No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
i think i am going to send the non pp letter to this bozo CA, United Recovery. They did so many pulls, try five and two actually affect my score
So what I would like to know :
1. Has anyone ever sent a non pp letter to CA and had the inquries removed and if so
2. What sort of score increase did you recieve for this? I have no idea but i am sure in order to do an accurate calculation, the removal would have to be isolated.
or if any MOD my know, how many points does it pull you down per CA inquiry?
Thanks in advance to everyone. I love this board. Wealth of information. Much better than any book out there!!
Thanks Illecs.
The CA who did the five inquiries is not listed on my CR as a collection account. I am back with the OC making payments. I did fall behind. So I guess a CA can do an inquiry on you when I got behind. But that many? There has to be other limitations.
I have had other CA's listed on my report, but ONCE. Not five times.
I am not out of SOL and I only talked to the company one time and I could tell he was looking at my credit report (being a novice with this crap, i didn't think much of it) but he mentioned to me "well, you paid off $128K mortgage and another $50 K mortgage and loans totalling XXX". I never said anythign to him except I dont' deal with ca's and to not call me anymore.
I feel this is abuse. I will elt you know how he responded and if my score changes - up, down or nothing.
I need all the points i can get, so I will try everywhere that I believe has an impact....remember, I need to get my name on the mortgage and I will need to deal with ending my lease in Dec, so the score needs to go up up up. NOt sure if the history will be there by the EOY. I really kinda believe it's going to take me a good 24 months to get the score up.
I will see what happens because I did send the non pp letter today via CMRR.
oh, and I only WISH my score was in the 700 club. It's not.
Split post to form a new thread within General Credit Topics
Split post to form a new thread within General Credit Topics
What is your basis for asserting lack or permissible purpose?
Do you have evidence that they are not an authorized debt collector for the debt? It is well established that certification of status as a debt collector is permissible purpose.
Inquiries must present a statement of permissible purpose to the CRA, which is basically a seft-certification. If it meets one of the condititons of section 604, the CR is provided. The CRAs dont have internal investigators who ferret out the honesty of certifictions.
If they have a certification in their files, they can legitimately rely upon it as basis for their providing the requested credit report.
To assert lack of permissible purpose puts the burden on the consumer, who in most cases has never even seen their submitted certification, to dispute it accuracy.
Additionally, inquiries for credit reports are specicially defined in the direct dispute rules to be excluded from the definition of a furnisher of information to a CRA. Thus, they are exempt from the direct dispute process. In disputes made via a CRA, they are only required to forward disputes to furnishers of the disputed information, so they have no requirement to even involve the inquiree in the dispute. They can conclude their reinvestigation based simply on the stated certification of permissible purpose of record in their files.
@RobertEG wrote:What is your basis for asserting lack or permissible purpose?
Do you have evidence that they are not an authorized debt collector for the debt? It is well established that certification of status as a debt collector is permissible purpose.
Inquiries must present a statement of permissible purpose to the CRA, which is basically a seft-certification. If it meets one of the condititons of section 604, the CR is provided. The CRAs dont have internal investigators who ferret out the honesty of certifictions.
If they have a certification in their files, they can legitimately rely upon it as basis for their providing the requested credit report.
To assert lack of permissible purpose puts the burden on the consumer, who in most cases has never even seen their submitted certification, to dispute it accuracy.
Additionally, inquiries for credit reports are specicially defined in the direct dispute rules to be excluded from the definition of a furnisher of information to a CRA. Thus, they are exempt from the direct dispute process. In disputes made via a CRA, they are only required to forward disputes to furnishers of the disputed information, so they have no requirement to even involve the inquiree in the dispute. They can conclude their reinvestigation based simply on the stated certification of permissible purpose of record in their files.
Hi Robert, this thread was bumped twice and is over 3 years old. FYI.