One the companies that I had a loan with pulled a soft inquiry AFTER they were paid off. Am I entitled to $1,000?
Christine, at Bayhouse, thinks you are. She has lots of experience dealing with unauthorized inquiries. I don't know. I had an unauthorized inquiry, and she told me to scan the soft inquiries for the creditor as well as the hard ones.
Actually no, I haven't had a problem with soft inquiries. The situation I had was with a hard inquiry, and that particular entity did not pull any soft ones at that time or previously. If they had, I would have included those as violations as well. My reasoning for thinking the soft ones shoudl be included is this... My file is blocked from promotional inquiries. I have opted out of promotions everywhere I can. If I don't have an account with someone, and I am not seeking credit, then these soft inquiries are promotional. I don't care how they are coded, they are promotional in nature. How they are getting by the "block" I don't know. I do think I would press the issue, especially if you had an unauthorized hard inquiry to go along with it. I read through the FCRA several times regarding inquiries. It makes no distinction between hard and soft inquiries. I have TWO other lawsuits cooking right now or I would pursue this issue further. No, I take that back, I would sue TU for not investigating inquiries next. No, I take that back, I would sue EXP for refusing to accept a letter from a creditor telling them to remove a tradeline. Now that I come to think about it...I would sue TU for putting me in the Priority Department. I would sue EQF for splitting my file and not allowing access to it. The list goes on and on and on. Go for it!! Be a pioneer!
Any new developments in unauthorized soft inquiries after a loan is paid off? I closed an account with WFNNB, or what ever their name is, about a year ago, they pull a soft inquiry on me in Feb and again in Aug. Has anyone set a precedence yet for going after creditors with no-permissible pupose, even after they have their file blocked?
How about this. FUSA pulled AR (soft), not PRM (which is also soft), on me couple of times. I never had any business with them...never ever...BTW my file is blocked for promotionals...
So do I. The law makes no distinction between soft or hard inq's. The violation is predicated on the fact that someone accessed your credit file and got your information without a PP. Not because there's a hard inq. that others will see when you apply elsewhere for credit, and/or lower your score. See?
I sent a letter demanding $3000 for this very thing. I has only been a little over a week. I have not heard anything yet. Here is the thread: http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...p?s=&postid=215288&highlight=devry#post215288
Talk about stupid I called my old loan company. Told the 'supervisor' that an inquiry was pulled a month after loan was paid off. She asked did I apply for anything, I said no. She said they did not do the inquiry. I said well, how come the inquiry has XXX Loan CO on it? She says sometimes car dealerships pull reports... My patience ran out, I could no go any further with that inept conversation. I think she thinks that I am referring to those inquiries that you get when you go to a dealership and let them shop for a loan for you. I am calling back and make sure she understands the situation. Otherwise (and probably anyway), they will be receiving my demand for $1K next week.
Re: Talk about stupid Has sent demand letters to WFFNB and Household. They have failed to respond to both demands. I am wondering what my next step may be? I am looking for the small claims court, any suggestions?
Ok... Basically, she had no explanation of why they pulled a report. She suggested that a car dealer did it for marketing purposes, and suggested that I dispute it with the CRA. Can anyone point me towards a good inquiry demand letter?
Re: Talk about stupid I have a suit filed right now for exactly this issue. I am going to throw the soft inquiry they pulled on EQ into the mix in an amended lawsuit (thanks Lizardking for the template and idea). Regarding two other threads that are going on now, do I have to prove damages here? I wasnt harmed in any way no matter how critically I look at the situation. They did break the law. Can I just assert that they broke the law, cite section 604 FCRA for no PP, and call it willful noncomliance (2K for two violations)? One thread says "yes" The other says "no" I have to prove actual damages. What do you guys think?
Re: Talk about stupid The one that says "no" is wrong. This is a statutory fine of $1,000 per violation end of story. § 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n] (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;
Re: Talk about stupid Thanks, Butch. At least I have them rock solid on two violations (without having to show damages). The other two violations are for not marking the accounst as "in dispute by consumer". No real damages here either.
Re: Ok... She's an obvious idiot, not surprising. Disputing an inq. with a CRA is pointless. They just kick it back and tell you it's a matter of FACT. You'll need to go directly to the source on this one, complete with an I said, she said type transcript of the convo. Demand immediate removal and $1,000. If you respond within 10 days I might decide not to sue you. I'll see if I can find that letter I like the most. BTW - Ya know you guy's this stuff sucks and I hate it too. The part I hate the most is that they pay no attention to you until they figure out that you are savvy. The best way to do that is to learn how to get a suit filed and serve them with a case number. Believe me as soon as that happens they'll be jumping through each others butt's to cure. So don't be so afraid of court. Get used to it. Now that LizardKing has posted a good template it won't be so hard.
