topic Re: Hard Pull Disputing... in General Credit Topics

Hard Pull Disputing...

indiolatino61 — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:03:52 GMT

Hello all...can I dispute and request to have removed hard pulls from the government that have nothing to do with credit (employment check)? It was my understanding that hard pulls only came from places that are actually giving you credit. Are landlord, employer and other non-credit lender pulls hard pulls, are are those supposed to be only SP? Thanks.

Re: Hard Pull Disputing...

SnackTrader — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:19:58 GMT

Generally speaking, Employment is a permissible purpose under the FCRA. This is extremely common in today's world and will become more and more frequently used as time goes on.

Re: Hard Pull Disputing...

Anonymous — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:42:49 GMT

Just to add, the apartment complex I rent from HP'd TU.

Re: Hard Pull Disputing...

r34dy2fly — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:03:06 GMT

Lease agreements or contracts, if a credit check is required, will do a hard pull on your credit.

However, they're viewed differently by credit card companies. Obviously if you're apartment hunting, you're going to have multiple checks and they acknowledge that. Same goes for mortgage shopping as well.

Re: Hard Pull Disputing...

RobertEG — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 19:32:50 GMT

The exclusion of inquiries related to credit or insurance transactions is regulated by FCRA 604(c)(3, which states:

"Except as provided in section 609(a)(5) (which authorizes the consumer to request such records), 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."

A summary of other relevant statutory provisions:

For credit or insurance-related transactions:

(Permissible purpose authorized under FCRA 604(a)(3))

If initiated by the consumer (apps for new credit or requests for credit llimit increases:

They are not excluded from credit reports made available to others (i.e., can show as a "hard" inquiry)

If not initiated by the consumer (e.g., unsolicited promotional offers, creditor internal account reviews):

Specifically excluded from view by others under FCRA 604(c)(3), and available only to the consumer, such as by use of annualcreditreport.com

For business transactions that have a stated legitimate business purpose (such as apartment rentals, utilities, cable, auto purchase

(Permissible purpose authorized by FCRA 604(a)(3)(F))

No restriction on CR inclusion (i.e., can show as a "hard" inquiry)

For purposes of collecting on a debt

(Permissible purpose authorized by FCRA 604(a)(3)(A))

No restriction on CR inclusion if the deb collector has legitimate collection authority (i.e., can show as a "hard" inquiry)

For employment purposes

(Permissible purpose authorized by FCRA 604(a)(3)(B))

The consumer must have been advised of and pre-approved the inquiry in writing (FCRA 604(b)(2)(A))

Re: Hard Pull Disputing...

Anonymous — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:08:21 GMT

Integrity Solution Services just did a hard pull on me yesterday on Transunion they are some collection agency I am told by Transunion it cannot be disputed only removed by the company

Re: Hard Pull Disputing...

RobertEG — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 23:07:38 GMT

Are credit inquiries not "any item of information contained in a consumer's file"?

Apparently, the CRAs must think not............

FCRA 611(a) compels CRAs to reininvestigate as follows:

"Subject to subsection (f), if the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting agency is disputed by the consumer and the consumer notifies the agency directly, or indirectly through a reseller, os such dispute, the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is accurate...."

The exemption of disputes related to credit inquiries applies ONLY to direct disputes, as stipulated at 16 CFR 660.4(b), and not to disputes filed with a CRA.

If a CRA summarily refuses to conduct a reinvestigation of a dispute of any item of information contained a a consumer's credit file, they are in clear violation of the statute.

Perhaps they meant that they wont do a reasonable reinvestigation, but that is another violation!

Re: Hard Pull Disputing...

Anonymous — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 23:15:28 GMT

That is what I thought went up two supervisors without success I may just file a complaint with the FTC and BBB if I get nowhere.

Re: Hard Pull Disputing...

ABuckNow — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:45:46 GMT

This is an interesting topic - I am unable to get two HP's off my report:

The HP's were not authorized, the company that did the pulling agreed, they sent me copies of the three letters they sent to the CRA's, requesting the HP's be deleted from my CR:

EX removed them, TU & EQ didn't.

So I disputed directly with these two CRA's, including a copy of the "delete letter", EQ said (direct quote from dispute results)

"Inquiries are a matter of record of all companies that have accessed your credit file. If you have additional questions about this item please contact:" ...the name/address of the company that pulled them.

