Can Inquiries be Disputed?

[Anonymous]

---

ByrdMan wrote:

My experience with helping my aunt out with three or four inqs from CAs was to write the Non PP letter and had them removed. Had already tried to get them removed via the dispute process. Basically was told to shove it. Went to the source who non pp inq'd her and got them removed. Sometimes, when time is of the essence, the path of least resistance is the way to go.

---

True, a non-PP letter is probably the quickest way to go, if it works.

The problem is, you never know if it will work.

[Junejer]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Junejer wrote:

My experience with helping my aunt out with three or four inqs from CAs was to write the Non PP letter and had them removed. Had already tried to get them removed via the dispute process. Basically was told to shove it. Went to the source who non pp inq'd her and got them removed. Sometimes, when time is of the essence, the path of least resistance is the way to go.

---

True, a non-PP letter is probably the quickest way to go, if it works.

The problem is, you never know if it will work.

---

I bet my chances on a Non PP letter rather than on the CRAs to do their jobs. They have already proven that they can't/won't/don't care to do their jobs. If PP letter doesn't work, then I will try CRAs, just before I send my ITS letter to the CA.

[Junejer]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I have 5 inquires split up among Experian and Transunion, however these are not for credit applications but by collection agencies. Can I dispute them (especially for CAs that were disputed and removed from my reports) and if not are they hurting me. Summary below:

ASSET ACCEPTANCE LLC
Date of Request: 08/24/2007
Comments:
Permissible purpose. This inquiry is scheduled to continue on record until Sep 2009.


COHEN & SLAMOWITZ LLP
Date of Request: 07/26/2006
Comments:
Collection purpose. This inquiry is scheduled to continue on record until Aug 2008.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING
Requested On: 05/08/2007


NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS
Requested On: 05/06/2007
* NCO DISPUTED AND REMOVED FROM CRAS

NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS
Inquiry Type: 05/05/2007
* NCO DISPUTED AND REMOVED FROM CRAS

---

nyccc2, it seems that Cheddar and I have gangstered your thread. I do apologize sincerely. I hope that before we jacked it, that we gave you something to chew on and have given you some idea of which direction to go.

[Anonymous]

---

ByrdMan wrote:


nyccc2, it seems that Cheddar and I have gangstered your thread. I do apologize sincerely. I hope that before we jacked it, that we gave you something to chew on and have given you some idea of which direction to go.

---

LOL...accept my apologies, as well.  Hopefully our discussions have been helpful, though, even if we finally just agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Well then allow me to jack the thread further ...

Technically, the CRAs are required to tell you who got a copy of your CR.  So even if someone did not have PP, if they were given your CR, the CRA is required to post an inquiry.  If the CRA removes the inq, they are breaking the law because you end up with an incomplete CR.

See Section 609(a)(3)(A)

[Anonymous]

---

masdeocho wrote:

Well then allow me to jack the thread further ...

Technically, the CRAs are required to tell you who got a copy of your CR.  So even if someone did not have PP, if they were given your CR, the CRA is required to post an inquiry.  If the CRA removes the inq, they are breaking the law because you end up with an incomplete CR.

See Section 609(a)(3)(A)

---

Well, in that case, you could hopefully at least get them to recode it as soft.

Then no harm to FICO, and no violation of 609(a)(3)(A).

[Junejer]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Well then allow me to jack the thread further ...

Technically, the CRAs are required to tell you who got a copy of your CR.  So even if someone did not have PP, if they were given your CR, the CRA is required to post an inquiry.  If the CRA removes the inq, they are breaking the law because you end up with an incomplete CR.

See Section 609(a)(3)(A)

---

Well, in that case, you could hopefully at least get them to recode it as soft.

Then no harm to FICO, and no violation of 609(a)(3)(A).

---

Cheddar, have you worked with EQ, EX (the devil) & TU (the haters) lately? Have them recode something? Come on! I just participated in a thread from Pizza, where TU deleted a bunch of his TLs and TU could fix it, but won't. They have put the onus on him to get it corrected. It wasn't his fault. The CRAs are a joke that can't/won't/don't care to do their jobs. So, we must be much more shrewd in our dealings with them, circumventing them when at all possible.

I currently have erroneous crap on my CRs from my ex-wife. The stuff keeps coming back as verified. I am convinced that they are worthless to deal with, until I have to threaten suit when they violate procedure.

[Anonymous]

---

ByrdMan wrote:

Cheddar, have you worked with EQ, EX (the devil) & TU (the haters) lately? Have them recode something? Come on! I just participated in a thread from Pizza, where TU deleted a bunch of his TLs and TU could fix it, but won't. They have put the onus on him to get it corrected. It wasn't his fault. The CRAs are a joke that can't/won't/don't care to do their jobs. So, we must be much more shrewd in our dealings with them, circumventing them when at all possible.

I currently have erroneous crap on my CRs from my ex-wife. The stuff keeps coming back as verified. I am convinced that they are worthless to deal with, until I have to threaten suit when they violate procedure.

---

I know they don't do their jobs the way they are supposed to.  I'm not saying call them up and say, "Hey, umm....yeah, there's this inquiry?  On my, like, credit report?  And...well...I was wondering..."

This is what ITS letters are for, and even actual lawsuits, if that's what it takes.

[haulingthescoreup]

Gosh, it's like watching FICO tennis!

Thanks, guys, I had never taken the time to think through the court decision. Since the key issue seems to be that the account that they're trying to collect on must have come from a customer seeking credit, that indicates to me that a CA can't do a hard on a medical collection, for instance, or the poor sap with the parking tickets or towing bills, or whatever it was. But if the collection was for an old car loan or credit card, it's fair game.

Am I reading this right?

[Junejer]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Junejer wrote:

Cheddar, have you worked with EQ, EX (the devil) & TU (the haters) lately? Have them recode something? Come on! I just participated in a thread from Pizza, where TU deleted a bunch of his TLs and TU could fix it, but won't. They have put the onus on him to get it corrected. It wasn't his fault. The CRAs are a joke that can't/won't/don't care to do their jobs. So, we must be much more shrewd in our dealings with them, circumventing them when at all possible.

I currently have erroneous crap on my CRs from my ex-wife. The stuff keeps coming back as verified. I am convinced that they are worthless to deal with, until I have to threaten suit when they violate procedure.

---

I know they don't do their jobs the way they are supposed to.  I'm not saying call them up and say, "Hey, umm....yeah, there's this inquiry?  On my, like, credit report?  And...well...I was wondering..."

This is what ITS letters are for, and even actual lawsuits, if that's what it takes.

---

Of course not. I didn't assume you were saying that. What I am saying is that I finally had to do that this past week with both the devil and the haters as my lender was giving me the stink eye on some erroneous crap. As far as they are concerned, it shouldn't be there in error or not, yet, I can't get the idiots to actually verify. Meanwhile, I am supposed to close next Friday (lenders are antsy these days). I still will close, yet I have to jump through hoops to make it happen. It's a darn shame.

Anyway, have to go to an appt. Peace.