Paypal MC Denied - HP but denial letter doesn't have bureau

[Anonymous]

Recently went on a mini app spree (3 normal apps, 2 SCT).

Was really surprised when I got approved for the Amazon store card for $1400, as I had burned Sync in my BK 3 years ago (which included the Amazon store card) and my last TU fico was only about 630 w/high util reporting.

Tried apping for the PayPal Extras MC and got the 7-10 day message. Figured it was declined but curious to see what reasons were listed. Just got the letter today and it says the only reason was "High risk source of application". Upon searching the forums, this message seems to indicate issues with apps originating from outside the US, or for people using VPNs that route the traffic overseas. My IP origin is normally reporting out of Washington state, and I don't use a VPN (aside from work).

What I also found interesting is that the letter didn't contain a bureau reference or associated credit score. There is the normal verbiage on the back that states "Requests for a copy of your credit report should be sent to the credit reporting agency listed on the reverse side. if no agency is listed, a credit report was not utilized in making this decision."

When I applied, I saw the HP show up immediately from TU via CreditKarma. If they didn't intend to use the credit report, why was it pulled?

I understand that it should be expected with any application (even SCT acceptance) that a hard pull will occur. However, since the bureau is not listed on the denial letter, would it be possible to dispute the inquiry? If the report was pulled but not factored into the determination process, it would seem to be detrimental to the consumer.

Tried calling in to credit solutions to see if they would provide some enlightenment, but as expected they were not forthcoming with any details.

[Slabenstein]

I think the answer to the question, "Can I successfully dispute this inquiry?" is pretty much always no, except in cases of fraud.

[CreditCuriosity]

Nope cant be disputed as inquiries are factual and you did indeed apply for credit.

[FinStar]

OP, echoing the above comments, this is definitely a tricky one.  On one hand, you could argue the 'technicality' of what's overtly stated on the letter, but on the other hand since you legitimately applied, it's considered permissible purpose, VPN or otherwise.  

From a compliance perspective, it appears the use of a CRA should've been included on the letter, so it's likely a 'glitch' that the information was omitted when it generated.

[Anonymous]

I feel like I'm reading my own issue OP, legitimately applied recently as well and recieved the same response. There have been issues with location so it could be a possibility. Personally my own IP reports as a different state. I'd also ask how did you apply, was this through a desktop, tablet, phone? I've found in the past that this can be a factor as well strange as it sounds.