Today's success story (no-PP) (third success this week)

[Anonymous]

Long story short - CA from hell did a hard inquiry early august.

I sent immediately a non-PP letter and a DV. Waited 30 days. Sent 2nd DV letter, complained to BBB, FTC and AG.

Waited one week and filed Small Court claim and notified AG of violation of FDCPA sect 809 for failure of notifying me within five days of first contact (I considered inquiry first contact).

AG requested a bunch of information that i sent right away.

Today I received notice from AG with a letter that CA from hell in spirit of compromise and in good will decided to remove the hard inquiry. Yippee!

Next will come a suit against Transunion for failure to investigate an inquiry visible to others.

[treski]

Awesome!!!

[Junejer]

That's what's up demed. More people should take this action and the CRAs will slowly begin to change their ways.

[upinflagstaff]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Long story short - CA from hell did a hard inquiry early august.

I sent immediately a non-PP letter and a DV. Waited 30 days. Sent 2nd DV letter, complained to BBB, FTC and AG.

Waited one week and filed Small Court claim and notified AG of violation of FDCPA sect 809 for failure of notifying me within five days of first contact (I considered inquiry first contact).

AG requested a bunch of information that i sent right away.

Today I received notice from AG with a letter that CA from hell in spirit of compromise and in good will decided to remove the hard inquiry. Yippee!

Next will come a suit against Transunion for failure to investigate an inquiry visible to others.

---

That's awesome! I sent off my complaint packet to the state on Sat. I expect something shortly in my saga with a non-PP puller (and unlicensed in my state to boot) 

It's about time that these guys are held to the statutes. 

[Veee]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Next will come a suit against Transunion for failure to investigate an inquiry visible to others.

---

First, Congrats! Second, I want to jump on this banwagon! Experian finally deleted my OC, EQ was the first ... the CA is still showing on all 3 but I'm beginning to see some light (very little light) but TRANSUNION GRrrrrrr got a letter from them today ... regarding both the CA and OC ..

Our records show that your creditors previously verified as accurate yada yada, we consider this dispute frivolous and we will not reinvestigate the items unless you can provide court papers or a recent, authentic letter from the creditors that explains what information should be updated.

Do they want me to take this to court? Cause they would be part of it!

[Breakthecycle2]

How do you go about filing a small claims?

[upinflagstaff]

First, you have to determine which court is the small claims court. Most of the time you can walk in and just ask for the small claims packet and they will hand you the whole packet including instructions.

[Junejer]

---

Veee wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Next will come a suit against Transunion for failure to investigate an inquiry visible to others.

---

First, Congrats! Second, I want to jump on this banwagon! Experian finally deleted my OC, EQ was the first ... the CA is still showing on all 3 but I'm beginning to see some light (very little light) but TRANSUNION GRrrrrrr got a letter from them today ... regarding both the CA and OC ..

Our records show that your creditors previously verified as accurate yada yada, we consider this dispute frivolous and we will not reinvestigate the items unless you can provide court papers or a recent, authentic letter from the creditors that explains what information should be updated.

Do they want me to take this to court? Cause they would be part of it!

---

I think that they need to be taken to court. Not enough people do so when they are wronged by the CRAs. This frivolous crap is NOT an option under the FCRA!

[RobertEG]

Nice work, demed!

Not to throw water on your fire, but they clearly couched their removal of the hard pull as being in the spirit of good will, and not an admission that it was not a PP.  Merely removing shrapnel on their part, I would presume....

I know you and I have been around and around on this issue.  You feel that a CA cannot do a PP, and I feel that they can.  I wont rehash positions on this, for they are posted elsewhere. 

But the fact is, adirmably, that you are pressing the issue, and I wish you all the luck, for I would love to see it resolved under your argument, and not mine!

I admire your position and perserverence!

[Anonymous]

Thank you all for the encouragement.

Unfortunately for ByrdMan, the FCRA actually has provisions to let the CRAs off the hook and explicit language around frivolous disputes.

However, once they are called to court, all the bets are off and they have to provide real data or else.