I got some good advice today from jlynn regarding an unauthorized inquirey. She told me to call the CRA reporting the inquirey and find out who requested the inquirey. I called the CRA and got the contact information of the company that made the inquirey. I called the company and asked for the legal department (this was a mortgage finance company). They said they would look into the inquirey question. About an hour later a gentleman called and informed he had made the request without contacting me and that he "screwed up". He asked what he can do to rectify the situation. I told him the inquirey had to be removed but I was not sure how I was going to proceed from here. If they remove the inquirey can I still sue them because it was unauthorized?
If it was pulleg without permissible purpose and they remove it, has it or has it not caused you any problems in seeking credit etc ? If not, I say take the deletion and be happy. Why is it always necessary to demand to be paid especially if no damages. IF there is damages, by all means go for the money.
I had an account with Progressive Insurance. I discontinued my policy with them in Feb. 16, 2003. I found out that they did a hard pull on my credit report in January 5, 2003. I talked to a customer rep. and she said that by signing with them I gave them permission to pull my CR anytime. I said "with that reasoning, does that mean you can pull my credit report everyday, weekly, monthly? that does not seem fair. I understand that you should pull when I sign up, but not after 2 years of being with you guys." Then, she said "We had to pull your CR to determine if we can lower your rates or not. It is one of the factors we use" What do you think?
While I seriously doubt the charge that Stella Whatsername was the mother of America's litigious mindset she is often so accused after her suit against McDonald's over the hot coffee incident. Whoever got the trend going has nearly brought corporate America to it's knees and is one of the major factors behind the headlong rush to other countries by our best and wealthiest corporations. Once firmly enscounced in other countries they soon found that there were other benefits to be gained that were far greater than freedom from such prosecution by both government and private citizens. Those other benefits include, of course, much cheaper labor who cannot form unions and attempt to improve their living conditions in that manner. A prime example is that of NCO who has opened new call centers in India. They have a well educated english speaking workforce who work for much lower wages than Americans and have opened a large call center operation in India. OSI is also in the process of doing the same as are other countries. They will be making calls into the US for collection purposes. These people are not so capable of speaking and understanding english as might have been imagined by their new corporate masters. They do understand english but there is much of everyday conversational english that they do not comprehend. Anything that might have a double meaning or can be phrased so as to mean one thing will immediately be incorrectly intrepreted by them. For instance, if you said to one of them that you were going to settle this matter once and for all in very short order they would take that to mean you planned to pay them quickly while your tone of voice should have told them you were going to sue the living daylights out of them. Another interesting question arises if you were to sue the Indian employee for whatever reason. You have her name and you know that she called you at such and such a time and date so you sue NCO for their violations and demand discovery in which they produce their phone records for that date and time. If they can be compelled to produce them then you demand the full name of the person who made the offending phone call and file a lawsuit on that employee forcing them into the courtroom for discovery and suit. Can you do that? You can if the offending caller was an American but just try and get that Indian employee extradited into an American court of law. If enough people would do that, sue the employee first rather than the company things would be much more likely to change than they would by suing the company and enough suits against their employees would make a very dramatic impact on the way they do business. NCO is suddenly becoming very attentive to debtor's complaints about employees who mistreat debtor's. They have opened a whole new phase of their operations for the sole purpose of dealing with such complaints. A few days ago an indepth article appeared in one of the industry trade magazines about this new concern NCO has about abuse of debtors and then not more than maybe 3 or 4 days after the article was in circulation someone on this or another message board told of a TV show featuring one of the NCO bigwigs talking about that same subject. Now the results are showing up among my customer base and NCO has hired private firms to address such consumer complaints and concerns. While still attempting to advance the company position that NCO is correct and the consumer simply has to be educated to the fact that their complaints are surely unfounded and that NCO would not do such things, these mediators do seem to take a very cautious and non-agressive approach. I am still suggesting a cautious approach when contacted by these mediators but the initial contacts seem to hold promise for better things ahead. One of the people contacted by NCO mediators was apparently told that since theirs was a commercial debt FDCPA arguments would not apply. My suggestion was that the person needs to study Skenks v. Transworld Systems and see how easy it would be to prove NCO's position incorrect using Skenks. Once his position is firmly established he should then be able to use his array of violations on the part of NCO to work out a very satisfactory arrangement whatever he may consider such to consist of since it should be obvious that he holds all the trump cards should he decide to continue on to court against them. Although there are variations in each situation that I am aware of, each of them have built a very solid history of violations against NCO and each should end up with very satisfactory results and hopefully without ever having to go to court. One thing that is abundantly clear however is that one cannot possibly hope to trump up some fraud charge against a creditor using such schemes as Modern Money Mechanics, any of the currently popular debt termination programs or the newest rage just beginning to emerge which is called Notarial Protest. The simple reason that there are virtually no countersuits that will work in court regardless of cause is that neither the originator of such mad schemes nor the follower of them has thought of one simple doctrine expounded in both Biblical Lawand Equity Courts of Law which is the doctrine of the fruit of the poison tree. Simply put, you cannot argue that the tree or it's fruit is poison if you continue to benefit from the fruit. In order to argue that the tree is poison then you must first divest yourself of all the fruits(benefits) of that tree and that is exactly what the counterclaimant has no intention of doing or could not do even if he wanted to do so. After all, if one has eaten food purchased with the fruit of the tree (credit card) he can hardly divest himself of that fruit six months later, now can he? Therefore he cannot possibly win using a book published by the Federal Reserve Board or any other board no matter how sound it's principles nor his arguments based upon it. And yet once again I have rambled on and on but I do hope that I have at least been somewhat interesting to someone and possibly have saved someone from going off on some tangent which can only end up hurting him.
