I would be leary of any so-called non permissible purpose letters you see floating about.
CRAs always obtain a statement of permissible purpose from an inquiree before they provide them a copy of your CR.
That is a basic requirement of FCRA 604(f), and must be supported by a self-certification of the permissible purpose of the inquiry. FCRA 607(a).
Those self-certifications can be provided with each inquiry, or can be made under one, general certification that is presumed to apply to all subsequent inquiries made by that party. You can be assured that the CRA has a statement of permissible purpose in their files prior to providing a credit report.
The consumer does not get a copy of those certifications of permissible purpose, and thus have no way of knowing the stated permissible purpose provided by any inquiree.
Letters asserting lack of permissible purpose thus inherently are just a guess as to the asserted permissible purpose.
You can, under FCRA 609(a), require the CRA to provide you a copy of the inquiree's stated permissible purpose. However, by the time you go through that process, and then file a dispute challenging the correctness of their stated purpose, the one-year scoring period will most likely be at or near expiration.
Disputes over credit inquiries are very difficult to pursue, and very time consuming for all parties. In recognition of the minimal return associated with such disputes, the new rules implementing the direct dispute process specifically exempted all dispute over inquiries from the direct dispute process, period. You can, of course, dispute through the CRA, but they hold the certification of permissible purpose in their files, and are not apt to affirm a dispute unless you provide evidence that their stated purpose was inaccurate or incorrect. Consumers dont usually even know what the stated permissible purpose was. Thus, such disputes are usually DOA.
Usually not worth the time and effort.
