No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
is it leagal for a collection agency to pull your credit with out your permission? if not how do I deal with it?
Actually the answer is no. You do have a debt with them, and it is a permissable pull. It can be done via a SP, but some use the HP just to ramp it up a bit.
Yeah it's pretty bogus that they are able to do it, but they are in fact able. The good news is once you start getting rid of some of them you won't have this issue but it's a classic case of kicking a man when he's down. Just like bank overdraft fees.
+1 to both above. Unfortunately, permissible purpose is all that is necessary. They can code is as a Hard or soft. This particular point gets my blood boling. It could be used unfairly and in a very vindictive manner.
Not true...permissable purpose is required for soft or hard pull...but FCRA specifically states that in order to do a hard pull (they use different language, they state an iquiry that is viewable by everyone) that you must have PP as well as it must be initiated by the consumer...this is a response I found on another site that clears it up pretty good...
The concept of HARD-vs-SOFT has nothing directly to do withe the FCRA. It is a business angle the CRA's created to "add value" to thier existence. They track HARD inquires as a way of showing prospective creditors (the people paying commercial rate $$ for your credit report) what credit you have been applying for lately. This is valuable information for the prospective creditor to know before deciding to loan you money.
So this entire catagory of INQUIRIES and what is shown to credit report USERS other than YOU the consumer, is a business product catagory the CRA's have invented for themselves using a hole in the FCRA, where the FCRA doesn't actually dictate anything about WHO ELSE can be shown your inquiry history.
All the FCRA does is dictate what PERMISSABLE PURPOSE a particular type of USER has. The good thing for the consumer is, the CRA's have tied the PP to the hard/soft aspect they invented. So The CRA's themselves have EXTENDED the reach of the FCRA into enforcing PP-vs-Inquiry Coding.
A collection agency, collection attorney, JDB, etc does NOT have PERMISSABLE PURPOSE under 1681b(a)(2) or 1681b(a)(3)(A). These are the PPs that generate HARD inquiries. They involve YOU and a CREDIT TRANSACTION or an application for credit or insurance... PERIOD.
The collector's only have PP under 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) which does not generate a HARD inquiry. It is the generic catchall "other" business PP.
The tie in is all USERS must file certificates with the CRA as a business stating thier purpose for accessing reports. If they tell the truth on the certificate, they are authorized for 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) as a collector. If they lie on the certificate to get access under 1681b(a)(2) or 1681b(a)(3)(A) then you have them by the short hairs. If they have a legit certification BUT pull using a code OTHER THAN the one thier cert covers, you have them by the short hairs.
The key is, you must subpeona the CRA to turn over all the communications involving you/cra/collector as well as the certifications filed by the collector....so YOU can prove to the court they deliberately obtained your report under FALSE PRETENSES.
If they have violated any laws in this regard, the act of you obtaining the subpeona may be all that is required to get the USER (the collector that made the inquires) to contact the CRA and FIX the incorrect catagorization as HARD instead of SOFT. Let them lie to the CRA about why that happened, so long as they fix it.
But this battle has only been fought a couple times I've heard of, and resulted in settlements, so no caselaw in court exists yet using this strategy.
@tmobileguy wrote:Not true...permissable purpose is required for soft or hard pull...but FCRA specifically states that in order to do a hard pull (they use different language, they state an iquiry that is viewable by everyone) that you must have PP as well as it must be initiated by the consumer...this is a response I found on another site that clears it up pretty good...
The concept of HARD-vs-SOFT has nothing directly to do withe the FCRA. It is a business angle the CRA's created to "add value" to thier existence. They track HARD inquires as a way of showing prospective creditors (the people paying commercial rate $$ for your credit report) what credit you have been applying for lately. This is valuable information for the prospective creditor to know before deciding to loan you money.
So this entire catagory of INQUIRIES and what is shown to credit report USERS other than YOU the consumer, is a business product catagory the CRA's have invented for themselves using a hole in the FCRA, where the FCRA doesn't actually dictate anything about WHO ELSE can be shown your inquiry history.
All the FCRA does is dictate what PERMISSABLE PURPOSE a particular type of USER has. The good thing for the consumer is, the CRA's have tied the PP to the hard/soft aspect they invented. So The CRA's themselves have EXTENDED the reach of the FCRA into enforcing PP-vs-Inquiry Coding.
A collection agency, collection attorney, JDB, etc does NOT have PERMISSABLE PURPOSE under 1681b(a)(2) or 1681b(a)(3)(A). These are the PPs that generate HARD inquiries. They involve YOU and a CREDIT TRANSACTION or an application for credit or insurance... PERIOD.
The collector's only have PP under 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) which does not generate a HARD inquiry. It is the generic catchall "other" business PP.
