Q.) can CA!!!!! pull hard inq. Sure didn't apply for credit w/them

[Anonymous]

Hoping that someone can help.

Just pulled BF's EXP report and it shows under "inquiries shared with others"

 Cavalry Portfolio Serv.

   Comments Permissible purpose.

Now Cavalry is a collection agency he sure didn't apply for credit with them or in any way authorize them to pull a hard copy of his report.

This was done 08/07 and we never even heard from them until 03/08. (BTW SOL'd 02/07)

Can they do this????? and what is permissible purpose?  Any ideas?

thx angel

[Jesedmotherof5]

(new here to).. I think collections is PP ie they might be trying to see if you have a new address. It would be great if they didnt becasue I have about 20 of those... X$ 1000 wow, I could really pay off some stuff!

[Anonymous]

Opinions differ on this question around here.  I maintain a CA has PP to pull a hard inquiry as long as the debt they are collecting on is from a credit transaction.  Many very knowledgeable posters disagree with me.

The answer to this question is not at all clear cut, and the debate is far from settled.

[MidnightVoice]

---

cheddar wrote:

Opinions differ on this question around here.  I maintain a CA has PP to pull a hard inquiry as long as the debt they are collecting on is from a credit transaction.  Many very knowledgeable posters disagree with me.

The answer to this question is not at all clear cut, and the debate is far from settled.

---

They all seem to do it and get away with it, so the question is pretty moot 

[llecs]

This is from the FCRA sect. 604 (a)(3)(A):

In general.

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

To a person which it has reason to believe....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; or...

Message Edited by llecs on 04-18-2008 11:23 AM

[Anonymous]

thans to all for help.

i guess he's just stuck with that one.  i just freaked when it said that these are inquiries that he applied for credit.  No one wants more credit from a CA. LOL

[llecs]

In the past year, DW and I had 3 CAs pull a hard inquiries on us. But in every case the inquiry disappeared off our reports within 4-6 months.

[Anonymous]

---

llecs wrote:

This is from the FCRA sect. 604 (a)(3)(A):

In general.

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

To a person which it has reason to believe....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; or...

---

llecs,

That is the same section I always quote in support of my argument, but it is usually countered with 604(c)(3): "...a consumer reporting agency shall not furnish to any person a record of  inquiries in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by the consumer."

...to which I respond, even though the CA account is not an account that was initiated by the consumer, it is in connection with a credit transaction initiated by the consumer, which is all that's required.

In any case, even if I concede that point, and agree for the sake of argument that a CA account is not in connection with an account initiated by the consumer, therefore 604(c)(3) applies, then we fall back on 603(m)(2).  "The term 'credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by the consumer' does not include the use of a consumer report by a person with which the consumer has an account or insurance policy, for purposes of collecting the account." [emphasis mine]  From this it appears that 604(c)(3) does not apply after all.

I have yet to see a convincing counterargument to this, but I continue to leave the door open for discussion, because other posters more knowledgeable than I disagree with me.

[llecs]

I have yet to read the FDCPA or FCRA or even TILA or FACTA from head to toe. I figured that if the FCRA mentioned what is says in 604(a)(3)(A), then therefore no other parts within the statute would conflict with each other.

You made a good point and I hadn't thought of that. I agree and still feel that CAs have PP.

I just made the same conclusion (that CAs have PP) but by a another means, and that is based on the original intent of the language in the statute. Notice that the writers use credit terms in the document. They use words like "insurance", "employment", "credit"  or "extension of credit", and "collection". They make it difficult to mix up the term "collection" with "credit". Quite often we mix the two, after all, collections can be on our "credit" report.

Message Edited by llecs on 04-18-2008 04:24 PM

[Anonymous]

---

MidnightVoice wrote:

---

cheddar wrote:

Opinions differ on this question around here.  I maintain a CA has PP to pull a hard inquiry as long as the debt they are collecting on is from a credit transaction.  Many very knowledgeable posters disagree with me.

The answer to this question is not at all clear cut, and the debate is far from settled.

---

They all seem to do it and get away with it, so the question is pretty moot 

---

Ah, but if Pintos had had that point of view regarding PP for non-credited-related hard inquiries by a CA, then there never would have been a Pintos v. Pacific Creditors decision.

This question won't be moot until it's been settled by a court.  And even then, it will always be subject to reinterpretation.

Message Edited by cheddar on 04-18-2008 01:43 PM