creonxxx

Oliphant Hard Inquiry on 9 year old debt?

Recommended Posts

They've called me several times and just now placed a hard pull on my transunion. got the alert and hour ago. They've repeatedly admitted the debts age. Can they do this with a debt this old?

UPDATE!!! Thanks to everyone for the great advice. They yanked the Hard Inquiry and sent a response to my complaint through the BBB. They placed the blame on the individual who requested the information as a misunderstanding ( right ) of the status but then tried to explain how legally they had a right to run credit checks to acquire contact information. They also mentioned they removed the request not because it would be defined as illegal but because of creating an unnecessary inconvenience hahaha.

The complaint I wrote was direct and based on the advice here which included the possible violations. I stand firm that no hard inquiry should ever be allowed for debt that is passed the 7 1/2 year mark and wish a law would apply this idea to even past the SOL. The best line in all of this was... FCRA was created to avoid any negative ramifications the consumer may suffer by an overzealous collector having little or no regard to both the law and the consumer.

Thanks again. No court time and no money but I did get them to back the hell off.

Edited by creonxxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A debt this old should not be on the CR. When was it last paid on? If it's not there, then they should not be allowed to do a hard pull. Get the debt off the CR first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A debt this old should not be on the CR. When was it last paid on? If it's not there, then they should not be allowed to do a hard pull. Get the debt off the CR first.

It's been gone for a few years. Nothing in collections. No negative comments. These pieces of garbage have pissed me off. They've called the entire month in the evening. Repeatedly admitted the debt is nearing 10 years old and then today after all the calls pull a hard inquiry. I have been searching and searching for any law that suggests they can't do this with a debt that old. I'm not an idiot the whole point was to do a little damage but taking that to court is nothing but suggestive over every thing I'm reading which is they could simply say it was an attempt at collections but then my question would be collections for what? Nothings on my credit report to prove there is any debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are sure the debt is this old, then you've got 4 violations:

1. Violation of the FDCPA - misrepresenting the status of the debt;

2. Violation of the Rosenthal FDCPA - misrepresenting the debt

3. Violation of the FCRA - if they reaged it to make it seem newer than 7.5 yrs

4. Violation of the CA Consumer Credit Reporting Act - see above.

If you sue, you'll be able to get $4k min in statutory damages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are sure the debt is this old, then you've got 4 violations:

1. Violation of the FDCPA - misrepresenting the status of the debt;

2. Violation of the Rosenthal FDCPA - misrepresenting the debt

3. Violation of the FCRA - if they reaged it to make it seem newer than 7.5 yrs

4. Violation of the CA Consumer Credit Reporting Act - see above.

If you sue, you'll be able to get $4k min in statutory damages.

You missed one:

5: Violation of FCRA - impermissible pull - the PP expired with the SOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are sure the debt is this old, then you've got 4 violations:

1. Violation of the FDCPA - misrepresenting the status of the debt;

2. Violation of the Rosenthal FDCPA - misrepresenting the debt

3. Violation of the FCRA - if they reaged it to make it seem newer than 7.5 yrs

4. Violation of the CA Consumer Credit Reporting Act - see above.

If you sue, you'll be able to get $4k min in statutory damages.

As far as I know they have not placed it back on any report. The hard inquiry was blatantly done to damage a good score. It wouldn't surprise me if it was some sick fools little game played on a few since it was placed today on halloween.

you'd have to point out what exact laws you are referring to above and by the way yes I know for a fact the debt is this old. I kept the very first collection letter on each old debt I had along with the card as reference when delinquency began.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I know they have not placed it back on any report. The hard inquiry was blatantly done to damage a good score. It wouldn't surprise me if it was some sick fools little game played on a few since it was placed today on halloween.

you'd have to point out what exact laws you are referring to above and by the way yes I know for a fact the debt is this old. I kept the very first collection letter on each old debt I had along with the card as reference when delinquency began.

OK, so when they say "trick or treat" instead of dropping candy in the bag you drop a summons. You have 5 violations already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed one:

5: Violation of FCRA - impermissible pull - the PP expired with the SOL.

