Jump to content

have a inquiry from a never head of collection agency???


Recommended Posts

On experian on 3/07 i got dinged a hard INQ from Nation wide credit in atl. Never heard of them and never been contacted from them.

What should i do?Should i dispute the inq or write to the CA? Keep in mind ive NEVER even heard of these people.

Same thing happened to me October 2006 on EQ. I got dinged a hard INQ from the law offices of Forester & Gorbus in New York. (Not shaking in my boots either). Never heard of them. And they are Not collecting on anything I know of. So, I contacted them. And you would not believe their clerk's ridiculous response:

"Dear Ms. June:

We are in receipt of your letter regarding the above referenced account.

lol. What account? There was no account listed above to reference to. :)

Please be advised that a debt collector may request a credit report on a consumer in the course of attempting to obtain location information.

ok. now that I was located, where is my "30-day Validation notice" that should have been sent October 31, 2006?

If you would like to discuss or have any questions, I can be reached at 1-800-xxx-xxxx, ext. 6789.

why would I want to telephone her to discuss the "no-referenced-above account."

Sincerely,

Lucy McGullicutti

Compliance Officer"

I had responded and waiting patiently for Ms. McGullicotti's next response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under 1681b(a) a collection agency who is collecting on a debt, has permission to pull your report, however, THE DEBT HAS TO BE YOURS.

Even debts that are out of statute, they can have a hard INQ. Debts that are the results of ID theft they are permitted to do a hard pull. If they have your information and a debt connected to your information, then it is permissible.

It's unfortunate, but, impermissible access to credit reports are REAL HARD to get going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so should i contact the Collection angeny and ask what the hell is going on. or just dispute with the CRA. If they pull with no permissable purpose isnt that a violation?dont they have to have my authorisation?

Call and play stupid. Get details about the debt to form the basis of a DV. A blind DV in response to an INQ is kinda silly. Better to know exactly what you are disputing and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I copped this from something June posted in another thread...

§ 803(2) of the FDCPA, 15 USC 1692a, provides:

(2) The term "communication" means the conveying

of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly

to any person through any medium.

§ 809(a) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a), provides:

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer

in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall,

unless the following information is contained in the initial communication

or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice

containing – ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is, does a hard pull count as initial communication?

I know there is debate as to whether a tradeline added before even a phone call is made counts as initial communication (I can't remember what was decided), but just a pull?

No. It's nothing. You don't have a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I copped this from something June posted in another thread...

§ 803(2) of the FDCPA, 15 USC 1692a, provides:

(2) The term "communication" means the conveying

of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly

to any person through any medium.

§ 809(a) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a), provides:

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer

in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall,

unless the following information is contained in the initial communication

or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice

containing – ...

The problem here... is placing an INQ on a credit report a communication with a consumer?

It's a communication between the CA and CRA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

§ 803(2) of the FDCPA, 15 USC 1692a, provides:

(2) The term "communication" means the conveying

of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly

to any person through any medium.

Where an Inquiry IS a communication between the CA and CRA, then an INQ (or pulling a consumer's credit report) IS a direct or indirect communication between the CA and the consumer.

The FDCPA plain english of the term "communication," provides for communication, through any medium (that which is in the middle; a means; an agency). The CRA is in the middle as an agency. Therefore, any Inquiry IS a communication with the consumer. Be it directly or indirectly. Under the law it does not matter which.

Where the CA communicates with the CRA regarding a debt allegedly owed by a consumer, the law requires the CAs "30-day Validation Notice" to issue directly to the consumer within five days of such communication. Fortunately for all consumers, the CRAs provide the exact date (mm/dd/yyyy) for INQs, directly or indirectly. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even debts that are out of statute, they can have a hard INQ.

If the OCs and CAs are doing "Hard' INQs on debts that are out of statute, it IS illegal.

Hard Inquiries are based upon the consumer's initiation of some application for credit or insurance, not collections.

On my CRs, alleged Delinquent Debts without statute, do NOT have any pulls or Updates. That would be misrepresenting the legal status of the debt.

