Reply
Frequent Contributor
nathan
Posts: 411
Registered: ‎04-18-2007
0

HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY

Consumer Recovery Associates put a hard inq on my exp on june 6. Can a ca put a hard on my report even though I did not request credit. I have tried to call exp to dispute because you can't dispute inqs online, what can I do to get this hard off my report. I don't even want to talk to these bastards from the ca. Is this normal practice?
Moderator Emeritus
cheddar
Posts: 6,794
Registered: ‎09-29-2007
0

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY



nathan wrote:
Consumer Recovery Associates put a hard inq on my exp on june 6. Can a ca put a hard on my report even though I did not request credit. I have tried to call exp to dispute because you can't dispute inqs online, what can I do to get this hard off my report. I don't even want to talk to these bastards from the ca. Is this normal practice?



Sometimes they can pull and sometimes they can't.
 
What sort of debt is this?
 
(And where do you see in the FCRA that a hard inquiry is allowed only when you're applying for credit?)
 
----------------------------
App free since 7/11/08.
TU 744 / EX 710 / EQ 694 (Starting to slip. :smileysurprised: )
Frequent Contributor
nathan
Posts: 411
Registered: ‎04-18-2007
0

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY

I do not have any debt with this agency. I just noticed today that they did a hard pull on my exp on the 6th of this month. I was shocked because this is the first time i have had a hard inq from a ca. If they have the right to pull a hard, that is fine. I was just wondering if this is normal and if it is, it would be scary how ca can kill your score if they can't get at you in any other way. Even asset that has been on my  reports for seven years has never pull a hard on me. They usually do soft every other month. i know calling the ca is a waste of time, but is this disputable?
Senior Contributor
UpUpUp
Posts: 3,017
Registered: ‎06-03-2008
0

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY

Same just happened to me:
 
I'm not going to rest until I get some resolution on this and prepared to file a suit if necessary. The law seems pretty clear from my weeks worth of reading that unless it was some sort of credit related transaction it's not permissible purpose. Plus, the debt the collection who gave me a hard inquiry is trying to collect on an expired debt, both out of SoL and reporting period (it's nearly 10 years old).
File a complaint with BBB, FTC, Attorney General, Rip off report, etc.
 
Send a formal dispute in writing to the credit bureau, but don't expect them to remove it. TransUnion has refused to even take my dispute over the phone saying they will not remove inquiries, ever, period.
Mega Contributor
RobertEG
Posts: 17,456
Registered: ‎03-19-2007
0

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY

[ Edited ]
The FCRA does not require prior consumer consent to a credit pull if they have a legitimate busness purpose.  A cdollection agency has a clear and legiitimate busness purpose.  What they did is a permissable pull.
 

FCRA § 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:

 (F) otherwise 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.



Message Edited by RobertEG on 07-07-2008 09:47 PM
Senior Contributor
Wonderin
Posts: 3,494
Registered: ‎05-25-2008
0

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY

[ Edited ]
Robert, you're forgetting Pinto vs. Pacific, in which the Ninth Circuit Court. The case summary is as follows:

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 made clear that debt collection was a permissible purpose for obtaining a credit report under Section 1681b(a)(3)(A) only in connection with a "credit transaction" in which a consumer had participated directly and voluntarily.

AFAIK, no other court has overturned this decision nor have any appeals been successful. This case does show precedence that a CA pulling CRs on a debtor is a clear cut case of NON PP.

Message Edited by Wonderin on 07-08-2008 01:00 AM

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Hubby's FICOs when we started: high 400s (June 2008)
Hubby's FICO NOW (04/06/09): TU: 679 EQ: 608 EX: ???
My FICOs: TU: 643, EQ: 606
Closed on new home: 1/20/2009 -- If we can do it, YOU can do it!!

Mega Contributor
RobertEG
Posts: 17,456
Registered: ‎03-19-2007
0

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY

[ Edited ]
Citing dicta in case law does not establish law.  The ruling in PInto v. Pacific was not that a CA cannot initiate a credit pull.  Dicta pulled from the decision misstates the decision.
As you stated:
 
The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 made clear that debt collection was a permissible purpose for obtaining a credit report under Section 1681b(a)(3)(A) only in connection with a "credit transaction" in which a consumer had participated directly and voluntarily.

