I received a letter from a collection agency for a debt that certainly is not mine. But, in any event, rather than go through the stress of validation and a mail exchange, couldn't I just ignore it because the SOL has certainly by now expired even if it isn't my account and it doesn't appear on any of my bureaus (except for one inquiry by the company on one of the bureaus). Any reply is greatly appreciated. Thanks. CardKid
Is the inqiury hard or soft? If it's hard it's doing damage, and you might have a non-PP case against the CA. If it's soft, you might just let the (almost-)sleeping dog lie.
WRONG!!!!! If the debt is not yours, they have no PP regardless of whether it's hard or soft. Sue them either way.
You're right ... I did what too many folks do ... I refused to take the "certainly not mine" at face value--perhaps wrongly. But when it's 14 years old, I do worry that it really is the OPs ... albeit dead, done and gone. If the debt isn't the OP's, no kind of pull is justified.
Thanks for all the replies. I contacted the CA and was transferred to the most understanding, well mannered rep the company must employ. After a brief discussion, the rep actually apologized for inconveniencing me and stated that a letter will be sent in a few business days releasing me from responsibility and nothing will be reported to the credit bureaus. Life is back to normal. CardKid
additional comments... "HARD or SOFT" HAS NOTHING to do with the "permissibility" of credit reports. Either does damages. It is a PRIVACY ISSUE. Because the federal statutes are "strict liability" statutes, designed to protect consumers from "unfair" collection tactics AND to protect a consumers' PRIVACY, there is NO NEED TO PROVE DAMAGES. Here is a case on point: WHARRAM vs. 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. The court stated "Punitive damages are permitted in the absence of actual damages and therefore summary judgment based on the damages argument is not proper." the court was referring to Bakker v. McKinnon. (motion for summary judgment)
ok, humor me here... if this isnt on any of the bureau reports, then there's no way it could be a soft (AR) pull, because there is no account to review... therefore, this was obviously a hard pull, and you are completely entitled to $1,000.00. I wish some CA'd do that to me. you're crazy if you don't pursue this. read this: http://creditforum.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=229
No. There's no way it could be a proper pull, regardless of whether it's hard or soft. Coding as a hard pull makes the pull apparent to anyone else pulling credit ... showing that you were seeking credit, or had an outstanding issue with a creditor. Coding as a soft pull cloaks the pull from other creditors and potential creditors, and is for a pull in the nature of an account review, or a review to see if you qualify to be offered some promotion that is to be offered by the company doing the pull.
"Coding as a soft pull cloaks the pull from other creditors and potential creditors, and is for a pull in the nature of an account review," -Actually, an "account review" is FULL ACCESS TO YOUR CREDIT REPORT! THEY GET IT ALL! "review to see if you qualify to be offered some promotion that is to be offered by the company doing the pull." -This type of pull is often referred to a "promotional inquiry" and IS LIMITED. -I REALLY HOPE THIS ISNT THE INFO THAT PEOPLE ARE RELYING ON.
Re: Re: SOL for 1990 Debt I'm not sure where the dispute is here. I was talking about who else gets to see the pull, not what the party doing the pulling got to see. I made no effort to distinguish between the information given to someone pulling an account review and someone pulling a promotional inquiry. They're both soft pulls, though the information provided to the puller for an account review is complete rather than limited.
Re: Re: Re: SOL for 1990 Debt -In lays the problem -If the pull is for "promotional purpose" then they only receive "limited" information about you, and there isnt really any action here. -If the pull was for "account review", they get ALL your credit info AKA INVASION OF PRIVACY. -If the account was not the posters, then it CAN be impermissible access. BUT, if the collector is attempting to collect a debt, THEN discovers they are persuing the wrong debtor, AND DOES NOT PULL ANOTHER REPORT, THE COLLECTION AGENCY HAS NO REQUIREMENT TO DELETE THE "MATTER OF FACT" CREDIT REQUEST. THEY CANT GO BACK IN TIME AND CHANGE IT. -HAVING SAID THAT, if the collection agency "apologized" to the debtor, then debtor can DISPUTE the inquiry WITH THE REPORTING AGENCY and request deletion for "inaccurate info" on the credit report and request an investigation. -BUT, this IS JUST A THEORY. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT.
