06-21-2007 08:42 AM
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is a formal complaint that you are reporting inaccurate credit information on my Trans Union Credit Report-File No#. Credit reporting laws ensure that bureaus report only 100% accurate credit information. Every step must be taken to assure the information reported is completely accurate and correct.
The following company DID NOT have my authorization to run my credit:
-XXX Group on x/x/0x and x/x/0x.
I respectfully request to be provided with proof that this inquiry was in fact initiated and authorized with an instrument bearing my signature, and for legitimate business purposes. Failing that, the unauthorized inquiry must be deleted from my Trans Union report as soon as possible.
XXX Group inquiry does not belong on my credit report, just as it has been reported to the other credit bureaus. I notified XXX GROUP by phone about this issue, but instead of fixing it, they reported my call as another inquiry. Despite my explicit requests, this company still reports two inquiries on my Trans Union report as it was initiated by me. This inquiry on my credit report violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Section 1681b(c): Transactions Not Initiated by Consumer. As you already know, you have 30 days to complete your re-investigation. Be advised that the description of the procedure used to determine the accuracy and completeness of the information is hereby requested as well, to be provided within 15 days of the completion of your re-investigation. Upon completion please send me an updated copy of my credit report including my new credit score.
06-21-2007 09:47 AM
Noah_Bodie wrote:FACTA amendment let you dispute ANY piece of information with the CRAs, even an incorrect address. There's no means under law to remove inquiries, even ones for which you didn't give permission and they don't have PP. Only legal recourse is to sue whomever pulled your credit without PP. The CRAs will often investigate inquiries and if the requester of your CR doesn't validate then the CRA will either delete it or have the requester recode it as a soft pull. Cuts down on the lawsuits against those who pull your credit without PP. And you didn't think CRAs were in bed with the OCs and CAs? Tsk, tsk.
Message Edited by Noah_Bodie on 06-20-2007 10:17 PM
06-21-2007 05:10 PM
princessofpink wrote:Do I have any recourse with TU then since I just called them and they said they couldn't investigate an inquiry? The guy said all I could do was contact the requestor.
06-21-2007 07:34 PM
06-21-2007 08:58 PM
cinoeye wrote:So if the collection is legit, the colection companies have right to pull hard INQ?
08-03-2007 04:55 PM
08-03-2007 10:43 PM
Remember.. The purpose of my letter is to point out "unlawful compliance" not to stipulate what is and isn't permissible purpose.
Tuscani,I think the first USC reference in your letter, where you mention "permissible purpose", should be referencing 1681b(a)(3)