Suing creditor for unauthorized HP?

[Anonymous]

---

@Fico2Go wrote:

Myjourney, that's correct.   I thought it was too many as well.  It is borderline harrassment and/or abuse of one's credit file. 

Guiness, I am not sure if it's a CO or CA.  I believe he said it was a collection company. 

Notfancy, not offense taken here.  A person intending harm would not spend time to write in such detail. 

Only in America do we have the opportunity to help others in need.  Hopefully there's someone here with the experience to offer some enlightenment.

---

Send the CA a DV letter.

[wHiTeSoL]

I guess I'll lay out my scenero, since its on topic (and really did happen)

DW as you may or may not know is new to the US, has been here for about 1 year, had her SSN since July. She called me once, while at sears, to ask for her SSN (I memorized it, she didn't), the cashier was trying to get her to open a sears account. After a few minutes we decided it would be best if I were there for credit apps etc. She hangs up and asks the cashier to cancel the app, the cashier tells her it was too late to cancel and to make up a SSN so the system will reject her. She did, and it did. A month later I check her credit reports and low and behold : a HP from Sears/Citi. I've written to them twice now and am being told they are investigating. 

1. Are we in the wrong and we should just leave the HP alone?

2. or Did the cashier bold face lie when she said it's at a point of no return

3. No legal recorse? I know initally we gave permission however I believe we should be able to recind it before the pull occured (which obviously happened in this case) the only information given so far was name and address. 

[RobertEG]

To address the original question, if an inquiry is unauthorized, that is a serious violation, and may well be basis for bringing legal action.

An inquiry, if granted, provides a consumer's credit history, and if an inquiree does not have basis for receiving that information, it is a serious breach that could give rise to civil action.

There are two separate issues.  One is whether the inquiry was authorized, and two is how the inquiry is coded in the consumer's credit file.

Any party who requests a CR on a consumer must include, with that inquiry, their statement of the permissible purpose for which they are authorized to receive the requested report.  FCRA 607(a) and 604(f)(2).  Those permissible purposes are clearly set forth under FCRA 604.

If they provide a false statement, they are certainly liable.  If they provide ot statement of permissible purpose, the CRA is barred from providing them a credit report.

Clearly delineated permissible puposes are included under section 604 for reviews by existing creditors, for any request for credit or insurance initiated by a consumer, for purposes of collection on a debt, and for purposes of andy business transaction where that transaction gives rise to a legitimate need for review of the consumer's credit as part of that transaction.

If there is simply a difference of opinion as to whether or not a party had a permissible purpose, then there would be no willful noncompliance.  However, if shown that a party falsified a statement of permissible purpose, both actual an punitive damages may well be awarded by a court.

As to the secondary issue of how the inquiry is coded by the CRA, a so-called "soft" inquiry is one that is not included in subsequent credit reports made available to anyone other than the consumer, while a so-called "hard" inquiry is one that may be included in credit reports made available to others.

The only type of permissible inquiry that the FCRA specfically bars from inclusion in credit reports made available to others are the so-called promotional inquiries made to offer a consumer a firm offer for credit or insurance that was not initiated by the consumer.

The coding of all other types of inquires that have a permissible purpose is purely an administrative matter with the CRAs.

The CRAs have specific codes which, if properly provided, exclude an inquiry from CRs made availble to others.  Examples include internal account reviews made by an existing creditor that involve no request for additional credit.

In an inquiry is reported that relates only into an internal account review by a creditor, then there is no violation per se of the FCRA if coded as hard, but it is an inaccurate coding with the CRA.  One could contact the CRA and ask for recoding if the improper credit reproting code was associated with the inquiry.

That would not, in my opinion, be basis for legal action.

Bottom line in considering legal action is whether they have obtained a CR by making a false representation of permissible purpose.

That is a big deal that goes way beyond the issue of impact of an inquiry on the consumer's credit score.  It involves someone obtaining restricted credit information on the consumer.

[takeshi74]

---

@Fico2Go wrote:

To add to this discussion a colleaque of mine is currently in need of seriouse help.  A creditor whom he has no knowledge of has pulled his credit multiple times in one week.   

---

It would have been more productive to include this info in the OP -- i.e. don't assume that we know what you have in mind.  We can only go on what you specifically state in your posts.  As you can see, the question otherwise comes across as "Can I sue for an authorized HP?" and  "What are your damges from a single hard pull?" is going to be among the first responses.   Very different matters.  There are definitely steps to take for this case though I don't know anything on this particular topic.

---

@Fico2Go wrote:

I won't go as far to say that you are completely wrong but I have this belief that if you make an assumption you will more than likely be wrong 99% of the time.

---

Isn't that belief an assumption as well? 

[Fico2Go]

Robert, now I understand why you are labeled a Mega Contributor on this forum.    

That's one mighty Mego piece of information you have provided. 
 Thank you.

I have confirmed the inquirer is a debt collection company.  They had performed 3 SPs and 1 HP in one week.  What permissable purpose would 3 inquiries be needed in one week? 

I have suggested to my friend that he sends a DV letter.  Hopefully there's a response in order.  If not there's at least some outlet for resolution.  I really appreciate everyone's input as opposed to the IN AMERICA compassionate speech.  The challenge in handling these types of issues is that the majority including judges, collection agencies, and even some on here will have biases and assumptions.  This makes it difficult for innocent parties to seek resolutions.  The burden of proof needs to be on the CAs to prove one's liability.  And if can't  there needs to be a system to lessen the frustration for  consumers.  Of late it seems the consumers are the ones taking the hit and having to spend money and time to prove innocence.  Further not everyone is well versed in Debt collection laws and have the patience to follow through from start to resolve. 

[Anonymous]

3 SP in a week are not hurting your score.  Since the pulls are not affecting your credit I am not sure how a judge would look at this.  Now, if it were 3 HP a week for 4 weeks, that could be considered harassment by a judge.

If the CA legitimately holds a debt in his name then they do have PP and nothing can be done.

If it is a case of mistaken identity, I doubt seriously anything would ever come of it.  Unless it was proven to be mistaken identity, the CA was made aware of it but continued to access his credit report.  Then they could face serious violations.

[Fico2Go]

 Unless it was proven to be mistaken identity, the CA was made aware of it but continued to access his credit report.  Then they could face serious violations.

Good point.

[Fico2Go]

However, if shown that a party falsified a statement of permissible purpose, both actual an punitive damages may well be awarded by a court.

This is the million dollar response.  

RobertEG, thanks for the education on the different ways inquiries must be coded to comply with FCRA.  

[Fico2Go]

Just a quick update on the actions my freind took regarding the HP without permission. 

He disputed the HP with the credit bureau....all SPs and 1 HP were deleted within 30 days. 

Apparently folks, a HP is often associated with request for new account opening, credit line increases, and changes to existing accounts.  If you never initiated those actions a HP is not authorized.   

BAsically it comes down to HP as being initiated by the consumer and SPs are open to anyone with PP to access your credit file. 

NO LAWSUIT WAS NEEDED.  And yes only in America can people right what has been wronged even if it's as insignificant as a credit report inquiry. 

[takeshi74]

---

@Fico2Go wrote:

And yes only in America can people right what has been wronged even if it's as insignificant as a credit report inquiry. 

---

Sounds like an assumption to me.  Citation?