when you find that a former lender has done a soft -AR inq without PP

[haulingthescoreup]

Since the inquiry without PP (permissible purpose) issue seems to be coming up again, I wanted to revive a question. On looking at an EQ report gotten directly from EQ (not from myFICO, TrueCredit, etc.), I saw that a former creditor had softed me, 15 months after a closed separate account, which was paid in full. They used an -AR prefix, meaning account review, but I no longer had an open account with them. I feel that they did not have PP. (An -AR soft is a more thorough inquiry than the kinds used for mass pre-approvals and so forth.)

I would love for this TL to no longer show the 5 30-day lates, or to be re-opened as a clean and genuine CC. Previously it was a goofy dues draw for a gym membership. I'd say it's pushing it for the reopening, but does anyone feel that I have some leverage to back up a request that they remove the lates? Is a soft -AR inq without PP enough of a no-no that they would consider removing the lates for my decision not to sue? They are still reporting the closed account to all three CRA's monthly, BTW. What would be my best approach? I don't want to be laughed out of the bank, and I don't want to burn any GW bridges.

To clarify, I don't care about getting the inq off--it's soft and doesn't matter. I'm trying to get the lates removed, all of which are over 2 years old. The account was PIF'd before closing, so I can't PFD.

The original thread that this came from started debating hard inq's without PP but spiraled off, as usual. Here's the link (to page 4):

http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=generalcredit&thread.id=38291&view=by_date_ascending&page=4

Message Edited by haulingthescoreup on 10-17-2007 11:23 AM

[Anonymous]

I fully believe this is a NON-PP INQ and subject to damages under FCRA.

I am currently pursuing/investigating action on MANY of these myself.

[Anonymous]

only hard pulls count....soft ones mean nothing.

[Anonymous]

Nothing in § 604. of the FCRA says ANYTHING about hard and soft INQ's.

§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b]
(a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other:
(1) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, or a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury.
(2) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.
(3) To a person which it has reason to believe
(A)
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; or
(B)
intends to use the information for employment purposes; or
(C)
intends to use the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; or
(D)
intends to use the information in connection with a determination of the consumer's eligibility for a license or other benefit granted by a governmental instrumentality required by law to consider an applicant's financial responsibility or status; or
(E)
intends to use the information, as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or an assessment of the credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation; or
(F)
otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information
(i)
in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer; or
(ii)
to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account.

[haulingthescoreup]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

only hard pulls count....soft ones mean nothing.

---

I don't care about any score implications (there aren't any, since it's soft.) The fact is that with an -AR prefix when I no longer had a current account for them to review, they saw my current credit data without my permission.

I'm not even concerned about $1000. I'm just trying to find something that I can politely display while asking them to remove the lates from my reports.

Since everything that I've ever borrowed has been fully repaid, however sloppily, I can't use PFD's to get anyone to play ball. That leaves me looking at stuff like this.

[haulingthescoreup]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I fully believe this is a NON-PP INQ and subject to damages under FCRA.

I am currently pursuing/investigating action on MANY of these myself.

---

Tim, have you gotten to the point where you've gotten any reaction from a lender? I fear that I'm going to have to educate the bank that did the inq, and since I barely know what I'm talking about anyway , I can see this turning into some sort of Marx Brothers sketch. I'd like to go in the first time looking prepared.

Thanks for the post with the regs, btw!