Jump to content

Can a CA pull your CR without your knowledge


dr007svt
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes they can under the business use exemption in the FCRA. However, the FDCPA says they cannot do anything to collect once they get a DV letter until they have validated the debt.

So, If you DV them before they do the pull, then the pull is not legal.

One last thing: Courts have ruled that repeated pulls by a CA is not legal. It's called "poisoning" a credit report because each CA pull knocks your FICO score down by about 10-25 points. By repeatedly pulling your reports they are essentially punishing you for not paying by abusing the system.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i believe they are allowed to if they are seeking to collect on a past debt and dont need your permission

Would this be true for an old debt that is SOL? CRA should block any request from CA if there does not appear to be any listing of outstanding debt (after 7 years). Do they do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOL of the debt is a non-issue (in my opinion).

The SOL laws only apply to their ability to enforce a debt through court action - it does not mean the debt doesn't exist or that they cannot engage in collection activity and/or collect on the debt.

Although some will argue the finer points, a debt is always a debt and always "owed" until it it paid (either in full or setteled in full).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last thing: Courts have ruled that repeated pulls by a CA is not legal. It's called "poisoning" a credit report because each CA pull knocks your FICO score down by about 10-25 points. By repeatedly pulling your reports they are essentially punishing you for not paying by abusing the system.

So it is legal for them to do hard pulls, not just soft? I was under the impression they weren't supposed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

They can pull, they have PP but NOT for a hard pull... aka one that prospective Creditors/Employers can see.

In order for the inquiry to be coded as HARD it must be done under...

1681b(a)(2) or 1681b(a)(3)(A) and there is no provision for collections pulls there, as YOU are not involved in a CREDIT TRANSACTION with the CA or JDB, or even a OC or OC atty after chargeoff.

So if it ends up HARD then they lied on the codes given to produce the pull. 1681b(a)(2) or 1681b(a)(3)(A) is only for YOU going down to apply for a loan or authorizing some other party to have access with your expressed permission.

They do it anyway, they violate, because they are in the collections business and are doing anything possible to intimidate and coerce payment from you, including deliberately poinsoning your credit report and lowering your FICO score.

They can do all the SOFT pulls under 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) thier little butts desire, but not a HARD pull, even though it is industry Standard Operating Proceedure.

It wont end until people start suing thier asses off with the following:

1681b(a)(3)(A) (Coding a collection inquiry as a hard inquiry)

1681h(e) (Defamation and Invasion of Privacy)

1681n (willful misrepresentation or concealment of true nature of inquiry)

and remember:

Obtaining consumer credit reports under false pretenses is a violation of (your state here) criminal law, (section number), and of Federal criminal Law under Title 18 of United States Code and a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. 1681q.

They are coming in as collections under 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) as thier alleged PP, but this would only lead to a SOFT PULL. So how can it end up HARD? Well cause they lied and coded it as something else.

Remember also they must have "certificates" on file with the CRA, and if they LIE on that in order to get PP then they are guilty of WILLFUL violation of obtaining credit reports under false pretenses. Collection atty's are double required, they must have a general certificate on file AND a specific certificate for the SPECIFIC ACCESS of your file. These certificates and the computer coding used to obtain the pull are what you want to subpeona from the CRA to find out just what the CA/JDB/Atty filed as PP and how it was coded to end up a HARD pull. Anything false or misleading in those and WAMMO serious FCRA and possible criminal violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to disagree with you there. The FCRA makes no mention of soft versus hard pulls; it merely states what is a permissable purpose and what is not. When that law was written no thought was given to what pulls would do to FICO scores, as FICO scoring was not in use at the time.

Collection is a permissable purpose, and I have not seen any evidence of the courts or the statute censuring a CA for pulling credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. But the CRA's have made the distinction, and thier manuals inform prospective data users what those distinctions are. So the company/atty who signs up with a CRA and files a general certificate is educated by the CRA's documentation as to what PP's require what, and what codes (as all accesses are done by computer) result in what action.

So yes the FCRA doesn't say exactly, but now thanks to the CRA's infrastructure all parties (users) know what does what.

The CRA would take a 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) inquiry, which is what a COLLECTOR/JDB/Atty would use to procure a credit report LAWFULLY under the PP they are entitled to, and record that as a SOFT inquiry.

Did you ever wonder why SOME collection inquiries are SOFT for some people, and HARD for others? The "unknown quantity" is what actual CODED PP was sent to the CRA for the transaction. If a collector instead of sending a lawful 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii) [which causes a SOFT pull] were instead to send an UNLAWFUL 1681b(a)(3)(A) or even WORSE a very unlawful 1681b(a)(2) (ie: YOU gave them written permission) then you end up with a HARD pull.

The documentation of the unlawful access and unlawful PP is memorialized in the transmission record of data sent back and forth between the "collector" and the CRA in reference to your account. And the CRA is not going to "shred" that record, so if you were to subpeona it, you could actully nail them with proof in thier "own words" of thier illegal access.