A little more information on this case .... The company that pulled my credit report is a mortgage company that tried to offer me a competitive rate over a year ago. I allowed them to pull the credit then and use it to see what they had to offer. They couldn't offer the terms I wanted so I said thanks but no thanks. They knew I was closing on a home over a year ago. I had no contact with them at all since that time and no permission to pull this recent inquirey. As for LKH's comment on why litigation is needed it's pretty easy. Why are you or anyone at this board. Your hear to learn and help others improve thier credit situation. If an "Illegal" event has occured that can cause you "current" or "future" harm in attaining credit then that needs to be addressed. I think it's silly not to defend yourself and allow others to take advantage of you.
Re: Re: Should I go after them? Yep, your inadvertently 30 days late on a CC payment, another CC does an AR. Although they have no damages because you are current with them, they take advantage of that fact to jack your rates, and its legal. Why shouldn't the consumer take advantage of their errors? Whats the difference?
Re: Re: Should I go after them? Again, if you were damaged, by all means, go after them. If they for whatever reason, pulled your report without permission, but delete it, and you have suffered no damages, forget it. What it boils down to is people trying to get free money. What current or future harm have you suffered?? And BTW, your comment "If an "Illegal" event has occured that can cause you "current" or "future" harm in attaining credit then that needs to be addressed." is exactly what I said if you go back and reread it.
Re: Re: Should I go after them? LKH - sorry, your right about your comment ... I didn't have my coffee yet and was a little cranky. They way I look at this situation is that if I plan on applying for more credit in the future (I do want to refinance within 12 months) then anything that lowers my credit is damage. I know that lenders have certain FICO score ranges that provide different rates. Hopefully I'll be around 700 when I apply but what if I was at 619. There's been many articles that 620 is sort of a threshold. If your at or over 620 your OK'd for a mortgage with general rates but at 619 and below the offers are much less attractive. I could argue that any decrease no matter if I'm applying for something now or in the future has damaged my credit profile. With this reasoning is how I justify being able to sue them.
Re: Re: Re: Should I go after them? I would agree, depending on if they removed it or not. If they do, any temporary damage, (points lost due to inquiry) will be regained when they delete it. So, if you haven't applied for anything prior to them removing the inquiry, you have had some aggravation in having to deal with it, but if you sue them, the judge is going to ask "what are your damages". What will the answer be?
Re: Re: Re: Should I go after them? How do you inadvertently become 30 days late? A few days maybe, but 30? Anyway, whether you and I agree with this or not, scoring data shows that people that have late pays on their report, are more likely to belly up in the future. That is why they do the things they do. I don't understand how jacking of rates is supposed to protect them if someone is having problems paying, but nonetheless, that is the (il)logic behind their actions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Should I go after them? LOL it wasn't hard for me...new credit card, and then a move shortly thereafter. It took two months before I was forwarded a bill. I forgot the darn thing because I had never paid it before, and hadn't charged anything (it was the "annual fee") Well, I agree with you on what the scoring data shows--but I'm not sure I truly believe it! I'm not arguing with you here, different people have different opinions on what they want from a lawsuit--or even if they have the gumption to go that far.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Should I go after them? LKH - I just reviewed FCRA and in the section on damages and some of it is open to interpretation but from what I gather (see the listing below) is that in 1(b) they are required to pay for any damages "OR" a $1000. I understand that to mean that even if there were no damages a penalty of $1000 is required. Do you or anyone interpret this differently? thanks, ==================================== § 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n] (a) In general. Any person who willfully fails 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)(A) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; or (B) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater; (2) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow; and (3) 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. (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. (c) Attorney's fees. Upon a finding by the court that an unsuccessful pleading, motion, or other paper filed in connection with an action under this section was filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court shall award to the prevailing party attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended in responding to the pleading, motion, or other paper.
Well, you have to prove it was willful. Keep reading on down to negligent noncompliance. In my case, Deven, Home Depot pulled 3 times that I know of, there could have been others that were deleted before I found them. They then sent me a bs letter after my first letter that basically had your an idiot written all over it, and signed it "credit bureau specialist". My thought was, if your a specialist, you should have known better, thus it wasn't negligent. But what is knowingly?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Should I go after them? Even if you are ONE day late, the credit card companies report you as 30 days late; that's how! That's what happened to me with one of my OCs. I lost my job a few months earlier, and it took me 6 months to find my next job. I had to stretch the payments a bit, and poof --- hit on my credit reports as 30-day late, and my TU FAKO dropped some 120+ points! [ I was conserving my cash too much to pull my true FICO then ] -- lakpr
Didn't you notice the (LOL) there? And yes, I also realize that to many some of my humorous thoughts seem a bit circuitous to say the least so often don't get the point or see why I consider it humorous. So in this case let it suffice to say that this crazy old coot saw a glimse of humor in it.
