Nopie, I think Flying is one the right track. Even though listing an inquiry is a matter of fact, if it can be shown to be without PP, it should be removed. A hard inq. hurts our score. If we are wronged a court will do what ever is necessary to make us whole again. The only way to do that is to either remove the inq., or at the very least recode it to soft. Which, btw is also not an accurate potrayal of what really happened. Flyin's doin fine. I'd like to see how this one plays out too.
Butch, thanks for the post..you are in my opinion among the sharpest posters here. I hope to stick around and learn from what you post and have posted. As far as making the plaintiff "whole," do you think that money damages would suffice? Generally speaking, specific performance (injunction, a court order telling someone what to do) is a last resort remedy that is granted when that is about the only remedy that will make the P whole. Just my .02...keep us posted, Flying
Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU Nopie, what is nopie Butch, I say yeppie!!!!!!! What you are suggesting flies in the face of the purpose of the FCRA, it is a privacy issue and the listing of inquiries is for YOUR benefit and protection. Lest we go back to not knowing who's been snooping in our reports. No purpose = violation for which there is a remedy for. They shouldn't be removed, they should be recoded. Removing an inquiry doesn't make you whole. Your gripe is with FICO and the manner in which the CRA's insist on reporting inquiries, the FCRA doesn't address scoring. How could a judge ever order deletion of a thing that is required under the FCRA? The problem is, and Picantel has successfully won and shown this, the refusal to investigate. Deletion by the CRA's only removes them from their portion of the responsibility in determining whether or not they were the ones dropping the ball before releasing a report. The listing of inquiries is FOR our protection, it isn't about scoring, it is about privacy. I'm flying with CAwatchdog on this one, yeppie, I am! No purpose = 1k to the CRAs and 1k to the consumer. Sassy
As much as I would like to go with Butch, especially because I hate to be a naysayer for a Cneter cause, I am in agreement with Sassy. It has to be there. Butch I quoted something earlier from you in this thread "one cannot violate the law by complying with it." Look at this FTC opinion letter: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/cohan2.htm 5. When a re-seller furnishes a consumer report to a lender, and subsequently both the lender and the consumer claim that the request for the report was initiated in error by the lender, is the national repository that reports the "inquiry" permitted to remove the inquiry from its file at the request of the re-seller? No. If a CRA supplies a consumer report, it may reflect that event by an inquiry notation. There is no legal or policy requirement to display the inquiry (other than to the consumer in connection with disclosure pursuant to Section 609(a)(3)). The fact that a consumer report was requested "in error" does not nullify the fact that the report was furnished; that information must be retained by the CRA so that it can comply with Sections 609(a)(3) and 611(d), among other reasons. I'm reading this to say that they CAN recode it as a soft as they are under no obligation to display inquiries to anyone other than ourselves, however the information must be retained. You know the dangerous flip side to this is nasty CA's pulling our reports and then requesting the inquiry be deleted so the consumer is clueless.
I suppose the possibility does exist that I could be mistaken. I was wrong once before ya know. buwahahaha. Courts are courts of equity are they not? If the inq. MUST remain on the report then it MUST be recoded, so as to negate any future damage to his score. Not to mention the fact that every creditor on the planet knows Sherman is a collection atty. This is VERY damaging to Flying, and why I think he's on the right track. Once an action takes place which is illegal, (precursor) all the negative ramifications that result from it are also resolved, right along with resolution of the original problem. A court won't allow this poster to continue to be damaged, in any way, resulting from the inappropriate behavior of Sherman. Somehow, someway he should be restored to his PRE-violation status. This is the only way to rise to the definition of equitable, is it not? That probably does mean a recoding of the inq. from hard to soft. That would make both Flying happy, AND still maintain accuracy in the report, pursuant to FCRA. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on that. But to throw a $1,000 at the problem but leave the inq. on his report to provide further damage in the future, simply is not an adequate/equitable remedy. If it were me I'd demand a complete remedy, not a half a remedy, which is what Flying seems to be doing. We always ask for the moon and accept somewhat less. If Flying demands removal and settles for a recode, that might be acceptable. But if he demands the moon, he just may get it, (deletion). Just my humble opinion. Whatcha think? .
