I certainly agree with 06 and Guiness56 regarding notification. However, if there was no debt, whether the CA was mistaken or not, there is no Permissible Purpose for them to access your credit report. It is a violation of the FCRA. In this instance, there is "willful noncompliance" because the debt did not exist and the CA should have known that.
The FTC has issued several staff opinions on this subject. In the Kenneth J. Benner opinion they state:
"1. How long after a consumer terminates an account does a previous credit card issuer or lender have access to the consumer's credit file?
Section 604(a)(3)(A) of the FCRA provides a consumer reporting agency ("CRA," usually a credit bureau) with a permissible purpose to provide a report on a consumer to a person who "intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer." Once an account is closed because the consumer has paid the debt in full (and also, in the case of an open-end account such as a credit card account, notified the creditor to close the account), it is our view that no permissible purpose exists for a CRA to provide file information on a consumer to the creditor. Because there no longer exists any account to "review" and the consumer is not applying for credit, the FCRA provides no permissible purpose for the creditor to receive a consumer report from a CRA."
Starting Score: TU 737 EQ 721
@Anonymous wrote:
In this case I have to disagree with you. I am not defending the CA by any means, I am just looking at it from a different perspective. No matter what, I do not think a CA has PP. At least for a hard pull.
You say there is no debt and the CA should have known that, How? It is a different CA. How would this CA know there is no debt? Either the OC or another CA assigned or sold the debt to them.
If the debt was satisfied before it was txfred/sold, the burden is on the OC/CA (the seller), to provide accurate information. You would find out who dropped the ball in Discovery.
@Sean28 wrote:Thanks for all your replies,
Oddly enough, the inquiry "magically" dissappeared of my report when I checked it today. It's like they just pulled it for the heck of it to snoop around, then pulled their inquiry back. This does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
Nor does it release them from liability. As the saying goes; "You can't un-ring the bell".
Do you suppose that if a criminal returned the money they stole, the law would simply forgive and forget?
They pulled your report with no permissible purpose. Regardless of the fact that they removed the record of the pull, the law has been broken.
If you have a copy of an old credit report showing the pull, you have a CoA to file a complaint and ask for statutory damages of $1,000.
A well worded ITS with a copy of the un-filed complaint, delivered to their RA should produce quick results.
The question of "How could we have known there was no debt", would be a question for Discovery and may lead to other Defendants for your suit.
I suggest that you consult a good consumer attorney in your area. You can search Pacer for recent court cases of a similar kind and the attorney who represented the Plaintiff.
Attorney fees are awarded separately.
CoA = Cause of Action - A legitimate reason to ask the court to hear a case.
ITS = Intent to Sue - A letter telling them that unless some action on their part occurs within a stipulated period of time, a lawsuit will be filed.
RA = Registered Agent - A person or company, registered with the Secretary of State, authorized to receive service (a summons or other legal document such as an ITS).