How can one possibly argue that one who entered into a credit transaction that led to a collection was not a transaction the was entered voluntarily into by the consumer?
I dont think that the decision held this.
 
Federal court decisions are not binding precedent upon any other jurisdiction unless appealed to a court of higher jurisdiction to which that court is bound. 
 
Please provide a jump site citation in the Fed Rep for this decision.


Message Edited by RobertEG on 07-07-2008 11:25 PM
Senior Contributor
Wonderin
Posts: 3,494
Registered: ‎05-25-2008
0

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY



RobertEG wrote:
Citing dicta in case law does not establish law. The ruling in PInto v. Pacific was not that a CA cannot initiate a credit pull. Dicta pulled from the decision misstates the decision.
As you stated:
The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 made clear that debt collection was a permissible purpose for obtaining a credit report under Section 1681b(a)(3)(A) only in connection with a "credit transaction" in which a consumer had participated directly and voluntarily.

How can one possibly argue that one who entered into a credit transaction that led to a collection was not a transaction the was entered voluntarily into by the consumer?
I dont think that the decision held this.
Federal court decisions are not binding precedent upon any other jurisdiction unless appealed to a court of higher jurisdiction to which that court is bound.
Please provide a jump site citation in the Fed Rep for this decision.


Message Edited by RobertEG on 07-07-2008 11:25 PM




No, it doesn't establish law. AFAIK, only lawmakers can do that. :smileyhappy:

However, much like Roe vs Wade, case law CAN set precedents. Something always useful when a judge prefers guidance rather than making their own determination (which, all of the judges I've known, prefer -- meaning guidance, rather than trail-blazing).

True. Fed decisions are only as binding as the jurisdiction in question wants them to be. But I ask you: how many judges do you know that like seeing their rulings thrown out in a higher court?

Besides that, I don't know if you noticed, but credit has become a bit of a hot topic here nowadays -- which will only increase as the gas crunch squeezes each "class" in turn ... and how about the mortgage market? -- even those who don't really give a rat's patootie WILL when it threatens them. And I can durn nigh guarantee you that a judge who rules against the "little guy" ESPECIALLY if there's a precendent that's stuck for so long -- won't have a nice warm bench to sit on.

The majority of the judges in a position to decided whether the Fed case is "binding" or not are elected ... and I don't know of any judge that would willingly piss off his constituency by ruling against the common man/consumer. Do you??

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Hubby's FICOs when we started: high 400s (June 2008)
Hubby's FICO NOW (04/06/09): TU: 679 EQ: 608 EX: ???
My FICOs: TU: 643, EQ: 606
Closed on new home: 1/20/2009 -- If we can do it, YOU can do it!!

Moderator Emeritus
llecs
Posts: 32,881
Registered: ‎08-04-2007

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY

[ Edited ]
I'm still on the CA has PP bandwagon.
 
I'm out for a large cup of coffee........
 
Here's the case, BTW:
 
 


Message Edited by llecs on 07-08-2008 01:14 PM
Moderator Emeritus
cheddar
Posts: 6,794
Registered: ‎09-29-2007
0

Re: HARD INQUIRY FROM A COLLECTION AGENCY

llecs, while I agree with the conclusion in your post above, I don't see the connection you are making between who has PP to pull a report, versus what sorts of debts may be reported.
 
Pintos was only about whether a CA has PP to pull an inquiry.  It had nothing to do with whether or not they could report a tradeline.  I think it is pretty well accepted that they can report any account regardless of the nature of the debt.  The question at hand is whether or not they have PP to pull.
 
----------------------------
App free since 7/11/08.
TU 744 / EX 710 / EQ 694 (Starting to slip. :smileysurprised: )

myFICO is the consumer division of FICO. Since its introduction 20 years ago, the FICO® Score has become a global standard for measuring credit risk in the banking, mortgage, credit card, auto and retail industries. 90 of the top 100 largest U.S. financial institutions use the FICO Score to make consumer credit decisions.

>> About myFICO
FICO Score - The Score that matters
Click to Verify - This site chose VeriSign SSL for secure e-commerce and confidential communications.
Fair Isaac Corporation is a BBB Accredited Financial Service in San Rafael, CA
FOLLOW US Social Media Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google+