Ok, I may ask you to marry me :) This is what i was looking for. The impermissible pull. Are you sure the PP expired with the SOL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they can't report to the CRA, why should they be allowed to do a pull? hard or soft won't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 604(a)(3)(A) allows a third party to receive a consumer report if the third party "intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer . . . and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account, of the consumer." In our view, this provision is inapplicable to the residential lease outlined in your letter. Section 604(a)(3)(A) applies only to the review or collection of a credit account, as well as to an extension of credit to a consumer.

Ok I need interpretation on that part about "or review or collection of an account, of the consumers" I take that as meaning they requested my credit report based on one singular account that should have been on the report with their name associated with it in order to make the request. Correct? The debt they say is mine they know wouldn't be on any report because of it's age. So am I correct in saying since they were not associated with any account on any of my reports they had no business requesting the credit report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they can't report to the CRA, why should they be allowed to do a pull? hard or soft won't matter.

I could see a hard or soft pull if it was still within those 7 1/2 years before it falls off because unfortunately they do still report it after the SOL until it falls off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how it woeks, what they did is iligal, if you want it fix you need to sue them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just in case you do not have the address, it is:

Oliphant Financial LLC

9009 Town Center Pkwy,

Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202-4175

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I may ask you to marry me :) This is what i was looking for. The impermissible pull. Are you sure the PP expired with the SOL?

I would much rather argue before the Judge that PP expired along with their right to sue me than to argue that regardless of how long the debt has been OOS I can pull someone's credit. With that position, I wonder what's in Abraham Lincoln's CRA files. All I have to do is claim he owes me money and I have PP to find out? That argument completely guts FCRA which was not the Congressional intent of the law.

Edited by Flyingifr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, I'd like to see an FTC ruling or court case on this before I'd really have a hard opinion on this.

Except in WI and MO, expiration of the 7-1/2 yr rule or the state's SOL does not make the debt uncollectable. Therefore, the OP still has a "credit relationship" with the creditor. Therefore, the creditor has PP.

It might be nasty, but I don't think it violates any of the laws...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Folks, I'd like to see an FTC ruling or court case on this before I'd really have a hard opinion on this.

Except in WI and MO, expiration of the 7-1/2 yr rule or the state's SOL does not make the debt uncollectable. Therefore, the OP still has a "credit relationship" with the creditor. Therefore, the creditor has PP.

It might be nasty, but I don't think it violates any of the laws...

I'd love to see a rule on it as well because I could site none but only imply and hope they'd give me what I wanted which they did. My fine line was based on PP. If the account in question knowingly is not being reported on any credit report and cannot be reported how can one look up an account that won't exist? To make the choice to request a check that will slightly damage a current score vs making a request that won't then challenges the idea that FCRA was created to avoid a life time of negative repercussions for a debtor. Specifically in this case past 7 1/2 years.

Edited by creonxxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Willing on this - PP does not expire even if the item falls off the CR.

However, I am a bit of a risk taker and could see a test case based on this premise...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with Willing on this - PP does not expire even if the item falls off the CR.

However, I am a bit of a risk taker and could see a test case based on this premise...

The interpretation of PP was hard for me to figure out so I did take the risk and pointed out the account in question would not and could not be reported and since the idea of pp is based on the account and here comes that risk... since all three CRA's aren't reporting it just what are they sniffing around in there for? Contact info could be acquired through a soft run but in my case that wouldn't have been needed as I'm listed in the white pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
since all three CRA's aren't reporting it just what are they sniffing around in there for?

This could be interesting then... if they can't provide any reason for pulling, then there is no permissible purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This could be interesting then... if they can't provide any reason for pulling, then there is no permissible purpose.

Exactly. I knew it was far from absolute but as you said earlier I was willing to take the risk to see if I'd get the result I wanted. Although they made sure they admitted to no wrong doing they did place the responsibility on an unnamed source who they say made an innocent error in the accounts report status. That last part leans towards my interpretation of what is considered pp.

It would be interesting to see it in court where collections states they have a right to damage a debtors credit rating for the entirety of the debt regardless of age if they so desire even if the debt is no longer being reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.