topic Re: Permissible Purpose Question in Rebuilding Your Credit

Permissible Purpose Question

upinflagstaff — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:56:22 GMT

I was looking over my TU report again this morning and noticed under "Account Review Inquiries" the name of a company that I have never dealt with. First National Collection Bureau has three of the review inquiries over the past twelve months. Given that the reviews don't "hurt" anything as far a scores should I still send some kind of letter to them to get them to stop pulling my report? Since they are under the review section it means (I think) that they are getting my credit data and might be attached to a zombie CA.

Re: Permissible Purpose Question

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:24:40 GMT

I just found one of these last week while looking at other stuff. Unknown company and no active collections\debts.

Since I don't believe they have legitimate purpose, and "hard" and "soft" pull look the same to me when there is no legitimate reason for either, I have sent them the usual non-PP nastygram.

Re: Permissible Purpose Question

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:27:05 GMT

They still need PP to pull soft inq's-

SUE THEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sidewinder will argue this - but I have been pretty sucsessful getting them to settle out of court.

Re: Permissible Purpose Question

upinflagstaff — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:21:54 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
They still need PP to pull soft inq's-
SUE THEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sidewinder will argue this - but I have been pretty sucsessful getting them to settle out of court.

Do you start with an ITS letter or just file suit?

Re: Permissible Purpose Question

Anonymous — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:25:40 GMT

I guess you start with a non-PP nastygram,

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=generalcredit&thread.id=3900, then follow up with a ITS. You want to build your case and be reasonable, only going in front of a judge when there is no recourse.

Re: Permissible Purpose Question

upinflagstaff — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:36:19 GMT

demed,
That link talks about hard inquiries and the thread talks about getting hards recoded to soft inquiries. I obviously don't have as much damage to my score as a hard pull would give me. It would seem that I need to question how they can do a "review" when I don't have an account with them and then hit them with PP.

Re: Permissible Purpose Question

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:46:29 GMT

That letter it's about removing an inquiry and possibly paying civil liability.

I guess you will find two schools of thought about Enquiries:

- one says that "hard" and "soft" are two distinct and separate types because of the different effect they have on scoring

- the other says that they are exactly the same (unauthorized access to your personal info) and the distinction is not immediately understandable by judges (if you end up going to court)

My personal approach is not making this distinction at all when it comes to non permissible purpose: why would I let someone do a soft pull if they have no purpose?

In fact, I don't use hard or soft at all in my CA letters.

I hope it helps.

Re: Permissible Purpose Question

upinflagstaff — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:45:34 GMT

Browsing through the FCRA, I also notice 619, [15 USC § 1681q]
"Any person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both."

Has anyone added that to their non-PP letter? I would think that civil fines would be the first step but 2 years in jail on top of it might be the stick that is needed to get these guys to wither away.

Re: Permissible Purpose Question

Anonymous — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:26:02 GMT

Criminal cases under the Fair Credit Reporting Act can be brought when a person knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses. 15 U.S.C. § 1681q. In 1998, OCL obtained the conviction of an individual in Colorado who had fraudulently obtained a credit report to use in a political campaign. Criminal charges also lie where a consumer reporting agency knowingly and willfully provides information concerning an individual to a person not authorized to receive that information. 15 U.S.C. § 1681r. The criminal provisions of the FCRA are only enforced by the Department of Justice.

upinflagstaff wrote:
Browsing through the FCRA, I also notice 619, [15 USC § 1681q]
"Any person who knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both."

Has anyone added that to their non-PP letter? I would think that civil fines would be the first step but 2 years in jail on top of it might be the stick that is needed to get these guys to wither away.

Re: Permissible Purpose Question

RobertEG — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:03:15 GMT

All credit ulls are not the same. Soft pulls only for the purpose of offering unsolicited credit entitle the solicitor only to your name and address.

Re: Permissible Purpose Question

Anonymous — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:12:30 GMT

Not arguing with you RobertEG, but my view is that if someone wants my name and address, they can check the phone book, not my credit report. If I choose not to appear in the phone book, though luck for the solicitor.

In theory the Opt-out letters should address some of the problem, but not all.