Jump to content

LVNV doing a hard pull on my credit report


Recommended Posts

A hard pull is a pull disclosed-to-others and not permitted by other than creditors or insurers for the most part. The dismissal and any stip may come into play as to whether a soft or not-disclosed-to-others pull is allowed.

 

@Credator

 

If LVNV simply agreed to dismiss with prejudice (no court ruling) and offered nothing else, then they simply agreed not to sue again.   That doesn't necessarily mean they can't attempt to collect outside of court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the ID theft alert on my credit, they alerted me to the hard pull.  They dismissed with prejudice at trial, judge had ruled on my MIL stating it was partially granted, partially denied.  the order said partially denied until such evidence is entered, and would be ruled on at that time.  So they dismissed with prejudice, technically it was before trial, so the judge didn't need to rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BV80



A hard pull is a pull disclosed-to-others and not permitted by other than creditors or insurers for the most part. The dismissal and any stip may come into play as to whether a soft or not-disclosed-to-others pull is allowed.

 



@Credator

 

If LVNV simply agreed to dismiss with prejudice (no court ruling) and offered nothing else, then they simply agreed not to sue again.   That doesn't necessarily mean they can't attempt to collect outside of court.

Yes. That is how I understand it.

 

The dismissal order (if any) and the stipulation (if any) determines where to take this train. A disclosed (hard) pull is highly unlikely to be a permissible act to a party not extending credit or insurance to a requesting consumer. The permissibility of a disclosed (soft) pull is an unknown until a vetting of the dismissal order and stipulation. Would *I* be concerned about a soft pull by a party still permitted to collect outside of court? Probably not. I might drop them a courtesy note to knock it off if I had a stip for a complete release of liability that they were violating.

 

An unauthorized hard pull by a JDB is an attempt to poison a consumer's credit file IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@shellieh98

 

The judge didn't rule that you didn't owe the money or that they didn't own the account.  LVNV made no stipulations as to their agreement to dismiss with prejudice. 

 

Unfortunately, since there's no ruling from the court that determined you don't owe the money or that LVNV doesn't own the account, I'm not sure that they can't make a hard pull on your CR because the collection of a debt is a permissible purpose.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Credator

 

A disclosed (hard) pull is highly unlikely to be a permissible act to a party not extending credit or insurance to a requesting consumer.

 

This gets into the "assignee steps into the shoes of the creditor" arena.  Assignees have the rights of the original creditors.  Also, debt collection is a permissible purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Credator

 

 

This gets into the "assignee steps into the shoes of the creditor" arena.  Assignees have the rights of the original creditors.  Also, debt collection is a permissible purpose.

@BV80

 

Are you aware of any case law that supports that a creditor (or assignee) is allowed to make a disclosed (hard) pulls with no insurance or credit being requested by the consumer? Such case law would clearly seem to controvert the statute regarding disclosed pulls.

 

JDBs or alleged debt assignees are not in the business of extending credit or insurance upon consumer request.

 

Yes, it is permissible for a creditor (and I would believe a legitimate assignee standing in their shoes) to do a non-disclosed (soft) pull for collection purposes. The creditors do so from my experience. Disclosed (hard) pulls are only triggered when the consumer requests credit or insurance. Such a request did not occur in this case AFAIK. I don't know how an assignment, stepping into shoes or any other theory would mysteriously allow an assignee to do what the upstream creditor is barred from doing.

 

I would not fight a non-disclosed (soft) pull as I understand the circumstances here. *I* would expend effort to get a disclosed (hard) pull removed, assuming I desired to clean up my credit file. If the credit  file serves me best by being unattractive for possible future litigious collectors I would probably leave it for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Credator

 

The FCRA does not distinguish between a hard and soft pull.  It merely lists permissible purposes.  "Review or collection of an account" is one of those purposes.

Some people believe that the FCRA does not distinguish between a disclosed and a non-disclosed to other than consumer credit pulls.

 

I am not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BV80



@Credator

 

I can understand that belief.  But where does the FCRA make that distinguishment?

U.S. Code TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER III

§ 1681b

and

§ 1681g

15 USC § 1681b - Permissible purposes of consumer reports

( c ) Furnishing reports in connection with credit or insurance transactions that are not initiated by consumer

(3) Information regarding inquiries

Except as provided in section 1681g (a)(5) of this title, a consumer reporting agency shall not furnish to any person a record of inquiries in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by a consumer.

 

 15 USC § 1681g - Disclosures to consumers

(a) Information on file; sources; report recipients

Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request, and subject to section 1681h (a)(1) of this title, clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer:

(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.

