Can CA pull a "hard" inquiry on CR?

[Anonymous]

I beg to disagree...

In Pintos - she did not create the debt by having her car towed, the debt was created by another. 

Also in the code

Section 604
Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b]

(a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other:

(1) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, or a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury.  

(2) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.  

(3) To a person which it has reason to believe  

(A) intends to use the information in connection 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; or  

They can do it - there is just NO REASON to do a hard pull - it SHOULD  be soft since it is not an app. 

Perhaps better to ask for re-coding to soft than to ask for removal.

[Anonymous]

Great -- I will use that citation in my letter to TU to have these removed.

Thanks!  My letter is going in tomorrow's mail!

[Anonymous]

---

Lady_Scarlet wrote:

I beg to disagree...

In Pintos - she did not create the debt by having her car towed, the debt was created by another. 

Also in the code

Section 604
Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b]

(a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other:

(1) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, or a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury.  

(2) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.  

(3) To a person which it has reason to believe  

(A) intends to use the information in connection 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; or  

They can do it - there is just NO REASON to do a hard pull - it SHOULD  be soft since it is not an app. 

Perhaps better to ask for re-coding to soft than to ask for removal.

---

Yes but a hard inq must be coded as a request for new credit.  It also states in the paragraph that refers you to that paragraph that 'Any inq coded as a request for new credit or issuance f insurance and is not for that purpose is against the FCRA.  That being said, yes a collector has PP to pull your file but not in a manner to reflect a request for new credit.  Soft...  Your relationship to your other creditors has nothing to do with them collecting a debt which is the only reasn a hard can be pulled.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the PFD letter should also ask for removal of all hard ings also... just thinking out loud.

[Anonymous]

I think I found it - burried way down in section 604  (it's on page 18 of this http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf  )

(3) Information regarding inquiries. Except as provided in section 609(a)(5)

[§1681g], a consumer reporting agency shall not furnish to any person a record of

inquiries in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated

by a consumer.

[Anonymous]

---

Lady_Scarlet wrote:

I think I found it - burried way down in section 604  (it's on page 18 of this http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/031224fcra.pdf  )

(3) Information regarding inquiries. Except as provided in section 609(a)(5)

[§1681g], a consumer reporting agency shall not furnish to any person a record of

inquiries in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated

by a consumer.

---

I didn;t look it up this time because that thing is hard on the eyes!!! lol!

[missgamecock]

I just sent in a dispute to EQ last week regarding a hard pull from a CA that I disputed the AMEX collection with on my report. It was paid in full to AMEX and they had contacted me about it. They did the hard pull during the dispute validation period. I explained this in the letter to EQ. Then I asked them exactly what PP did the CA have AND did they know that the debt had been under dispute AND I had neither initiated a credit transaction nor sought employment with the CA. Since they didn't bother listing a phone number or an address for the CA, I also requested the POC, address, and phone number so I could serve a letter to the CA telling them they were in violation. I requested that the inquiry be deleted. I can let you know how it went. I also demanded that the one 30 day late pay be deleted because they did not respond to me when I requested the delete on it before and it is past 45 days on the request. Unfortunately I did that through Annualcreditreport before realizing and finding this place that it was a big no no. Oh and I cited the Pintos case in my letter. EQ is my worst with 591. EX and TU is now up past 620. I'm trying to get to 680 +, so I can do a 125% equity loan to consolidate and pay off ALL of my credit card bills/loans. I have a stable job (Federal Govt) and I am not planning on moving anytime soon.  

[fused]

Hard v. Soft. I should have been more specific in my original post but Brammy has done it already.

[Anonymous]

I would say you may not have any luck getting it removed. Legal remedies may even fail. They'll claim they used it as a collection attempt.