My mistake was to cut out all the superfluous stuff in the middle, and tell Flying to just demand deletion. I'll try to be more explanative henceforth. Oh - the only other thng Flying may want to consider is that if the inq. remains as a soft, it might help him with ... ahem ... the "B" word. .
oh heck, Flying will win, hands down, just has to ask for the right thing. File against them for failure to investigate and ask for your moola plus recoding for relief. hmmmmm TU, should collect too, Sherman really is bottom of the barrel -- they deserve more than that, but shelling out money is a good start. <<<<---------------from the girl's corner (where there's lots of Gilligan-style singing going on). Sassy
This sure has turned into an informative thread, especially since, when I first posted a thread about suing for SOFT inquiries I drew somewhat of a blank on opinions. The point I plan to make in court is this: A violation of my rights has taken place, there is no doubt about it. In this instance the creditor's permissible purpose vanished either 4 years before the pull when the OC sold the account or 2 years before the pull when the debt was discharged in bankruptcy. Take your pick, your Honor. There is only ONE way I can be made whole, and that's for deletion of the offending inquiry. Failure to delete the offending inquiry leaves me with only monetary damages to collect as recompense. The CRA has repeatedly refused to delete the offending inquiry, which is why I am suing for monetary damages instead of Specific Performance. Even if they remove it now, after suit has been commenced, that's too bad, so sad, I will not stop the suit. The offending creditor has recognized their error in pulling my credit file and has requested the CRA in writing that the inquiry be deleted from my record so that it does not cost me any FICO points (especially since it is from a CA). It is the CRA that refuses to allow me to be made whole. My EFX suit is on similar grounds, only it involves an actual trade line, not an inquiry, that the CRA just refuses to remove in spite of the credtor requesting its removal in writing, and that the CRA conducted a fraudulent investigation in that they NEVER contacted the creditor regarding the dispute, just hung "verified" on it. So, now I am suing 2 of the big 3. Dammit, EXP has been too cooperative in my credit cleanup. I was hoping for a "Hat Trick" of suing all 3 CRA's at the same time over the same thing. My, I AM getting litigous in my old age. See what Creditnet did to me!!!!
Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU I haven't seen bumpage work with EXP or TU. Who knows if it works with EFX, they threw me out a couple of weeks ago.
Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU That is the problem with your complaint, you are asking the judge to order something that is contrary to the law. The CRA's are required to list inquiries. You have a letter saying it was pulled in error. Errors aren't an option, there is either a purpose or there isn't a purpose. No purpose = violation, it doesn't mean that your report still wasn't pulled. The reason inquiries are listed have nothing to do with scoring, the FCRA doesn't address scoring. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU I am not asking the judge to order anything contrary to law. Small Claims Courts do not have power to order Specific Performance, and that is not what I am suing for. I am suing for monetary damages for the CRA reporting a falsely accessed copy of my credit report. Let me try to explain it differently. Let's say a peeping tom uses a periscope to make a movie of you undressing at night, and then posts that movie on the internet. You sue the peeping tom successfully and he requests his Internet Host Service as a part of the settlement to remove the offending movie that millions of people are watching you get undressed in. It even has your name and address on it. The Internet Host company refuses to remove it. THAT is the basis of my suit. If they refuse to remove it then pay me damages.
Re: Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU I understand what you're suing for, Flying. Let's break this down: I am suing for monetary damages... -- ok check ...for the CRA reporting a falsely accessed -- ok stop, that's the problem, it wasn't falsely accessed and your documentation confirms it. It was assessed without a permissable purpose for which there is a monetary remedy provided for both you AND the CRA. Sherman owes you both 1k. The problem would be that the CRA won't allow a dispute or investigate a dispute of the information (the inquiry). But, you've not requested one nor disputed. You've requested deletion -- the information can't be deleted unless it is unverifiable, inaccurate or incomplete. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU No problem, and I am willing to be the guinea pig in trying to break new ground where there admittedly is no reliable case law. Gotta start somewhere, and TU volunteered to be first.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU I have filed in federal, earlier this year, against a CRA for refusing to investigate inquiries. The CA was out of control and I wrote the CRA that the CA is intentionally harassing me by accessing my credit reports, when the CA KNEW I HAVE NO ACCOUNTS WITH THEM. Of course the CRA refused to investigate. I'll win.........the CRA will regret they didn't investigate.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU Willing to be the guinea pig, AS IF, you are doing the rest of us a favor??????? TU is required to report inquiries for YOU. I don't want to go back to US not having the RIGHT to know NOR any recourse for anyone wanting to snoop in my file. Thanks, but no thanks. You have the right to dispute any piece of information you believe does not meet the reporting requirements, but you refuse to do so, and insist TU is responsible instead of Sherman. There is a huge difference between an inquiry and a TL and the requirements. Have you not read the purpose of the FCRA?????? Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Suing a second CRA - TU Nodding cinderalla, exactly!!!!! You will win! You've followed Picantel's proceedings for the same? He didn't file in Federal Court though, glad you are! Sassy
