Reply
Established Member
Matisyahu
Posts: 22
Registered: ‎10-16-2012
0

collection agency hard inquiry leagal?

is it leagal for a collection agency to pull your credit with out your permission? if not how do I deal with it?

Moderator
Shogun
Posts: 12,952
Registered: ‎04-15-2011
0

Re: collection agency hard inquiry leagal?

Actually the answer is no.  You do have a debt with them, and it is a permissable pull.  It can be done via a SP, but some use the HP just to ramp it up a bit.


Starting Score: 504

July 2013 score: EQ FICO 819, TU08 778, EX "806 lender pull 07/26/2013
Goal Score: All Scores 760+, Newest goal 800+

Take the myFICO Fitness Challenge

Current scores after adding $81K in CLs and 2 new cars since July 2013
EQ:809 TU 777 EX 790 Now it's just garden time!
Established Contributor
sphinx313
Posts: 567
Registered: ‎02-12-2011
0

Re: collection agency hard inquiry leagal?

Yeah it's pretty bogus that they are able to do it, but they are in fact able. The good news is once you start getting rid of some of them you won't have this issue but it's a classic case of kicking a man when he's down. Just like bank overdraft fees.



Starting Score: 532/564 10/21/12
Current Score: TU: 594 EQ: 628 EX: 617 BoA Credit Pull Denial Letter 2/20/2013
Goal Score: 700


Take the FICO Fitness Challenge
Frequent Contributor
shols44
Posts: 398
Registered: ‎11-03-2012
0

Re: collection agency hard inquiry leagal?

+1 to both above. Unfortunately, permissible purpose is all that is necessary. They can code is as a Hard or soft. This particular point gets my blood boling. It could be used unfairly and in a very vindictive manner. 

 


Starting Score: 501
Current Score: 706 EQ,TU 689,EX 686
Goal Score: 720

New Contributor
tmobileguy
Posts: 88
Registered: ‎11-16-2012
0

Re: collection agency hard inquiry leagal?

Not true...permissable purpose is required for soft or hard pull...but FCRA specifically states that in order to do a hard pull (they use different language, they state an iquiry that is viewable by everyone) that you must have PP as well as it must be initiated by the consumer...this is a response I found on another site that clears it up pretty good...

 

The concept of HARD-vs-SOFT has nothing directly to do withe the FCRA. It is a business angle the CRA's created to "add value" to thier existence. They track HARD inquires as a way of showing prospective creditors (the people paying commercial rate $$ for your credit report) what credit you have been applying for lately. This is valuable information for the prospective creditor to know before deciding to loan you money.

So this entire catagory of INQUIRIES and what is shown to credit report USERS other than YOU the consumer, is a business product catagory the CRA's have invented for themselves using a hole in the FCRA, where the FCRA doesn't actually dictate anything about WHO ELSE can be shown your inquiry history.

All the FCRA does is dictate what PERMISSABLE PURPOSE a particular type of USER has. The good thing for the consumer is, the CRA's have tied the PP to the hard/soft aspect they invented. So The CRA's themselves have EXTENDED the reach of the FCRA into enforcing PP-vs-Inquiry Coding.

A collection agency, collection attorney, JDB, etc does NOT have PERMISSABLE PURPOSE under 1681b(a)(2) or 1681b(a)(3)(A). These are the PPs that generate HARD inquiries. They involve YOU and a CREDIT TRANSACTION or an application for credit or insurance... PERIOD.

The collector's only have PP under 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) which does not generate a HARD inquiry. It is the generic catchall "other" business PP.

The tie in is all USERS must file certificates with the CRA as a business stating thier purpose for accessing reports. If they tell the truth on the certificate, they are authorized for 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) as a collector. If they lie on the certificate to get access under 1681b(a)(2) or 1681b(a)(3)(A) then you have them by the short hairs. If they have a legit certification BUT pull using a code OTHER THAN the one thier cert covers, you have them by the short hairs.

The key is, you must subpeona the CRA to turn over all the communications involving you/cra/collector as well as the certifications filed by the collector....so YOU can prove to the court they deliberately obtained your report under FALSE PRETENSES.

If they have violated any laws in this regard, the act of you obtaining the subpeona may be all that is required to get the USER (the collector that made the inquires) to contact the CRA and FIX the incorrect catagorization as HARD instead of SOFT. Let them lie to the CRA about why that happened, so long as they fix it.

But this battle has only been fought a couple times I've heard of, and resulted in settlements, so no caselaw in court exists yet using this strategy.

 


Starting Score: EQ 575 EX 595 TR 524
Current Score: EQ 643 EX ??? TR 638
Goal Score: EQ 300 EX 300 TR 300


Take the myFICO Fitness Challenge
Valued Contributor
rootpooty
Posts: 1,772
Registered: ‎10-28-2011
0

Re: collection agency hard inquiry leagal?


tmobileguy wrote:

Not true...permissable purpose is required for soft or hard pull...but FCRA specifically states that in order to do a hard pull (they use different language, they state an iquiry that is viewable by everyone) that you must have PP as well as it must be initiated by the consumer...this is a response I found on another site that clears it up pretty good...

