General Credit Topics

[cinoeye]

This letter looks great.

I did send my INQ dispute to TU, and I will used this one for creditor.

Here is my letter-

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.                                   

 Thank you!

Sincerely,

Addres

SSN# 123-45-6789

[cinoeye]

So if the collection is legit, the colection companies have right to pull hard INQ?

[masdeocho]

---

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

---

This is an important point that most people miss.

Strictly legally, if a CRA gave your CR to anyone, whether they had a PP or not, the CRA is required to put an inquiry on your CR.  The inquiry means that your CR was in fact provided to someone; it's not an indication of whether the CRA was supposed to provide it in the first palce.  Once they give your CR out, technically the CRA is breaking the law if they later remove the inquiry, even if they gave it to someone with no PP or even completely by accident.  You can't rewrite history. But no one sues CRAs for removing inqs from their CRs!!

As Noah said, go after those who had no PP or request an investigation.

[Noah_Bodie]

---

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.  

---

Calling the CRAs won't accomplish anything. You likely aren't going to get an INQ investigated over the phone, although you probably could get the CRA on willful non-compliance. However, I recommend you not go that route and instead use them as an ally. Dispute with the CRA in writing, CMRRR, and wait for the investigate to complete.

The CRA will likely come back saying confirmed or PP. But, it's possible they will contact the OC/CA who will realize ooops, we don't have PP. They will either recode the INQ as a soft INQ or delete it altogether.

If the INQ remains, then hit 'em up with Tuscani's Pay Me Lowlife letter. Or you can hit 'em with it now.

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=generalcredit&thread.id=3900

[Tuscani]

"Pay Me Lowlife"

LOVE IT!

[princessofpink]

I've already sent the Pay Me Lowlife letter and they have not responded at all.  I'm really worried about pushing it though because it's Wolpoff and Abramson.   I've read some info about them and it doesn't sound like they would bat an eyelash at having to go to court over something like that.

[Noah_Bodie]

---

cinoeye wrote:

So if the collection is legit, the colection companies have right to pull hard INQ?

---

Opinions vary, but it does appear a CA with a legit collection can inquire. However, whether it can be a soft or hard inquiry is very much debateable. Watch for a rant outta me on this subject, coming soon.

[Noah_Bodie]

Tuscani,

I think the first USC reference in your letter, where you mention "permissible purpose", should be referencing 1681b(a)(3)

[Tuscani]

---

Noah_Bodie wrote:

Tuscani,

I think the first USC reference in your letter, where you mention "permissible purpose", should be referencing 1681b(a)(3)

---

Remember.. The purpose of my letter is to point out "unlawful compliance" not to stipulate what is and isn't permissible purpose.

[MercyMe]

Tuscani, I am so very glad that you didn't fall off a bridge.  Hope all is well with all of yours.

just me