Credit Card Center Advertiser Disclosure†
11-28-2012 07:26 AM - last edited on 11-28-2012 07:46 AM by llecs
I recently switched to Comcast for internet. During the sign up process, I was asked for my SSN. I asked why, and was told they needed to do a credit check. I asked would this be a hard or soft pull, and I was told it was a soft pull, therefore I gave them SSN with the instruction that if its going to be HP don't do it. I was again assured it would be a SP. Well, a few days letter I get SW alert saying someone has just checked my credit. I now have hard INQ on my CR from Comcast. Is this grounds for a non-pp dispute or at least a request to have it recoded as a SP.
11-28-2012 07:47 AM
OP, I split your post to form a new one here. I had to edit the title, but changed nothing else. If you'd like to change the title, click "Options" and then "Edit Message".
11-28-2012 10:17 AM - edited 11-28-2012 10:20 AM
No, it is not, in my opinion, basis for dispute. An inquiree is mandated by statute to provide a legitimate permissible purpose for their inquiry. The FCRA does not regulate how the CRAs code those inquiries as so-called "hard" or "soft," only that the stated permissible purpose be accurate.
A clear permissible purpose arises when a consumer initiates a business transaction that involves some legitimate reason for the business to review the consumer's credit as part of that transaction. In the case of a cable provider, they usually rent equipment and they send monthly billings upon which delinquencies can incur. Legitimate business purpose. The entire reason for defining permissible purposes under FCRA 604 is to facilitate the pull of credit reports without having to provide express consumer permission. Otherwise, business review of consumer credit would come to a standstill.
If you dispute, the direct dispute process specifically exempts all disputes pertaining to credit inquiries, so your dispute would have to be made via the CRA.
The CRA has in its files the inquiree's statement of permissible purpose upon which they granted them a copy of the CR. That is the requirement of the FCRA, which has been complied with. How it is coded is not a violation unless their coding can be shown to have reflected a purpose other than the stated permissible purpose.
Not having a copy of their stated permissible purpose, it is usually a loser for the consumer to challenge the accuracy of the recordation of that inquiry in their credit file.
Unwanted, perhaps. Improper based on a statements made to you, also perhaps. But not, in my opinion, easily disputable under the FCRA as an inaccuracy in credit reporting.
11-29-2012 05:47 AM
true, but if you can prove it then you would have a case against them in court. If they made you a promise specifically to gain your business and knowingly lied about it in order to do so would be fraud and they would be liable at minimum civilly if not criminally...if they unknowingly made the promise then at minimum it would be negligence on their part...either way if you sent them an intent to sue based on those grounds, I would bet they would remove the inquiry rather then risked being sued over something as stupid as that...
11-29-2012 10:19 AM - edited 12-02-2012 12:57 PM
I agree, 100%
The dispute process is not the process for resolving he-said, she said issues as to an oral agreement. That requires someone to hear and resolve the facts.
Legal action for breach of oral contract is certainly an option.
Not something I would personally do, as the effort would exceed the benefit. The presumption that they are even the party who caused it to be included in the consumer's credit report is not even clear, as it may well have been the CRA who decided to consider it as a so-called "hard pull" based only on the permissible purpose provided by the requestor. It is not, to my knowledge, even known that a requestor has inquiry codes available to them to shield otherwise includable inquiries from a consumer's credit report.
It's a can of legal and administrative worms. Having legal requirement to present the actual permissible purpose, it is not clear to me that their inquiry was improper.