I thought I was over this mess, but it looks like a few bottom feeders are still out there!
Got an alert today there was a new hard inquiry on my TU from Wein, Welman & Reis. After researching them, it appears they buy OLD OLD OLD junk debt. I have NOT received a call from them, and have NOT seen a dunning letter.
Should I DV them now, or wait to see if I get a letter? Any options for getting the hard inquiry removed?
I used to know these answers, but got a bit rusty after getting everything cleaned up and "gardening" my new accounts. Just used to wait around for letters, but it is amazing how protective I am of my CR now that I got out of that black hole I created years ago!
They should not have done a HP IMO. If they are not on your CR it should have been a SP.
I would tell the CRAs you DO NOT have a business relationship with them and since they are not on your CR they should have done a SP.
+1 and I would send the DV now, the HP of your CR would be considered a first contact. Any DV sent now would be considred timely. Also, you should receive a dunning notice from them within 5 days.
I presume, with all the names in their title, that they are also a law firm?
If so, it is difficult to say at this point whether they are acting as legal counsel for the creditor, or as their debt collector.
If, as your research appears to show, they have a primary business of collection of debt, they would become a debt collector.
The issue of whether or not their inquiry was a communication is not determinative of whether you can DV them, as any DV is timely until they have sent dunning notice and the 30 day period set therein has expired. So I would send a DV, and if they are in fact acting as a debt collector, they must cease any collection activities until they have provided verification. If they are not asserting to be a debt collector, as absence of dunning notice might imply, the DV would be moot.
Send a DV and get a collection bar in the event they do assert to be a debt collector.
As for challenging their inquiry, the issue is whether they have a permissible purpose. If authorized legal counsel, I would presume they have the full authority to act on behalf of their client, who does have permissible purpose. If a debt collector, they have their own express permissible purpose.
The FCRA does not regulate coding of hard vs soft inquiries other than inquiries for which you have not initiated a request for credit or insurance...so-called promotional inquiries. Tough to pursue coding disputes when they otherwise have a permissible purpose.
Any advice on how to/what type of wording to include in a DV that would also address them (hopefully) removing the HP?
I would not include anyting regarding the inquiry in your DV. It is unrelated, and might result in their interpretation of your DV as a dispute.
+1 Don't include any wording that might be taken as a dispute.
They may be a law firm, they may not. I've seen many CAs with their names manipulated to sound like they are law firms or they are some type of authority.