"Under the plain terms of § 1681e(a), a subscriber’s certification cannot absolve the reporting agency of its independent obligation to verify the certification and determine that no reasonable grounds exist for suspecting impermissible use."
That means the CRA is on the hook if they stand on the argument that "But your honor, they told us they had PP."
This was over a traffic citation, so it's possible if a collection is over a credit card or other credit transaction then Pinto would not obtain. However, for medical collections, library collections, et al., this does hold.
Message Edited by Noah_Bodie on 10-29-200711:04 AM
Good post Noah! CAs and car dealerships, is there really a difference. A CA never has PP according to the FTC section 604 which requires a consumer to be applying for credit in order for any entity to yank credit reports. Last time I checked it's impossible to apply for credit with a CA.
I have a few inquiries on my report from CAs and so does my husband. So you guys are saying that the CA can't do that? How do I get rid of them? I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect of calling or writing a collection agency that I can't pay yet?
With all the reports of hard inquiries without PP, I find myself wondering if creditors and CRAs have been lax over the years (because of a lack of report reviews on the part of consumers) in choosing to seek (and allow) hard inquiries when they should have been soft (if at all.) However, it does seem pretty obvious that CAs should not have PP ... without having to go to court to get a ruling on that.
Until the masses had access to their 'annual free credit report' most of us would have never known who (or how often) anyone was pulling our reports. DH and I did not seek new credit for about 15 years and never had a reason to pull our credit reports to see who was looking over our shoulder. Having never been denied for credit, we were never entitled to a "free report" until recently, so we had no clue who was "spying" on us. By the time we saw our reports, any unacceptable inquiries would have fallen off.
This new freedom we have to scrutinize our reports has made us aware of things that have been going on for so long, the participating parties probably assume that since no one has been rocking the boat (up until now) their standard procedures are acceptable. CAs may have access to some of the information in our credit reports that would assist them with skip-tracing, but maybe their operations aren't sophisticated enough to be aware of what they legally can ask for and receive. Then again ... maybe they are all just mean-spirited and intentionally attempting to cause more problems for the consumer.
I also wonder if some of the hard inquiries are because of software programming on the part of those creditors pulling the reports. Maybe the individuals who initiate an inquiry are using software that doesn't give them an option of what type of inquiry to request, hence the number of hard inquiries that should be soft?
Just grasping at straws here and trying to give the front-line customer service people a break when they say the inquiry will be soft (or not pulled at all) without knowing what the back-office procedures really are. We have become a nation of "gate-keepers" and front-line Customer Service doesn't really always have all the answers. One of the more difficult things I have had to try to get through to my kids is that the first person they talk to doesn't always have the right answers and they have to push to go higher up the chain to get to someone who really does know (or can find out.)
March on brave warriors (to places no man has gone before!)