Hard inquiry, But I did not allow!!!

[Anonymous]

I just got an alert on my TU cr, saying that there has been a hard inquiry to my cr.  With my scores it would be useless for me to try and ask for credit anywhere.  It was a ca that did the inquiry, but they didnt tell me or even ask me if they can look at my cr, Is there anything I can do about this?

[fused]

A CA does not have PP (permissible purpose) to pull your credit. Dispute this with TU as not mine, I did not apply for credit with a CA. You can also sue the CA for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act -- 15 USC § 1681n(a)(1)(B). You might just win yourself 1K...Christmas Gift!

[TryingVeryHard]

---

@fused wrote:

A CA does not have PP (permissible purpose) to pull your credit. Dispute this with TU as not mine, I did not apply for credit with a CA. You can also sue the CA for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act -- 15 USC § 1681n(a)(1)(B). You might just win yourself 1K...Christmas Gift!

---

I know how this will end up. TU will tell you: "we do not handle dispute involving inquiries. You have to contact the CA or whoever requested for your credit. Do you want their contact information?"

The Dispute(r): Yes

TU: Do you have your pen and paper?

The Disputer(r): Yes, I am ready

TU: Yada yada yada

Bottom line, you will have to ask the CA to delete this or have this recorded as Account Review. I do not know how CA cant have a PP. I believe that they do. Only collection which does not involve CONSUMER-INITIATED-TRANSACTION can be considered to be lacking PP, otherwise, collections which are legitimate have it. I might be wrong.

[fused]

---

TryingVeryHard wrote:


I know how this will end up. TU will tell you: "we do not handle dispute involving inquiries. You have to contact the CA or whoever requested for your credit. Do you want their contact information?"

The Dispute(r): Yes

TU: Do you have your pen and paper?

The Disputer(r): Yes, I am ready

TU: Yada yada yada

Bottom line, you will have to ask the CA to delete this or have this recorded as Account Review. I do not know how CA cant have a PP. I believe that they do. Only collection which does not involve CONSUMER-INITIATED-TRANSACTION can be considered to be lacking PP, otherwise, collections which are legitimate have it. I might be wrong.

---

No way! Read this. Yeah, it's long!

http://www.accessreports.com/statutes/FCRA.htm

[TryingVeryHard]

I am only sharing what happened to me on multiple occassions. I have numerously attempted to do it but TU wont touch it. They said I have to do it through the CA, and let the CA make a letter stating that the inquiry was made an error or should be coded as A/R

[fused]

Fine! Maybe the OP can write a Non-PP letter and threaten to sue the CA and get some early Christmas money.

[TryingVeryHard]

I have actually asked TU about this. After being passed to two "specialist," I finally end up to a supervisor who informed me that CA has the option of coding this as hard or soft.

The thing is, if the CA will be willing give up their believe that their inquiry has PP. For all they care is as long as the collection is legitimate, they have th PP.

[Anonymous]

This is what the relevant federal law states regarding permissible purposes:

(a) In general

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

     (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;

See 15 U.S.C. (2003) 1681b(a).  The version previously referenced is no longer good law.  This statute has been amended numerous times.  The last amendment was enacted on December 13, 2003, according to www.gpoaccess.gov.

[TryingVeryHard]

See 15 U.S.C. (2003) 1681b(a). The version previously referenced is no longer good law. This statute has been amended numerous times. The last amendment was enacted on December 13, 2003, according to www.gpoaccess.gov.

Correct me if i am wrong, I believe the Pintos case make the following clear: PP was lacking because it did not satisfy two requirements:

1. credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished

and

2. involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the
consumer;

The CA in Pintos satisfied the 2nd because they are collecting an account. But the ruling states the CA lacks the 1st. For PP to be present, if I understood it correctly, both 1 and 2 has to be satisfied.

With regards to the Neemo6 (original poster of this thread), he/she did not specify if the collection was related to a CREDIT TRANSACTION. She/he only mentioned that the account was related to or initiated by a COLLECTION AGENCY. It is important to determine if the collection was related to any account that would satisfy the 1st requirement (i.e. it has to be consumer initiated), otherwise, the inquiry can be deem in violation of the law.

Now, Neemo6, do you have any reason to believe that this collection was related to a CREDIT CARD, MORTGAGE, CAR PAYMENT etc.?