Permissible Purpose/CA for a 13 year old debt?

[Anonymous]

I have read the forums about not disputing hard inquiries.  I have a CA that has pulled two hard inquiries within a 4 month period and the cc debt is beyond SOL (default 1995).  Since they shouldn't legally win a lawsuit based on SOL, how can they have permissible purpose? 

Would you consider an inquiry as initial contact?  I have received nothing from this company and only found the inquiries after pulling my annual report.\

Thanks

Dee

[Junejer]

Hi Dee, welcome to the forums. You are going to get differing OPINIONS about whether or not a CA has PP at all in the first place. Anyway, there is no way, IMO, that a CA has PP to hard INQ you for a 13 year old debt. they need to shove this one. Search for the non PP letter on this forum and modify it to meet your needs.

[Anonymous]

I totally agree.  I have sent a letter to the CA and CRA, have received the green cards back.  No response yet.  Thanks for the quick reply.

[Anonymous]

Also, please complain immediately to BBB, FTC and AGs in your and theirs home state. It adds scrutiny on their shady operations and helps keeping them under control.

Message Edited by demed on 12-05-2008 01:50 PM

[Anonymous]

---

pdb723 wrote:

Would you consider an inquiry as initial contact? 

---

IMO, yes. Did their inquiry convey to you that they had a debt of yours?

§ 803. Definitions

(2) The term “communication” means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to

any person through any medium.

[RobertEG]

I don’t think that it is so open and shut..  I see nothing in the FCRA that would prevent the CA from making an inquiry in furtherance of their collection activities.

 

FCRA 604(a)(3)(A) gives right to a CA to make an inquiry regarding collection of an account if they are involved in collection activity.  It does not have a time limit, and is not tied to initial reporting requirements of FCRA 605(a), and certainly not to any state SOL statutes.

Expiration of the SOL does not bar further collection activities, it only prevents the CA from prevailing in an attempt to collect the debt in court.

 

I would be more inclined to first look at the FDCPA, and shut them off in that manner.  Yes, an inquiry is a debt collection activity.  If it is a new CA, then the inquiry is an initial communication regarding their collection of the debt, requiring them to send you a dunning letter within five days, pursuant to FDCPA 809(a).  They have apparently not done this.  So I would send them a letter advising them that they are not in compliance with the FDCPA, and demand their immediate cessation of any further collection activity.

[Anonymous]

The best approach to deal with this is to act against the CA (complaints to FTC, AGs and BBB), and ITS for non PP, as well as exercising the right to an investigation in the permissibility of the inquiry with the CRA.

The FCRA does not exempt the CRAs from investigating the inquiries if these are disputed information - they are supposed to run the same investigation as with any other tradeline.

However, I don't believe the CRAs are setup for reporting a dispute on an inquiry - plain and simple. If one disputes and requests an investigation, and the CRA does not update the record to show it is being investigated, and I never seen it updated for an inquiry, on any report, there is an opening for complaining to the AG and FTC, as well as suing under the FCRA. Which generally results in swift removal.

Message Edited by demed on 12-06-2008 03:42 AM