Can a CA pull your credit?

[Anonymous]

Depending on how old they are (how recent) and if you have any other derogs (60+, CA, CO, PR,) 20-100 points.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Hi everyone,

I've been reading these boards for the last couple of months, first let me say thank you to everyone for all the usefull info. Second let me as does anyone know who Williams & Fudge(?) are? They have pulled three hard inquiries on my credit in the last six months. I have no idea who they are and I really don't want to call the 800 number on my cr. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Also the only baddies I have on my 3 reports are medical collections that were paid before the put them in to the CRAs, today I had them agree to take them off of all three reports. Any idea how much this should help with my credit score?

Fico Eq = 650 TU= 630 Ex=598

Fako Eq= 678

---

Message Edited by Timothy on 10-30-2007 08:06 PM

[Anonymous]

Thanks guys.

I did google them it said something about academic collections, but I don't have any student loans or anything like that, so I don't know why they would be checking my reports.

Timothy the medical bills were apparantely  from 2004, thought that charity care had taken care of it, as I had filled out all proper paperwork. But one showed up in February 07 on my cr's.  I paid it in January 07 in split payments in one week..  The rather  slow agent put down the wrong bank account #.  And even though I called a week later to let him know the second payment hadn't come out, he assured me that everything  was okay.  March 07 I show A-1 collections paid in full, in april I have another KD for the same collection agency.  I called again and he tried to tell me it was do to NSF, never bounced a check on this account, so I know its incorrect.  Send a copy of my bank info showing plenty of cash to cover check, agent appologizes resubmits it goes through.  One month ago I get a letter saying there is still a balance.  I called yesterday and spoke to a supervisor who says there is still a balance, I explained the whole situation, honestly, never  negotiated paid full amount etc.  Apparently, the only thing the old agent had done correctly was put notes on the account, he's since been fired.  And the supervisor who gave me his first and last name as well as his direct ext. told me he would send a letter as soon as the payment cleared to myself as well as the 3 CRA's requesting the collections be removed.  There are no other nasties on my CR's., but there are quite a few inquiries this year truck shopping Dec/Jan/ Feb.

Fako= Ex 702 TU 648

[Anonymous]

Great work - better bucket time for you

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Thanks guys.

I did google them it said something about academic collections, but I don't have any student loans or anything like that, so I don't know why they would be checking my reports.

Timothy the medical bills were apparantely from 2004, thought that charity care had taken care of it, as I had filled out all proper paperwork. But one showed up in February 07 on my cr's. I paid it in January 07 in split payments in one week.. The rather slow agent put down the wrong bank account #. And even though I called a week later to let him know the second payment hadn't come out, he assured me that everything was okay. March 07 I show A-1 collections paid in full, in april I have another KD for the same collection agency. I called again and he tried to tell me it was do to NSF, never bounced a check on this account, so I know its incorrect. Send a copy of my bank info showing plenty of cash to cover check, agent appologizes resubmits it goes through. One month ago I get a letter saying there is still a balance. I called yesterday and spoke to a supervisor who says there is still a balance, I explained the whole situation, honestly, never negotiated paid full amount etc. Apparently, the only thing the old agent had done correctly was put notes on the account, he's since been fired. And the supervisor who gave me his first and last name as well as his direct ext. told me he would send a letter as soon as the payment cleared to myself as well as the 3 CRA's requesting the collections be removed. There are no other nasties on my CR's., but there are quite a few inquiries this year truck shopping Dec/Jan/ Feb.

Fako= Ex 702 TU 648

---

[Anonymous]

---

Elexi21 wrote:

Ok, so now that we know it is wrong/illegal, how would one go about disputing it?  Or would it even be worth the hassle??

---

Well now, that all depends upon how much hassle you endure sending an ITS letter demanding a deletion and citing Pintos. If the INQ isn't tied to a credit transaction initiated by the consumer--like a medical collection, traffic ticket, library fine, car dealer fishing, et al., then I think Pintos is now solid caselaw to cite. Since the CRA was found to be on the hook as well, then the CRAs are going to likely be revising their policies on INQs. You can ALWAYS dispute ANY piece of inaccurate info on a CR. When the courts take money from the CRAs, the CRAs tend to take notice.

My advice to anyone who has one of these now found to be sans PP INQ, dispute it with the CRA, and cite Pintos.

I discovered an inquiry on my credit report that is not associated with a credit transaction initiated by me. In accordance with the law, and recent caselaw from the Ninth Circuit (Pintos vs. Pacific Creditors Association), delete this inquiry.

As always, I like to keep it simple for the stupid CRAs. I'd start with the CRA since they hold the information and they can most quickly delete it. If that fails, then I'd go after the non-PP puller. Those folks aren't necessarily going to know about Pintos, at least not yet. But they might run it past a lawyer and realize, yikes, we're on the hook for this boys if it goes to court.

[Anonymous]

Even if you aren't in the Ninth Circuit, I'd still cite Pintos.

[Anonymous]

Letters for DW already in the mail.

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Even if you aren't in the Ninth Circuit, I'd still cite Pintos.

---

[Anonymous]

Hey guys

Update I know that usually collection agency get a bad rap for the shady sh** that they do but believe it or not I got 2 letters from the collection agency today stating that letters had been sent to all 3 CRAs to remove medical collections. P.S. they haven't even taken the money out of my checking account yet.  How long should I wait to see if they fall off my CR? 

Thanks

Andy

Fico  Tu= 652 EX = 628 EQ = 650

[Anonymous]

Even though the Pintos decision revolved around a non-PP INQ, in talking with folks, ummm, elsewhere, it seems that it perhaps prohibits the reporting of ANY collection, chargeoff, etc. that isn't connected to a credit transaction. Medical collections, traffic and parking citations, library fines, etc.

In talking with people who have reported something adverse to a credit bureau on a person, it appears that mere reporting generates an INQ. Does not appear possible for a CA to drop a medical collection on your CRs without generating an INQ.

[tryingtogetitrightnow]

So, I'm curious, what did Pintos get awarded? I imagine $$ from Experian and PCA. I read through the opinion, but couldn't find that info.

[Anonymous]

Call me dumb here, but I am unclear on the language of the 9th circuit, it seems vague.

So here are some questions.

1) A CA cannot pull a credit report for you, because you did not have a transaction with them?  Meaning if you had a transaction with JoeBank, and JoeBank assigns your account to JoeCA, the claim is JoeCA cannot pull a CR?

2) If CA is for an account with a spouse, and you do not have such account on your CR, the CA cannot pull your credit?

Found this on the web which seems to contradict what is in this post, if I am understanding this correctly:

Edge v. Professional Claims Bureau

At the time that Professional had the “social search” conducted to obtain Plaintiff’s address, it had been referred a debt for collection, guaranteed by Plaintiff, from North Shore Hospital. The referral of that debt gave Professional a permissible purpose for obtaining the credit information pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681b. Specifically, Professional sought the information in the collection of a credit transaction involving Plaintiff. This is a clearly permissible purpose under Section 1681b(3)(A). The existence of this permissible purpose constitutes a complete defense to the claim that the information was obtained under false pretenses under Section 1681n(b) and therefore entitles Professional to summary judgment. See Advanced Conservation, 934 F.Supp. at 54-55; Baker, 850 F.Supp. at 264.

Message Edited by JimmyMagno on 03-14-2008 07:17 AM