 

The concept of HARD-vs-SOFT has nothing directly to do withe the FCRA. It is a business angle the CRA's created to "add value" to thier existence. They track HARD inquires as a way of showing prospective creditors (the people paying commercial rate $$ for your credit report) what credit you have been applying for lately. This is valuable information for the prospective creditor to know before deciding to loan you money.

So this entire catagory of INQUIRIES and what is shown to credit report USERS other than YOU the consumer, is a business product catagory the CRA's have invented for themselves using a hole in the FCRA, where the FCRA doesn't actually dictate anything about WHO ELSE can be shown your inquiry history.

All the FCRA does is dictate what PERMISSABLE PURPOSE a particular type of USER has. The good thing for the consumer is, the CRA's have tied the PP to the hard/soft aspect they invented. So The CRA's themselves have EXTENDED the reach of the FCRA into enforcing PP-vs-Inquiry Coding.

A collection agency, collection attorney, JDB, etc does NOT have PERMISSABLE PURPOSE under 1681b(a)(2) or 1681b(a)(3)(A). These are the PPs that generate HARD inquiries. They involve YOU and a CREDIT TRANSACTION or an application for credit or insurance... PERIOD.

The collector's only have PP under 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) which does not generate a HARD inquiry. It is the generic catchall "other" business PP.

The tie in is all USERS must file certificates with the CRA as a business stating thier purpose for accessing reports. If they tell the truth on the certificate, they are authorized for 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) as a collector. If they lie on the certificate to get access under 1681b(a)(2) or 1681b(a)(3)(A) then you have them by the short hairs. If they have a legit certification BUT pull using a code OTHER THAN the one thier cert covers, you have them by the short hairs.

The key is, you must subpeona the CRA to turn over all the communications involving you/cra/collector as well as the certifications filed by the collector....so YOU can prove to the court they deliberately obtained your report under FALSE PRETENSES.

If they have violated any laws in this regard, the act of you obtaining the subpeona may be all that is required to get the USER (the collector that made the inquires) to contact the CRA and FIX the incorrect catagorization as HARD instead of SOFT. Let them lie to the CRA about why that happened, so long as they fix it.

But this battle has only been fought a couple times I've heard of, and resulted in settlements, so no caselaw in court exists yet using this strategy.

 


The permissable purpose already happened before you went delinquent.  If a CA has an account on you that is permissable purpose and they can HP you at any time just like your current CC company can do it

NFCU plat 5k | NAVCHECK 5k | NFCU cashrewards 15k | BOFA 123 6k |
Chase Freedom 1.5k | Amazon 3K | Walmart 3K | Buckle 300 | AMEX BCE 2.5K | CHASE CSP 12K | CITI sears 6k | Kay 2k

On the prowl for Chase Sapphire Preferred! APPROVED 12K!
scores 7/14 647 622 630 (85%util)
scores 8/14 767 760 758 Boom! finally in the 700 club
Valued Contributor
rckstrscott
Posts: 2,660
Registered: ‎04-25-2011
0

Re: collection agency hard inquiry leagal?


tmobileguy wrote:

Not true...permissable purpose is required for soft or hard pull...but FCRA specifically states that in order to do a hard pull (they use different language, they state an iquiry that is viewable by everyone) that you must have PP as well as it must be initiated by the consumer...this is a response I found on another site that clears it up pretty good...

 

The concept of HARD-vs-SOFT has nothing directly to do withe the FCRA. It is a business angle the CRA's created to "add value" to thier existence. They track HARD inquires as a way of showing prospective creditors (the people paying commercial rate $$ for your credit report) what credit you have been applying for lately. This is valuable information for the prospective creditor to know before deciding to loan you money.

So this entire catagory of INQUIRIES and what is shown to credit report USERS other than YOU the consumer, is a business product catagory the CRA's have invented for themselves using a hole in the FCRA, where the FCRA doesn't actually dictate anything about WHO ELSE can be shown your inquiry history.

All the FCRA does is dictate what PERMISSABLE PURPOSE a particular type of USER has. The good thing for the consumer is, the CRA's have tied the PP to the hard/soft aspect they invented. So The CRA's themselves have EXTENDED the reach of the FCRA into enforcing PP-vs-Inquiry Coding.

A collection agency, collection attorney, JDB, etc does NOT have PERMISSABLE PURPOSE under 1681b(a)(2) or 1681b(a)(3)(A). These are the PPs that generate HARD inquiries. They involve YOU and a CREDIT TRANSACTION or an application for credit or insurance... PERIOD.

The collector's only have PP under 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) which does not generate a HARD inquiry. It is the generic catchall "other" business PP.

The tie in is all USERS must file certificates with the CRA as a business stating thier purpose for accessing reports. If they tell the truth on the certificate, they are authorized for 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) as a collector. If they lie on the certificate to get access under 1681b(a)(2) or 1681b(a)(3)(A) then you have them by the short hairs. If they have a legit certification BUT pull using a code OTHER THAN the one thier cert covers, you have them by the short hairs.