The tie in is all USERS must file certificates with the CRA as a business stating thier purpose for accessing reports. If they tell the truth on the certificate, they are authorized for 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) as a collector. If they lie on the certificate to get access under 1681b(a)(2) or 1681b(a)(3)(A) then you have them by the short hairs. If they have a legit certification BUT pull using a code OTHER THAN the one thier cert covers, you have them by the short hairs.
The key is, you must subpeona the CRA to turn over all the communications involving you/cra/collector as well as the certifications filed by the collector....so YOU can prove to the court they deliberately obtained your report under FALSE PRETENSES.
If they have violated any laws in this regard, the act of you obtaining the subpeona may be all that is required to get the USER (the collector that made the inquires) to contact the CRA and FIX the incorrect catagorization as HARD instead of SOFT. Let them lie to the CRA about why that happened, so long as they fix it.
But this battle has only been fought a couple times I've heard of, and resulted in settlements, so no caselaw in court exists yet using this strategy.
The permissable purpose already happened before you went delinquent. If a CA has an account on you that is permissable purpose and they can HP you at any time just like your current CC company can do it
@tmobileguy wrote:Not true...permissable purpose is required for soft or hard pull...but FCRA specifically states that in order to do a hard pull (they use different language, they state an iquiry that is viewable by everyone) that you must have PP as well as it must be initiated by the consumer...this is a response I found on another site that clears it up pretty good...
The concept of HARD-vs-SOFT has nothing directly to do withe the FCRA. It is a business angle the CRA's created to "add value" to thier existence. They track HARD inquires as a way of showing prospective creditors (the people paying commercial rate $$ for your credit report) what credit you have been applying for lately. This is valuable information for the prospective creditor to know before deciding to loan you money.
So this entire catagory of INQUIRIES and what is shown to credit report USERS other than YOU the consumer, is a business product catagory the CRA's have invented for themselves using a hole in the FCRA, where the FCRA doesn't actually dictate anything about WHO ELSE can be shown your inquiry history.
All the FCRA does is dictate what PERMISSABLE PURPOSE a particular type of USER has. The good thing for the consumer is, the CRA's have tied the PP to the hard/soft aspect they invented. So The CRA's themselves have EXTENDED the reach of the FCRA into enforcing PP-vs-Inquiry Coding.
A collection agency, collection attorney, JDB, etc does NOT have PERMISSABLE PURPOSE under 1681b(a)(2) or 1681b(a)(3)(A). These are the PPs that generate HARD inquiries. They involve YOU and a CREDIT TRANSACTION or an application for credit or insurance... PERIOD.
The collector's only have PP under 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) which does not generate a HARD inquiry. It is the generic catchall "other" business PP.
The tie in is all USERS must file certificates with the CRA as a business stating thier purpose for accessing reports. If they tell the truth on the certificate, they are authorized for 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) as a collector. If they lie on the certificate to get access under 1681b(a)(2) or 1681b(a)(3)(A) then you have them by the short hairs. If they have a legit certification BUT pull using a code OTHER THAN the one thier cert covers, you have them by the short hairs.
The key is, you must subpeona the CRA to turn over all the communications involving you/cra/collector as well as the certifications filed by the collector....so YOU can prove to the court they deliberately obtained your report under FALSE PRETENSES.
If they have violated any laws in this regard, the act of you obtaining the subpeona may be all that is required to get the USER (the collector that made the inquires) to contact the CRA and FIX the incorrect catagorization as HARD instead of SOFT. Let them lie to the CRA about why that happened, so long as they fix it.
But this battle has only been fought a couple times I've heard of, and resulted in settlements, so no caselaw in court exists yet using this strategy.
Didn't cover this a couple weeks ago in another thread T-MobileGuy?
I don;t think this information you referenced is accurate, and at the best its misleading..
PP in general is business, not consumer.
http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/Rebuilding-Your-Credit/Unauthorized-Hard-Inquiry/m-p/1729588#M221053
-scott
If your going to state its not accurate then you might want to state exactly why, in your opinion, the statutes referenced and what they pertain to are not accurate...and yes of course I said it in another thread because it was the topic at hand....So if you say something in another thread then it can never be brought up again if the same question or point is asked again?
@tmobileguy wrote:If your going to state its not accurate then you might want to state exactly why, in your opinion, the statutes referenced and what they pertain to are not accurate...and yes of course I said it in another thread because it was the topic at hand....So if you say something in another thread then it can never be brought up again if the same question or point is asked again?
I suppose your right, it was late
Ultimately, its all intreptation, and a judge really is the only one who can determine if an interpretation is accurate, so I will recind my snarky comments.
-scott
@Anonymous wrote:is it leagal for a collection agency to pull your credit with out your permission? if not how do I deal with it?
You can keep it from happening again by freezing your credit.