On my CRs, Delinquent debts within statute, current and active credit cards, current and active lines of credit, and even good ol' Cap One will do a periodic "soft" INQ certainly not "Hard" INQs which remains on our CRs for 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, So apparantely they were retained by ALLTELL financial for a old cell phone bill. A bill that i have allready disputed off of 2 reports and am in the process of getting off of TRANS UNION. I caught alltel on a few violations under the FACTA such as not validating the debit but continuing collection activity. So i fired off a ITS letter in december.

Appraantely Nation wide credit said that it was for a Cancelled account. basically alltel hired themn to collect then recalled the collection.

Any ideas? I think im just going to dispute it through experian?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I caught alltel on a few violations under the FACTA such as not validating the debit but continuing collection activity. So i fired off a ITS letter in december.

It is good that you are bluffing them off, but remember that they don't have to forward you anything under FACTA. They don't have to send you bills, or copies of contracts or anything like that. If you sue them, and the attorney they have is even half competent, you will be paying his fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the OCs and CAs are doing "Hard' INQs on debts that are out of statute, it IS illegal.
As a least sophisticated consumer, I cannot quote law, statute, or court decision for everything in life or credit repair!!!
Hard Inquiries are based upon the consumer's initiation of some application for credit or insurance, not collections.
I know this because based upon my CRs. "Inquiries that display to companies (may impact your credit score)." Only Credit grantors, where I had initiated a credit application are listed here, except for Forester & Gorbus.
On my CRs, alleged Delinquent Debts without statute, do NOT have any pulls or Updates. That would be misrepresenting the legal status of the debt.
Duh!!! This statement is based upon my CRs. And the fact that it stands to reason (and common sense) that frequent Updates and "Hard" INQs would tell potential lenders that I am regularly applying for credit, and the alleged delinquent debt is within the SOLC for my state.
On my CRs, Delinquent debts within statute, current and active credit cards, current and active lines of credit, and even good ol' Cap One will do a periodic "soft" INQ certainly not "Hard" INQs which remains on our CRs for 2 years.
This is based upon my experience and my own CRs.

Any more questions???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here... is placing an INQ on a credit report a communication with a consumer?

It's a communication between the CA and CRA.

Could it be argued that this is an indirect communication with a consumer because it is reasonable to assume that a consumer will eventually check his credit report? Pretty weak, huh?

I wonder if there's any case law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a least sophisticated consumer, I cannot quote law, statute, or court decision for everything in life or credit repair!!!

But yet you stated definitively that it is illegal. I think it would be great to know where you have come upon that information~~~are you basing that on an opinion or citing a source of information from somewhere else? I know I would love to have it! It could be very useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a least sophisticated consumer, I cannot quote law, statute, or court decision for everything in life or credit repair!!!

In other words, you are giving advice and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. There is no law in most states to prohibit a CA from pulling your credit simply because it is out of statute.

1681b(3)(A) allows CA's permissible purpose to pull your CR. Do you have a law which states otherwise? Or are you just stating what you WANT the law to be, as opposed to what it IS?

Edited to add:

Another thing many people get confused over is 1681g(a)(5), which states that a CRA must give the consumer a list of everyone who has accessed their credit file under certain conditions, one of which is:

(5) A record of all inquiries received by the agency during the 1-year period

preceding the request that identified the consumer in connection with a credit or

insurance transaction that was not initiated by the consumer.

This would seem to indicate that a CA is a soft pull. However, looking in the definitions (1681a) you find this:

(m) The term “credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by the consumer” does

not include the use of a consumer report by a person with which the consumer has an

account or insurance policy, for purposes of

(1) reviewing the account or insurance policy; or

(2) collecting the account.

That pretty much blows the hard vs soft debate away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But yet you stated definitively that it is illegal. I think it would be great to know where you have come upon that information~~~are you basing that on an opinion or citing a source of information from somewhere else? I know I would love to have it! It could be very useful.
My final answer is this: If "HARD" INQs for Collections, (6, 7 or 10 old) debts, or debts that are out of statute for your State are acceptable and perfectly legal on your Credit Reports, then continue to allow the "Hard" INQs by CAs, JDBs and OCs. Which damages credit scores for two (2) years.