Now they'll then claim bona-fide error, and then you attack that as obsurd since if yoou had practices in place to prevent such a thing, the thing would not have happened, etc.

So although the FCRA does not spell out WHAT actions do what, they do spell out what are PP's by whom, and make it quite unlawful, with penalties, to use the incorrect PP for your access. The CRA is only the filter, input A generates output B, and since we (through discovery) can introduce to the court the specifics, its up to the "violated" consumer to prosecute the matter.

Also note, the FCRA gives direct right of private action against parties unlawfully obtaining or using thier credit report. You dont even have to go through the "dispute" process with the CRA to trigger your private right of action.

I know this seems cutting edge, and it is, because noone has yet fought the battle to make this argument. But I seriously believe it is a valid argument, has legal merit, and should be persued when ever any of us have occasion to use it as part of our arsenal in dealings with collectors and thier misdeeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this seems cutting edge, and it is, because noone has yet fought the battle to make this argument. But I seriously believe it is a valid argument, has legal merit, and should be persued when ever any of us have occasion to use it as part of our arsenal in dealings with collectors and thier misdeeds.

I think you are stretching, and until it is tested in court, it is just your legal opinion, which unless you are a legal scholar, or an appeals judge, or even an attorney, it is worth the paper it is printed on.

The fact is, they have PP to get your report, and there is no case law, nor is there any statute which supports your position, which at best is on very shaky legal ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No argument that this is unexplored territory. Im just trying to use logic and the law to find new means to go after collectors engaged in unlawful methods.

The FCRA spells out very clearly what PPs exist and for who and under what reasons.

The CRA's have decided what claimed PP code generates a HARD or SOFT inquiry.

My argument is to close the loop, the collector has a specific PP under law to access a copy of your report. They do not have any PP beyond that prescibed in the FCRA... 1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii).

If they instead USE any other PP in thier access they are breaking the law and violating FCRA. Worse, they are obtaining a credit report under false pretenses which is a VERY serious crime. Even if they have a legitimate PP otherwise, if they access under an unlawful PP they are guilty of committing a crime.

Why would they even bother to do anything like that? To generate a hard inquiry, lower the consumers FICO, and generally put more pressure on the consumer in collections.... aka MONEY. Crime for money, its a simple as that.

Title 18 penalty for obtaining under false pretenses carries a $10,000 fine and/or 2 yrs in federal prison as a penalty. Its no joke. State laws carry finea and jail time as well, and the FCRA itself...1681n (willful misrepresentation or concealment of true nature of inquiry)... carries serious monetary penalty of $1K plus UNLIMITED PUNATIVE damages in the hands of the judge/jury.

Collectors have been DELIBERATELY coding for a different PP, one that generates a hard inquiry, as a means to put more PRESSURE on the consumer to pay up. They are deliberately accessing under a PP designed to harm the consumers FICO score as punishment/arm twisting in the collection process.

But noone has fought this angle in thier business practices well enough to get caselaw generated. The ONLY way caselaw will ever be generated is if consumers start pursuing this line of thought and succeed.

I cannot see where it harms a consumer for at least trying to use this argument in our arsenal in dealing with collections activities.

I am not a lawyer or scholar, just a consumer trying to see every angle on how the LAW can protect me from violations of my rights. My argument is logical, and awaits use in court to ultimately generate caselaw. All the caselaw out there had to be generated initially by good argument and logical use of the statutes to make the case. This stuff didn't just appear out of thin air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all fairness, you should mention this portion of the FCRA:

© Attorney's fees. Upon a finding by the court that an unsuccessful pleading, motion, or other paper filed in connection with an action under this section was filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court shall award to the prevailing party attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended in responding to the pleading, motion, or other paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all fairness, you should mention this portion of the FCRA:

© Attorney's fees. Upon a finding by the court that an unsuccessful pleading, motion, or other paper filed in connection with an action under this section was filed in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, the court shall award to the prevailing party attorney's fees reasonable in relation to the work expended in responding to the pleading, motion, or other paper.

Agreed Dive, but where is the bad faith, or harrassment? The argument I put forth is in good faith on its face. If the trier of fact doesn't find grounds for it, then fine but it couldn't be considered a bad faith pleading as it is a solid logical argument. Though you wouldn't want to use this as the sole grounds for filing a lawsuit against a collector.

Further, the wrong PP use can be considered a FDCPA violation as well, as it is communicating false/misleading information about a debt in a communication. It is also the use of unconscienable means in the collection of a debt. And a collector communicating to the CRA is a COMMUNICATION as defined by the FCDPA... both tradeline listing and the PP request.

Seriously, how often do you think nationwide that bad faith clause has ever been acted on by a judge and a consumer been punished for bad faith and/or harrassment? One or two times maximum out of 100's of thousands of collection cases a year. And no doubt for damn good reason.

Further, the principle use of this is as a counterclaim AGAINST a collector who has dragged the consumer into court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.