, is a completely different subject. You have the right, IMO, to demand that TU show you supporting docs that AIG gave TU proof that the inq was for a permissible purpose. I also think you should go after AIG for pulling your report without a legal purpose. The cra's, too my knowledge, are to be given info that shows a permissible purpose to pull a persons report. If they do not get that info, they should not be releasing your report. I completely agree with that. I think the way you worded the first paragraph stating they aren't reporting accurate info, is incorrect. They are going to come back and say it is accurate because your report was pulled. Now, whether it was legally pulled is a different story.
Hawg, i agree but this is what they told me. Thank u for contacting tu. Our goal is to maintain complete & accurate info on your cr. If u would like to contact a creditor regarding the info they have reported to tu about u, u may contact them at the address & telephone # & they gave me all the # and address to all my inqs.
Geez Mitch, You really had me goin there. I was reading your post with my mouth open ... Like WHAAAT? LOLOL
As for Hawg, You can rant, rave and whine all you want with the CRA regarding inqs. You're wasting your time.
Contrary to what appeasrs to be popular opinion on this thread those who pull credit reports are not required by the CRA to furnish proof that the pull has PP. They provide a certification which states that the pull has PP. No application copies, or what we would consider proof is necessary. Demanding such from the CRA is an exercise in futility. A subscriber to a CRA can pull any time they want to. Most of the very large firms, like AIG, do a blanket certification to cover ALL their pulls, and I believe renew it once a year. This eliminates the need to provide the cert. every time they pull, which could be 1000 times a day. Hawg, your problem is with AIG, not the CRA. TODAY I received my $1,000 check from a company that pulled my report without PP. I'd send them the letter demanding info. on why they pulled, and your demand for $1,000.
Butch, You have such great letters. Would you mind e-mailing this one to me? There's another one of yours i need, but i don't remember which.
http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...rief+outline+of+that+conversation"#post234391 Post #32, in blue.
Butch, Thank you very much for the information you posted. Does the company that pulled my report have 30 days to respond like the CRA? There is no obligation on the CRA to remove a hard inquiry if it was not pulled for permissible purposes? Does the CA have the ability to remove a hard inquiry from a credit report? Hawg Hanner