On my Credit Reports, "Hard" INQs are ILLEGAL for Collections, and Out of Statute (after 4 years). Any and ALL illegal "Hard" Inquiries are removed without my quoting any law, statute or court decision. And you can believe that !!! xdancex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, you are giving advice and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. There is no law in most states to prohibit a CA from pulling your credit simply because it is out of statute.

1681b(3)(A) allows CA's permissible purpose to pull your CR. Do you have a law which states otherwise? Or are you just stating what you WANT the law to be, as opposed to what it IS?

"In other words," I do not tolerate aggressive and illegal credit reporting tactics by the CRAs and Furnishers of Information. I NEVER give legal advice and I know what I am talking about, where my credit reports are concerned. In my state where the SOL is 4 years (Florida Statutes § 95.11), then Credit Reporting, Updating and INQs for out of statute debts ARE illegal (for me) because it is misrepresenting the legal status of the debt.

§ 807(2)(A) of the FDCPA. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e] A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (2) The false representation of --

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or...

No, I do not have the case law, or even a court decision. That is for an attorney in court. I had been successful without court. Thank you.xdancex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here is that it isn't illegal on your report, or on anyone else's. The fact that you get the inq's deleted is great, but telling people that it is illegal is wrong. Especially when people are taking action based on your advice.

The fact that an account is beyond SOL does not mean that a CA loses the right to attempt to collect, it simply means that if they sue, the defendant has a defense to that suit.

I can dispute anything I want, and I may or may not get results. If I sue based on your "facts" and opinions, I can land myself in serious trouble in court.

The entire time you have been on this site, you have given erroneous advice. I will make every attempt to ensure that the bad advice you give is corrected whenever I see it, before it gets someone in serious legal trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here is that it isn't illegal on your report, or on anyone else's. The fact that you get the inq's deleted is great, but telling people that it is illegal is wrong. Especially when people are taking action based on your advice.
It IS illegal on my credit reports, and will always BE illegal on my reports. If their "hard" Inquiries were so legal, the CRAs and CAs would not delete, once challenged. I am only voicing my opinion like everyone else here.
The fact that an account is beyond SOL does not mean that a CA loses the right to attempt to collect, it simply means that if they sue, the defendant has a defense to that suit.
Confusion. Confusion. I never said that they may not COLLECT. Their TL may remain on my report for the entire RTP. Where an account is beyond the SOL (for my state) to bring legal action, the CA may not Report it for the first time, Update to the current time period, and do "Hard" Inquries. This is misreprenting the legal status of the debt for me. Whether or not you or anyone here, agrees.
I can dispute anything I want, and I may or may not get results. If I sue based on your "facts" and opinions, I can land myself in serious trouble in court.
More confusion. I never give legal advice and I never told anyone here to bring legal action on any issue. I have great success with my letters only.
The entire time you have been on this site, you have given erroneous advice. I will make every attempt to ensure that the bad advice you give is corrected whenever I see it, before it gets someone in serious legal trouble.
Well... I could say and will say, the entire time I have been visiting this site, I find that you have been entirely dishonest at times, arrogant, opinionated and must control each and every Thread on this site. My every opinion is always challenged by you (even where it concerns my own CRs). If I have an OPINION (or success) that differs from your legal advice, or fail to quote case law, statute or court decision, I am suddenly declared as being erroneous. You shall not control my actions, thoughts or opinions. Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have an OPINION (or success) that differs from your legal advice, or fail to quote case law, statute or court decision, I am suddenly declared as being erroneous.

That is because when your OPINION is in opposition to the law, or the courts, I ask that you back it up with FACTS. Facts are what people are dealing with here. We all have opinions, and we all have a desire for things to be as we want them.

This is the real world, where facts are what counts.

I will not moderate a thread in which I am a participant, but I will let one of the other mods take care of things here.

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.