CA 3 hard pulls in week not licensed to collect

[jeff6898]

I haad a CA Global Vantedge put a mark on my cr with out never notifying me first so I could dispute it in the 30 days. Found out they wwere not licensed in my state. This caused my score to drop during the time I ws trying to refinance my house. Wrote the attorney general,ftc ect. It came off with in 3 days. NOw though I noticed they pulled my credit and put 3 hard inquiries on my report in a week. Do I have a lawsuit here or just a wat to get these inquiries removed?

[LadynRed]

put 3 hard inquiries on my report in a week.

Sounds like deliberate file poisoning to me !!

[uwackme]

Ill just re-post the discussion that occured previously on this, hope this helps:

From me:

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.

From DiveMedic:

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.

From me again:

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.

****

So this is a battle that still needs to be waged, each of us if confronted by these circumstances needs to add this strategy to our claim/counterclaim action to get judges to confront this, generate subpeona's and put the fear of gawd in the collectors. They are deliberately skirting the law to poison our credit reports.

In the OP's case, at the very time you're trying to obtain a mortgage, its a nasty business and they should be brought to justice for it.

[kf74]

Sounds like deliberate file poisoning to me !!

I just recieved a letter of from AmeriCredit explaining they were unable to approve my request for a loan. The funny thing is, the dealer that initiated this application for credit did not get my business, however apperantley continued to run loan apps after the fact. I think it was spiteful.

Is this what you mean by file poisining? Can I fight it?

[direred]

How is a dealer a CA?

[jeff6898]

Thanks for the replies. I am going to send off a certified letter siting the statutes you gave and demand removal.

[Recovering Attorney]

KF - I got 5k from someone like that. I would consider a suit for non-pp

[toImproveMyCredit]

Ill just re-post the discussion that occured previously on this, hope this helps:

From me:

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.

From DiveMedic:

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.

From me again:

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.

****

So this is a battle that still needs to be waged, each of us if confronted by these circumstances needs to add this strategy to our claim/counterclaim action to get judges to confront this, generate subpeona's and put the fear of gawd in the collectors. They are deliberately skirting the law to poison our credit reports.

In the OP's case, at the very time you're trying to obtain a mortgage, its a nasty business and they should be brought to justice for it.

ah, good point. So, this is exactly what Cavalry did to me: after I kept asking them for PFD and not wanting to take "settled in full", they pull hard inquiry on TU...just to poison my credit.

[Amerikaner83]

you know this thread is a year and a half old....?

[toImproveMyCredit]

you know this thread is a year and a half old....?

oops

[Focus2069]

you know this thread is a year and a half old....?

its still good info.

Im glad it got brought up from the dead....im about to file suit on NCO next week for the same thing, and it adds to my ammo.

[Amerikaner83]

good point.

[BTO429]

I had probs with NCO trying to collect on an old debt that they added their expenses to. The original debt was 24 dollars and they wanted 50 dollars. They kept up dating my cr every month. I sent them an Inetent to sue letter and they took everything off my cr and havent heard from them n 6 months.

[Focus2069]

I had probs with NCO trying to collect on an old debt that they added their expenses to. The original debt was 24 dollars and they wanted 50 dollars. They kept up dating my cr every month. I sent them an Inetent to sue letter and they took everything off my cr and havent heard from them n 6 months.

they already folded on the debt with me as well.

but they cant un-ring a bell.

they did a hard pull without even verifying or validating the debt.

big no-no.

[dodger23]

Another "oldie but goodie" thread....

Has anyone attempted to sue a CA or been successful suing a CA for "hard pulling" your credit report?

I have several CA's that have done this that have no relationship with any of my OC's.

Exaple: Arrow Financial is one of them. Most of my OC accounts are from 2002-2003 , Arrow was never a CA for any of my OC's, yet Arrow did a hard pull last month.

Sounds like they lied about "The Code" as described in this thread. Should I go after them and report back later????? What should I ask the court for in damages per CA ?

May as well try

[seven]

has anyone ever used the information on page 1 of this thread in regards to CA's pulling hards instead of soft???? Is this information relevant and enforceable in court ??