The key is, you must subpeona the CRA to turn over all the communications involving you/cra/collector as well as the certifications filed by the collector....so YOU can prove to the court they deliberately obtained your report under FALSE PRETENSES.

If they have violated any laws in this regard, the act of you obtaining the subpeona may be all that is required to get the USER (the collector that made the inquires) to contact the CRA and FIX the incorrect catagorization as HARD instead of SOFT. Let them lie to the CRA about why that happened, so long as they fix it.

But this battle has only been fought a couple times I've heard of, and resulted in settlements, so no caselaw in court exists yet using this strategy.

 


Didn't cover this a couple weeks ago in another thread T-MobileGuy?

 

I don;t think this information you referenced is accurate, and at the best its misleading..

 

PP in general is business, not consumer.

 

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Rebuilding-Your-Credit/Unauthorized-Hard-Inquiry/m-p/1729588#M221053

 

-scott

 

 

Starting FICO Score: 10/10: TU 498 | EQ: 502 Current FICO Score(lender pull): 09/14: TU: 784 | EQ: 752 | EX: 784
Collections Removed: Hunter Warfield, CBE Group, Merchants Credit Guide, EOS-CCA, Enhanced Recovery, Portfolio Recovery, UCB, American Collection Company, Medical Business Bureau, Jefferson Capital, Credit Portfolio Associates, FCO, LVNV, Convergent, Armor Systems
Other Negative Entries Removed:Plains Commerce CO, HSBC CO, 2008 Judgment Santander Reposession


Positive Accounts:10/10: 0 | 07/12: 6 | Mortgage Closed 5/12, Macy's AMEX $13900, Citi/Home Depot $8500, Capital One Cash Rewards $3500, BOA $7500 Total Utilization: 3%. AAoA: 2yr, 9mth. INQS: 1 TU, 1 EQ, 3 EX
New Contributor
tmobileguy
Posts: 88
Registered: ‎11-16-2012
0

Re: collection agency hard inquiry leagal?

If your going to state its not accurate then you might want to state exactly why, in your opinion, the statutes referenced and what they pertain to are not accurate...and yes of course I said it in another thread because it was the topic at hand....So if you say something in another thread then it can never be brought up again if the same question or point is asked again?


Starting Score: EQ 575 EX 595 TR 524
Current Score: EQ 643 EX ??? TR 638
Goal Score: EQ 300 EX 300 TR 300


Take the myFICO Fitness Challenge
Valued Contributor
rckstrscott
Posts: 2,660
Registered: ‎04-25-2011
0

Re: collection agency hard inquiry leagal?


tmobileguy wrote:

If your going to state its not accurate then you might want to state exactly why, in your opinion, the statutes referenced and what they pertain to are not accurate...and yes of course I said it in another thread because it was the topic at hand....So if you say something in another thread then it can never be brought up again if the same question or point is asked again?


I suppose your right, it was late :smileywink:

 

Ultimately, its all intreptation, and a judge really is the only one who can determine if an interpretation is accurate, so I will recind my snarky comments.

 

 

-scott

Starting FICO Score: 10/10: TU 498 | EQ: 502 Current FICO Score(lender pull): 09/14: TU: 784 | EQ: 752 | EX: 784
Collections Removed: Hunter Warfield, CBE Group, Merchants Credit Guide, EOS-CCA, Enhanced Recovery, Portfolio Recovery, UCB, American Collection Company, Medical Business Bureau, Jefferson Capital, Credit Portfolio Associates, FCO, LVNV, Convergent, Armor Systems
Other Negative Entries Removed:Plains Commerce CO, HSBC CO, 2008 Judgment Santander Reposession


Positive Accounts:10/10: 0 | 07/12: 6 | Mortgage Closed 5/12, Macy's AMEX $13900, Citi/Home Depot $8500, Capital One Cash Rewards $3500, BOA $7500 Total Utilization: 3%. AAoA: 2yr, 9mth. INQS: 1 TU, 1 EQ, 3 EX
Valued Contributor
p-
Posts: 2,655
Registered: ‎06-05-2008
0

Re: collection agency hard inquiry leagal?


Matisyahu wrote:

is it leagal for a collection agency to pull your credit with out your permission? if not how do I deal with it?


You can keep it from happening again by freezing your credit.

12-15-14: FICO EXP: 813 - EQU:802 - TRAN: 756 - AVG: 790 +240 points from JUN 2008 - MY CREDIT JOURNAL


myFICO is the consumer division of FICO. Since its introduction 20 years ago, the FICO® Score has become a global standard for measuring credit risk in the banking, mortgage, credit card, auto and retail industries. 90 of the top 100 largest U.S. financial institutions use the FICO Score to make consumer credit decisions.

>> About myFICO
FICO Score - The Score that matters
Click to Verify - This site chose VeriSign SSL for secure e-commerce and confidential communications.
Fair Isaac Corporation is a BBB Accredited Financial Service in San Rafael, CA
FOLLOW US Social Media Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google+
}