Hard Inquiry Dispute

[tufa4311]

---

@takeshi74 wrote:

---

@tufa4311 wrote:

---

Ok, then what is the point of filing a dispute, outside of an identity theft case, if the CRA presumes that all inquiries have permissable purpose?

---

Identity theft is not the only possible cause of incorrect information on a credit report.  You can certainly disagree with the system about the point but it's more productive to use the proper process.

---

I still am not getting it. If the CRA presumes all hard inquiries have permissible purpose and does not do an investigation - what is the point of the dispute process? I'm not trying to bo difficult I'd just like to understand.

A general scenario:

1. someone applies for credit in someone else's name

2. the creditor smells a rat or simply refuses due to bad credit of the perceived applicant

3. the actual identity theft victim see's the application on the report and file's a dispute based on the fact that the application was not lawful

4. the CRA does no investigation as by defualt they assume the inquiry has permissible purpose.

So, what's the point of the dispute process specifically for a hard inquiry is it's assumed it has permissble purpose?

[RobertEG]

They make a presumption.

A presumption can be contested by facts.  Facts can be presented in a dispute

Yes, a consumer can dispute inquiries,, but no, mere assertions of no permissible purpose will usually not be considered as facts by the CRA.

I am not saying that the CRA will blindly stand by any statement of permissible purpose that is provided.

If they have reason to question, the FCRA requres that they deny an inquiry.

However, absent any factual showing to the contrary, they dont accuse inquirees of improper or fraudulent statements.

Thus, the consumer must present facts, not simple allegations, in any dispute.

The consumer does not normally even know what an inquiree provided to the CRA as heir stated permissible purpose, so it is difficult to provide facts contradicting that statement.

Expect a CRA to require facts, not simple assertions, when contesting lack of permissilbe purpose.

Until a factual basis is clearly provided, the CRA will stand by their guns.

The identity theft process was implemented to avoid any need for proofs.

[Anonymous]

Was the application denied?

[tufa4311]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Was the application denied?

---

Yes, it was denied. The credit dept of Nordstrom told me they believed fraud was invloved. Once I called they gave me no kick back at all - I was forwarded to the fraud department and they took care of it.

[Country_Feller]

---

@tufa4311 wrote:

Well, I decided to call the number that CreditKarma listed as Nordstrom/TD Bank US and amazingly someone picked up at 9:30pm EST and was actually able to locate the credit application made in my name, apologized for it happening, and is sending out delete's of all those inquiries so it's fixed.

---

Congratulations!!!

[tufa4311]

---

RobertEG wrote:The consumer does not normally even know what an inquiree provided to the CRA as heir stated permissible purpose, so it is difficult to provide facts contradicting that statement.

---

Exactly. Rhetorically, how am I to know what information was provided in the application? I see the inquiry on my report, I know I did not make it - and that's all I know. What information am I to use, what information do I have, to provide a "factual basis".

You note the identity theft process was implemented specifically due to this lack of proofs. What process is that? The filing of a police report and FTC report?

[RobertEG]

Yes, the identity theft process is detailed in FCRA 605B.

Also, check out the sticky posts related to the identity theft process shown at the top of the General Credit Topics forum for detailed discussions......

[tufa4311]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Because they treated it as a dispute, not as an identity theft blocking issue.

The dispute process involves a CRA determination of whether the information is accurate.  When a credit inquiry hits their desk, they presume that the statement of permissible purpose provided by the inquiree is accurate/honest, and they send out the credit report.  They cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube once they send out a credit report, so they vehemently consider the matter closed, and stand by the "factual" nature of the stated permissible purpose.  The consumer is left with no appeal of the CRA holding of verification.

The identity theft process was implemented by congress to avoid any and all issues of factual proofs PROVIDED the consumer is willing to place him or herself under possible criminal prosecution by filing of a false police report.  Once the consumer puts their assertion into a sworn statement before a law enforcement agency, then the CRA is required to block the information from any future credit reports they issue.  There is no "resolution" of any factual issues regarding the accuracy of the inquiry.  The consumer gets repireve of blocking of the information from their credit report with no consideration of the factual accuracy of the information.

---

@RobertEG: I came back to read this and now realize I have the fix to my currect issue that also came from the identity theft - the fact that my UTIL is at about 106% due to the credit card fraud arising from the identity theft. They stole my identity, applied for all kinds of things, and also got into my acciunts. If I understand correctly, all I need to do is file a police report and the CRA's must block it.

[tufa4311]

Just checked Credit Karma - lost 131 point and dropped to 628 due to the 100%+ UTIL. It really hurts looking at that score.

[RobertEG]

It is not that the CRA does no reinvestigation of a dispute relating to credit inquiries, or that they consider any inquiry to always be factually correct.

They are required to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation under FCRA 611 of a consumer dispute of the accuracy of any information of record in their credit file, not simply information reported by a furnisher.

However, credti inquiries are not information reported by a furnisher, they are just the opposite.  They are requests to see what others have reported.

Any inquiry must provide a statement of permissible purpose.  Absent any facts to the contrary, they assume the statement is accurate, and that the party has their stated permissible purpose.  Unless a consumer provides clear facts showing that the furnisher's staement is not correct, they will verify the accuracy.  They do not have to forward the dispute to a furnisher, as there is none.  The CRA is saying that the facts support a stated permissible purpose.  You can rebut that finding, but there is no formal appeal process under the FCRA dispute process. 

FCRA 621 grants administrative enforcement of violations of the FCRA by a credit reporting agency to the FTC, and you can always file a formal complaint with the FTC if you believe the CRA has clearly violated the statute by not finding a lack of permissible purpose.  You could also bring your own civil action agaisnt the CRA.