BofA Credit Line Increase FAIL

[Drew1980]

So I'm pissed. I called in and asked for a credit line increase... I specifically asked if it would result in a hard pull. She said no, just a soft pull. The letter I received in the mail stated they pulled hard from Transunion, however I received an email from Experian that they hard pulled from them in ADDITION to a soft pull as well. 

1 Hard from Transunion

1 Hard and 1 Soft from Experian

I called their "credit services" line and they woman swore to me the only hard was on Transunion. Now I have to make copies of my credit report and mail it to them which I don't think I should have to do. Was also wondering that since originally I was told it was only going to be a soft, do I have any recourse for them to remove the inquiry? Not sure if they record all their calls like AMEX does. 

[MamboItaliano]

There are laws that they are required to follow that specify that they must have your permission to pull your credit. 

Because the individual you talked to specifically informed you of a condition that turned out not to be true, I am on the opinion that you did not give your permission to them to pull your credit. Ergo, you have a legal right to have them remove the inquiry or face a penalty. If they wish to prove you wrong, they will have to produce evidence (a taped call). If they cannot do that or produce a signature from you, they cannot claim they are in the right. If they do produce a recorded phone call, it will prove you right regardless. 

I do not have the FCRA backing on this on me, but I can find it. 

[Revelate]

---

@MamboItaliano wrote:

There are laws that they are required to follow that specify that they must have your permission to pull your credit. 

Because the individual you talked to specifically informed you of a condition that turned out not to be true, I am on the opinion that you did not give your permission to them to pull your credit. Ergo, you have a legal right to have them remove the inquiry or face a penalty. If they wish to prove you wrong, they will have to produce evidence (a taped call). If they cannot do that or produce a signature from you, they cannot claim they are in the right. If they do produce a recorded phone call, it will prove you right regardless. 

I do not have the FCRA backing on this on me, but I can find it. 

---

Actually I think it's pretty much out of luck on this one: he requested the CLI, ergo they had permission to run the report.  Any CLI unless you know explicitly to be different (most CSR's don't know the difference between hard vs. soft inquiry at any lender) you should expect a HP.  This is expecially true for BofA (and Chase, and others) that have never done CLI's via SP anytime recently, if ever.  BOFA even unsecures their secured cards with a HP of all things... which is laughable in my opinion.  Banks do not act in our best interests as consumers, and BOFA is front and center in that issue.

I agree it sucks, maybe can get the inquiry removed but I personally wouldn't hold my breath on it... worst case it's already a fading memory from a score perspective, and trivial in a year.

[Drew1980]

Thanks! I guess I'll at least try; probably write a letter and see what happens. I'll update after I receive a response. 

[MamboItaliano]

What the consumer expects is irrelevant if the consumer is told specifically he won't have an HP on his report. This is how I read the FCRA under section 616: 

§ 616. Civil liability for willful noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681n]

(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.

Chalk it up however you like, but the phrase "under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose" means (to me) that the consumer is required to be of the understanding as to what the actual situation is. IMO, Drew's conversation was had and subsequent permission was given was under false pretenses when not only 1 but 2 CRA's were HP'd. 

Had Drew known about the HP, he may have in all liklihood gone a different route on this decision. I think he totally has a leg to stand on. 

[HoldingOntoHope]

But the argument fails on" permissible purpose". The statutes do not define this as "getting our permission" but outline the circumstances in which reports may be pulled. And a consumer seeking credit is one of the permissible purposes. A CLI request is considered as seeking credit. RobertEG can quote you the paragraph and sections as applicable. Search for his posts and you will find it.

[kjm79]

---

@HoldingOntoHope wrote:

But the argument fails on" permissible purpose". The statutes do not define this as "getting our permission" but outline the circumstances in which reports may be pulled. And a consumer seeking credit is one of the permissible purposes. A CLI request is considered as seeking credit. RobertEG can quote you the paragraph and sections as applicable. Search for his posts and you will find it.

---

+1  OP may have been told it was a soft but nonetheless requested credit. Anytime someone requests credit the creditor has a right to pull a report.  I would still definitely try calling and seeing if they can remove it by stating the CSR gave the wrong information and the OP wouldn't have gone through with the request had OP known it would result in a hard pull.  Escalate it up the line, ask them to review the recording.  It's worth a shot but IMHO they don't have to remove it. 

[RobertEG]

+1

The entire purpose of FCRA 604 is to define those conditions under which a party does NOT need prior permission from the consumer to access their credit report.

Otherwise, the entire credit industry would come to a standstill.

FCRA 604(a)(3)(A)

"Intends to use the information in connnection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished, and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of the consumer."

FCRA 604(a)(3)(f)

"Othewise has a legitimate business need for the information (i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer, or (ii) to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account."

The coding of inquiries as so-called hard or soft inquiries is not regulated under the FCRA.  You appear to have an issue of a promise made via oral contract.

Determination of the facts regarding that issue would require a legal finding.  I dont see the CRAs jumping into the middle of a issue of violation of a supposed oral contract.

Is it worth the time and effort to pursue the coding of a credit inquiry, knowing it may harden your relationship with the creditor?

Disputes over inquiries are viewed so low on the spectrum that, when enacting the new direct dispute rules, all disputes pertaining to inquiries were specifically exempted from the direct dispute process. 

[AndySoCal]

After reading this post and others my philosphy on asking for CLI's. Before I call or go online and ask for a CLI I assume it will a hard pull regardless of what might be said by CSR. Ninety percent or more the time this will end the thought of a CLI request.  Be definition a credit limit increase request  should be a hard pull.  A credit limit  increase is the extentsion of new credit. The fact the some lenders do it without a hard pull that is their rule or guidelines.  If you use my philophy and you confirm after the fact that it was not a hard pull be thankful it was not.  By the way I have only asked four CLI's that I can remember. in the last 10 to 20 years.