This pisses me off. I don't know what recourse I have, but pretty much just going to say F it and move on, they're over a year old so not affecting my FICO (i think it works that way...) but the principle of it makes my blood boil!

Re: Hard Pull Disputing...

InvincibleSummer3 — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:52:08 GMT

I had the same thing happen with a HP that was not mine - this person had the same first & last name, lived in a city I'd lived in, but applied for a car loan in another state. One to which I have never even been. I talked to the auto loan folks, and they agreed that somehow it was attached to the wrong SSN, but I could not get it off no matter what I tried. I'm trying to wait it out at the moment - it's also a year plus.

So frustrating.

Re: Hard Pull Disputing...

RobertEG — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:05:21 GMT

Small claims court is the final remedy, if one is inclined to pursue credit inquiry issues

Disputes dont compel production of supporting documentation to prove their verification. They are an admin process that only requires an investigation/reinvestigationm and a reasoable determination. Whether their investigation or determination was reasonable based on the results of their investigation cannot be decided without all the facts.

Once civil action is brought, the plaintiff can rely upon the pre-trial discovery process to compel production of all relevant evidence.

The permissible purposes listed under FCRA 604 are there to identify types of inquiries that do not require prior consent of the consumer.

The only type of permissible purpose that the statute specifically bars the CRAs from inclusion in credit reports made avalialbe to others (i.e, showing as a so-called "hard pull") are those for promotional purposes involving firm offers for credit or insurance not initiated by the consumer.

If your issue does not relate to such an inquiry, you will be hard-pressed to argue any legal basis for preventing coding as a hard inquiry if the party had a permissible purpose.

Not something most consumers are apt to pursue based on the relative insignificance of inquiries and the one year period after which they no longer affect scoring.

Re: Hard Pull Disputing...

ABuckNow — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:41:05 GMT

You seem legally-minded, thank you for your considered reply.

It does seem futile to pursue this further

In a related matter, I opened a new checking account last week (at a new institution I wasn't previously associated with), I was told a credit check would be required. I said no thanks, never mind - the banker said not to worry about it, it would be a soft pull. We discussed this for a few minutes, making sure he understood the difference between hard/soft pulls, making sure he understood I'm 3 months away from securing a mortgage (pre-approved already, but building will take another 5ish months) and that I absolutely did not want any hard-pulls of my credit.

You can guess where this is going - I check my TU CR:

COMPASS BANKCARD

Yep, they hard-pulled.

I'm not sitting by on this one, I'm going to pursue this banker.

I realize I may not have remedy under the FCRA, but the (state of Texas) Deceptive Trace Practices-Consure Protection Act, part of the Business and Commerce Code, Title 2, Chapter 17, Sec 17.46 - has some provisions that he directly violated.

I'm not sure if I should just file a complaint with the Texas Dept of Banking, or pursue it on my own.

Any suggestions?

Re: Hard Pull Disputing...

RobertEG — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 21:49:24 GMT

The real problem will be pin-pointing the party "at fault" for the coding.

There are no published regulations governing how coding of credit inquiries is done. It is an administrative matter within the CRAs.

When a party makes an inquiry, the only statutory requirement is that they provide a statement of their permissible purpose under one or more sections of FCRA 604.

Unless their stated permissible purpose is for offering a firm, promotional offer for credit, they get the consumer's entire credit report, and there are no restrictions on the inquiry being shown to others in the consumer's credit report (i.e., a so-callled hard inquiry).

From there, the mystery begins Whether or how the CRA codes that inquiry is an unpublished process. It is unclear as to whether the requestor provides a recommended code to the CRA, or whether the CRA produces a code based on the stated permissible purpose. It would appear that requestors can provide codes....otherwise, it would be rare for any inquiry that qualifies for CR inclusion would not be a hard inquiry.

So, there are apparently some mystery codes available. That then begs the question... is there a code avalialbe that states "for a consumer initiated request for credit, but dont let others see it" or "for a business transaction initiated by the consumer, but exclude it from showing in the consumer's credit report"?

A very subjective determination by someone that a credit inquiry that is normally viewable in a consumer's credit report can be excluded by the requestor.

Without any published procedures setting forth the criteria for such subjective coding of so-called soft inquiries, I am puzzled as to how one would go about showing how the coding was improper, and who created that coding.

Perhaps the CRA relied only on the stated permissible purpose, and thus properly coded it based on that purpose.