Small claims court is the final remedy, if one is inclined to pursue credit inquiry issues
Disputes dont compel production of supporting documentation to prove their verification. They are an admin process that only requires an investigation/reinvestigationm and a reasoable determination. Whether their investigation or determination was reasonable based on the results of their investigation cannot be decided without all the facts.
Once civil action is brought, the plaintiff can rely upon the pre-trial discovery process to compel production of all relevant evidence.
The permissible purposes listed under FCRA 604 are there to identify types of inquiries that do not require prior consent of the consumer.
The only type of permissible purpose that the statute specifically bars the CRAs from inclusion in credit reports made avalialbe to others (i.e, showing as a so-called "hard pull") are those for promotional purposes involving firm offers for credit or insurance not initiated by the consumer.
If your issue does not relate to such an inquiry, you will be hard-pressed to argue any legal basis for preventing coding as a hard inquiry if the party had a permissible purpose.
Not something most consumers are apt to pursue based on the relative insignificance of inquiries and the one year period after which they no longer affect scoring.
You seem legally-minded, thank you for your considered reply.
It does seem futile to pursue this further
In a related matter, I opened a new checking account last week (at a new institution I wasn't previously associated with), I was told a credit check would be required. I said no thanks, never mind - the banker said not to worry about it, it would be a soft pull. We discussed this for a few minutes, making sure he understood the difference between hard/soft pulls, making sure he understood I'm 3 months away from securing a mortgage (pre-approved already, but building will take another 5ish months) and that I absolutely did not want any hard-pulls of my credit.
You can guess where this is going - I check my TU CR:
Yep, they hard-pulled.
I'm not sitting by on this one, I'm going to pursue this banker.
I realize I may not have remedy under the FCRA, but the (state of Texas) Deceptive Trace Practices-Consure Protection Act, part of the Business and Commerce Code, Title 2, Chapter 17, Sec 17.46 - has some provisions that he directly violated.
I'm not sure if I should just file a complaint with the Texas Dept of Banking, or pursue it on my own.
The real problem will be pin-pointing the party "at fault" for the coding.
There are no published regulations governing how coding of credit inquiries is done. It is an administrative matter within the CRAs.
When a party makes an inquiry, the only statutory requirement is that they provide a statement of their permissible purpose under one or more sections of FCRA 604.
Unless their stated permissible purpose is for offering a firm, promotional offer for credit, they get the consumer's entire credit report, and there are no restrictions on the inquiry being shown to others in the consumer's credit report (i.e., a so-callled hard inquiry).
From there, the mystery begins Whether or how the CRA codes that inquiry is an unpublished process. It is unclear as to whether the requestor provides a recommended code to the CRA, or whether the CRA produces a code based on the stated permissible purpose. It would appear that requestors can provide codes....otherwise, it would be rare for any inquiry that qualifies for CR inclusion would not be a hard inquiry.
So, there are apparently some mystery codes available. That then begs the question... is there a code avalialbe that states "for a consumer initiated request for credit, but dont let others see it" or "for a business transaction initiated by the consumer, but exclude it from showing in the consumer's credit report"?
A very subjective determination by someone that a credit inquiry that is normally viewable in a consumer's credit report can be excluded by the requestor.
Without any published procedures setting forth the criteria for such subjective coding of so-called soft inquiries, I am puzzled as to how one would go about showing how the coding was improper, and who created that coding.
Perhaps the CRA relied only on the stated permissible purpose, and thus properly coded it based on that purpose.