topic CA claimed PP as a mortgage company! in Rebuilding Your Credit

CA claimed PP as a mortgage company!

IOBA — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:21:57 GMT

My friend showed me her credit report.

First off - 24 negatives -- nothing positive reporting. No open installment loans or revolving credit.

Now, ready for this? Among the 24 negatives is NCO Financial reporting a collection. The company pulled my friends credit report in May 2010. Under comments, they said they were pulling the credit report for a mortgage company. Huh??? No way - no mortgage was applied for! And the address is exactly the same as the collection account.

My friend has no mortgage, previous or presently.

This is what is on the CR.

NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS

	Address: 507 PRUDENTIAL RD HORSHAM PA 19044 No phone number available	Date of Request: 05/25/2010


	Address Identification Number: 0046246603


	Comments: Real estate loan on behalf of F T MORTGAGE INC. This inquiry is scheduled to continue on record until Jun 2012.

There are so many things negative about my friends credit report, that I am not even sure if she should dispute this "inaccuracy".

Re: CA claimed PP as a mortgage company!

IOBA — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 03:35:00 GMT

*bump*

Re: CA claimed PP as a mortgage company!

llecs — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 04:26:48 GMT

I don't know about NOT applying for a mortgage, but NCO also provides tri-merge reporting for the mortgage industry to compete with folks like Kroll or CBCInnovis. They don't do just collections and work out of the same PA address.

Re: CA claimed PP as a mortgage company!

RobertEG — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:09:48 GMT

Dispute of credit inquiress is probably the most difficult type of dispute to make. And that is because the credit industtry loves the lack of real legislatation in this arena, and has successfully blocked substantive statutory and regulatory revisions.

The real problem with the whole credit inquiry process is, in my opiniln, FCRA 607(a).

What section 607(a) says is that any party can obtain your credit report by simply fiiling a self-certification of one or more reasons authoriizing CR access,under any provisioln of FCRA 604(a). Not reviewed or challenged by anyone. The horse is then out of the barn.

FCRA 604(a), without going into detail, required, in your case, an assertion that the inquiry was for the purpose of granting new credit initiated by the consumer, or extending existing credit to the consumer, or to evaluate a business transactilon intiated by the consumer. I see none of those permissible pull conditions identified in your post.

So we have a potentially fraudulent pwrmissible pull self-certification to deal with.

How to actually deal with it is NOT easy.

Big hopes were attached, by consumers, with the enactment of the new "direct dispute" process under FCRA 623(a)(8), which became effective on 7/1/2010 with the publicatiln of 16 CFR 660.4. The oppurtunity to dispute such improper inquires directly with the party wh made them. However, the creditor lobby prevailed, and the final implementing rules, as set forth in 16 CFR 660.4(b)iii, exempted diputes of credit inquires from the entire direct dispute process.So the only recourse now is to use the old process of disputing through the intermediary of the CRA under FCRA 611(a),which almost invariably, after beeing churned thrpugh their automated e-Oscar process, results in confirmatiln of the inquiry.

Success in deletion of improper inquiries is rare.

Re: CA claimed PP as a mortgage company!

IOBA — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:10:15 GMT

Good to know that CA is multi-purpose.

I won't advise her to dispute, even though the inquiry code is "false". She did not apply for a mortgage. This is a current CA on her CR.

** She's down from 24 negatives to 21!! RMJ just sent an email saying they will delete 3 paid collections. Weu weu!!