 

IMO it would be absurd to believe that the clear wording of 15 USC § 1681 that, "...,a consumer reporting agency shall not furnish to any person a record of inquiries in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by a consumer." was somehow intended to permit an OC or a tertiary debt buyer to run down (or threaten to run down) a consumer credit score through the repeated use of disclosed-to-other-than-consumer credit inquiries/pull, all based on a one time credit transaction initiated by the consumer 10 years prior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the title of 1681b©:  Furnishing reports in connection with credit or insurance transactions that are not initiated by consumer.

 

1681a - Definitions; rules of construction.

 

(m) Credit or Insurance Transaction That Is Not Initiated by the Consumer.— 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.

 

1681b©(3) does not apply to accounts which you opened and used.  In addition, that section is a requirement on the CRAs, not the furnishers. 

 

It says "a consumer reporting agency shall not furnish to any person a record of inquiries in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by a consumer."

 

It says what the CRA cannot do.  It simply means that a CRA can't provide a report to someone that contains a list of inquiries that were not based upon insurance or credit transactions initiated by you. 

 

IMO it would be absurd to believe that the clear wording of 15 USC § 1681 that, "...,a consumer reporting agency shall not furnish to any person a record of inquiries in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by a consumer." was somehow intended to permit an OC or a tertiary debt buyer to run down (or threaten to run down) a consumer credit score through the repeated use of disclosed-to-other-than-consumer credit inquiries/pull, all based on a one time credit transaction initiated by the consumer 10 years prior.

 

It doesn't matter when the consumer opened the account (initiated the transaction).   What matters is when the account went into default.  In fact, that's what the reporting period is based upon.  It doesn't matter how old the account is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BV80

 

Thanks for the clarification that the FCRA definition:

1681a - Definitions; rules of construction.
(m) Credit or Insurance Transaction That Is Not Initiated by the Consumer.

replaces any meaningful or common sense definition of the phrase, "transaction that is not initiated by a consumer."

 

I stand corrected. ALWAYS read the definitions in the statutes.

 

The intent was an absurdity. There is no bar to a furnisher making multiple inquires against the consumer credit file with the CRAs disclosing (hard) them and dragging the consumer credit score down based on permissible collections or account review.

 

Of course a bar to a CRA disclosing a list of inquiries would mean that I would not be too concerned with furnisher inquires. That bar to the CRAs appears to be lacking and I am shocked that collectors and OCs have not been even more abusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Credator

 

I'm not sure that a creditor or JDB could make numerous inquiries within a short period of time.  For instance, I'm not sure they could make weekly inquiries.  What would be the purpose?   I would think that would be considered abusive.

 

However, I don't know if any courts have ruled on the issue of frequency of inquiries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I know I really pissed the guy off at LVNV, he's probably doing it on purpose. Mind you this account was settled with the OC, then sold anyway, it was the principal of the thing. This is also the same company trying to collect on my aunt who settled her account. One of the reasons I am so passionate that these guys lose, they are abusive, and once they get a wife if a defaulted account don't hesitate to collect on them over and over. I wonder how many people have paid 2 and 3 times for the same account.

I might send them a note telling them I consider this collection activity, and cease and desist. They can't sue me again. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I know I really pissed the guy off at LVNV, he's probably doing it on purpose. Mind you this account was settled with the OC, then sold anyway, it was the principal of the thing. This is also the same company trying to collect on my aunt who settled her account. One of the reasons I am so passionate that these guys lose, they are abusive, and once they get a wife if a defaulted account don't hesitate to collect on them over and over. I wonder how many people have paid 2 and 3 times for the same account.

I might send them a note telling them I consider this collection activity, and cease and desist. They can't sue me again. :-)

Don't see the harm.

They might appreciate a BBB complaint if they continue abusive behavior. There might be other ways to assist in reducing abuses if one were to give it some thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Credator

 

I'm not sure that a creditor or JDB could make numerous inquiries within a short period of time.  For instance, I'm not sure they could make weekly inquiries.  What would be the purpose?   I would think that would be considered abusive.

 

However, I don't know if any courts have ruled on the issue of frequency of inquiries.

For inquiries that hang around for two years I doubt the frequency would need to be anything approaching weekly to accomplish the damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LVNV and its group of companies make unauthorized hard inquiries on consumers to force communication with debtors. Of course you'll want to contact the debt collector to inquire why they've requested your credit report.  Once you begin communicating with the debt collector, thats when they attempt to negotiate or renegoiate a debt with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BV80 I lost the stipulation letter (I didn't know crap then in 2010), but had the payment records. I settled 3 accounts with chase, they listed 2 as settled, and one got sold off even though it was part of the package deal on all 3 accounts. Payments to their CA were made, and when I tried to get a copy of the stipulation letter from them when L vnv sued me, they kept telling me they would have the manager contact me, of coarse they never did. I tried for 3 months to get a copy from them.

I keep everything financial now in. Box lol. At least I know I will have it, but finding it in that box may take awhile. ;)

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.