Hard Inquiry Dispute

[tufa4311]

Recently I have had a identitiy thefy issue - I have, and am continuing, to go through all the processes that I should (freezing accounts, fling police report, attaching fraud alerts, cacelling all cards and getting new ones sent out, etc). One of the issues was someone attempted to apply for a Nordstrom credit card in my name and thus I have a hard inquiry on my report. After filing a dispute with EQ the dispute was refused based on:

We have reviewed the inquiry information for Nordstrom/TD Bank USA. The results are:
Inquiries are a factual record of file access. If you believe this was unauthorized, please contact the creditor. If you have additionalquestions about this item please contact: Nordstrom/TD Bank USA, 13531 E Caley Ave, Englewood, CO80111−6504

Why was it refused? Under what circumstatses does EQ remove a hard inquiry?

[tufa4311]

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.

[EW800]

---

@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.

---

Outstanding.  Congratulations!  

[RobertEG]

I am glad that the issue was resolved.

For future reference, the dispute process is not the way to go.

The identity theft process set forth in FCRA 605B requires block of information related to identity theft from a consumer's credti report without any consideration of factual proofs by anyone, or consideration of whether an inquiry is a factual record.

FCRA states, in section 605B, that "a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency.."

A record of inquiry is clearly information in the file of the consumer that is being reported by the CRA.

[tufa4311]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

I am glad that the issue was resolved.

For future reference, the dispute process is not the way to go.

The identity theft process set forth in FCRA 605B requires block of information related to identity theft from a consumer's credti report without any consideration of factual proofs by anyone, or consideration of whether an inquiry is a factual record.

FCRA states, in section 605B, that "a consumer reporting agency shall block the reporting of any information in the file of a consumer that the consumer identifies as information that resulted from an alleged identity theft, not later than 4 business days after the date of receipt by such agency.."

A record of inquiry is clearly information in the file of the consumer that is being reported by the CRA.

---

So if I understand FCRA - EQ should have removed the inquiry. Why did they not?

[RobertEG]

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.

[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.

---

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?

[Anonymous]

Should consider to call all 3B and have them freeze it so if anyone try to open any new card with ur name they can't 

[tufa4311]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Should consider to call all 3B and have them freeze it so if anyone try to open any new card with ur name they can't 

---

already done

[takeshi74]

---

@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.