FARMERS HAS "PP" but I want their "PP" FOR INQUIRES GONE FOREVER!!! They CAN'T see how one drives by a credit report!!! I disputed with TRANS UNION twice~~~ANSWER "PP" I sent a letter to FARMERS~~~NO ANSWER I sent an E-MAIL to the STATE OF CO INSURANCE COMISSION~~~NO ANSWER I have PERFECT credit ~~THEY (FARMERS) JUST DOESN'T NEED TO SEE MY CREDIT REPORT!!!!! IT WOULD BE NICE IF I COULD GET $1,000 FROM FARMERS AND/OR TRANS UNION...
Re: Re: removing inquiries 101 I have perused, searched and looked over threads containing "inquiries", "inquiry", "remove", "delete", etc. Perhaps you and others have hammered it to death, but for someone like myself looking for the information, it's barely been dented. For example, there are two letters in the "letters" section that reflect two different approaches to removing inquiry - one to the CRA,one to the reporter of the inquiry. Lotsa discussion about which way is best - seems to lean towards NOT contacting the CRA. Makes sense to me, but the letter is still there w/no information that reads "less preferred". But most importantly, my question was about the finger pointing/buck passing routine. My read of the FTC 60X rules seems to indicate I'm on a good path, but I'm looking for validation and language. I thank you, Butch for your letter above. The reason I started this particular thread was indeed to capture all the "well hammered" info and have it in a meaningful thread title and perhaps get a pointer to it in the "greatest hits" file somewhere. There is some great info on this board. But like any search engine, there is a great deal of less than helpful info while looking for the good stuff. Now does that mean I should send a letter like the one above immediately or wait until 30 days (now about 10 days) from the original letter. Also, my intention is deletion, but picking up any spare thousand dollar bills would be nice. Do I get to collect $1k for EACH CRA reported to - sometimes three?
Re: Re: removing inquiries 101 Ok Dan, I'm off for now, but I will dig up some stuff for ya when I get back. Hang in there.
Dan, I have a question. If i dispute a late pay through the CRA's (never late, honest) with a student loan, can the loan grantor turn around and pull my report to see what I am talking about?
Dan, I just did a search here under "non PP" and came up with some results. Here is the link to the search results. See if anything there helps you. http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...d=176835&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending
Re: Re: removing inquiries 101 I'm barely qualified to talk about outcomes, but I'll give you an answer that probably won't help much... They (OC) *can* do anything, including pulling your CR. Whether they are allowed to by FTC rules is another question. I'm going to work with what I've learned so far, and please don't take this as being the gospel. If I dispute w/the CRA, the CRA (in theory) sends an alert to the CA or OC. In this case, w/a student loan, I'm assuming it's the OC. The OC is supposed to verify the reported information is correct. I'm not sure if they're given the information in question and then they say "sure, that's correct" or if the OC sends them what they have and if it doesn't line up, then it's MAYBE not verified but possibly changed. The more I learn about his process, the less I'm certain of. The only thing I feel fairly confident about saying (and I'm sure someone will correct me is that if the OC does not respond/reply at all, that means it has not been verified and that SHOULD get your entry deleted. Somewhere there's a link to a PDF that discusses how many requests CRAs handle and it comes down to sheer numbers - nobody looks at paperwork you send them, it's just shuffled like mad and it explains why we have to make three attempts to get something deleted or corrected. I suggest you post your question in a new thread, so this thread might become the pristine "inquiry removal 101" thread of my dreams. <grin>
Re: Re: removing inquiries 101 Looked at the threads posted by the search above, and found the answer to your question here
Re: Re: Fast ways to get inquiries removed TY Nikki!!!!!!!!!!! For learning the hard way and sharing it especially! Truly if it weren't for following your threads and updates, no one would still know still!!! You should be, Nikki with the informed spotlight!!!!!!!! Sassy
Re: Re: Fast ways to get inquiries removed Dan, There's a lot of resources here and you're right. When we get into a popular subject we can get a lot of hit's on the searches. Probably the best way is to type in "permissible AND purpose" in the search window. When you get the results start with the most recent and work backwards. This is because there's always new techniques being developed and new intitiatives from our adversaries. Don't forget the "AND". I got over 500 hits. There are 2 different scenarios with regard to inqs.. One is when the inq. is legit., the other when it's not. That's why the 2 letter's in samples. In the case of a legit inq. we can perhaps best get it removed by trying the CRA route first. In light of this recent phenomena that Sassy eludes to, I'd be sure to put in something about NOT claiming fraud. Or better yet go the "Bumpage" route. When an inq. does NOT have a PP, we go straight at the end user and demand a complete explanation AND $1,000. Not one or the other, but BOTH. The end user, btw, is required to be reported on the report. That's what I meant when I posted the law. The end user is the person who ordered the report. The other poor saps are just the stooges who sold the info. to them. Your argument is with the end user. HTH. Let me know if this helps.
update After 30 days from original letter, sent follow up saying "15 days or ITS". Got back a letter showing PP - my signature. However, they did NOT respond in the original 30 days. Isn't that enough to get the inquiry removed - they did indeed have proof of PP but ignored my first demand for same? Also, I did *not* ask for PP in my second note, simply pointed out that they had not provided it in the original 30 days.
