Jump to content

Commercial Recovery SYS just made hard inquery without permission


farrier
 Share

Recommended Posts

I do not, and have never had a collection account with their name on it on my credit report.

 

Identity Gaurd notified they hard-pulled my credit today.

 

I have never ever had any letters or contacts with this company.

 

Should I verify, validate, or just draw up an intent to sue letter?

 

Or is there something else I should do first?

 

Please help, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had my fair share of prior medical collections.... but nothing new. At least not anything I've not already dealt with in the last 4-5 years.

 

I have had absolutly no CCs that were not secured in about 10 years.

 

I have had a Capital One secured card for about 3 years, keeping everything good.

 

Only very recently, I obtained a Nebraska Furntinture Mart $500 credit limit, within the last two months. I have very very little on this.

 

In 2005, I bought a home that was sold to me under fraudulent conditions by multiple real estate people hiding severe problems (raw sewage from a purposefuly installed overflow pipe into the crawl space, black mold, smart board to cover up all the mold in the walls, undisclosed insurance claims...etc..etc..). It was a USDA ruaral developmemt loan, so it was government backed. I didn't live in it but a week without having issues that made this home uninhabitable. Purchase price: about $90K... amount Dept. Treasury took after forclosure: $48k + 7 years later $5k because they transferred it to a CA with only $1-2K left (that is the amount left when they tacked on the extra $5k). We spent 5 years in court, one bad attorney, one great one... got nowhere. Judge wouldn't allow anything hardly to be heard beacause no other court cases like it in Kansas....

 

Anyways, they finally took ALL of the $53,000 total through debt set off (they took my income tax returns for the last some odd years). There is absolutely nothing left on this malarkey debt!!

 

Active accounts on CR: Cap One secured CC, NFM store CC

 

Collection Accts:

 

1 Library Collection from 2008 (the libarary told me they were excusing the late fees and didn't)

 

1 Med. Collection on all three for $350 aprox

 

2 unidentified collections (I think they are claiming Medical) on Equifax, around $170, and $70, that somehow CRA is verifying when absolutely no OC or CA is listed.

 

Here is the notification from Identity gaurd:

 

Credit Alert

New inquiry

Reporting agency Experian Date reported 06/26/2014 Company COMMERCIAL RECOVERY SYS Address 671 E 18 ST   PLANO   TX   75074 Telephone 4694538190 Industry Collections Agencies Type INSTI

 

 

I have recieved no letters, no phone calls, nothing from this company.

 

The Only other thing I can think of is that, multiple times I have had to get an adress from Indiana off my CRs multiple times because someone with the same name.

 

I cannot think of any reason they would pull my credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had never in your life had any bad debts or anything go to collection, I'd say ITS may be appropriate.  Yours is not that case, though.  Just because a debt goes past the SOL for collecting and reporting does not make the debt go away.  It's called zombie debt.  They cannot (legally) place the item on your report and if they sue, you could use the SOL as an affirmative defense, but the debt is still owed until it's paid, and the debt can legally change hands from now until the end of time.  If a CA/JDB has one of these debts, they have permissible purpose to pull your reports.

 

You also have some items actively showing on your reports that this could be related to.

 

I'd start with a CRA dispute.  If it comes back verified, do a 623 dispute directly with CRS and see what they say it is.  In light of all the background info you provided, it could be a legit inquiry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While some advocate against it, I'd call Commercial Recovery admitting nothing and ask why they did a hard pull on your reports and get an idea who the OC is. Tell them you have received no notice in the mail and to send a dunning letter so you can investigate the alleged debt.  Then you have info to draw on to dispute or fight with if needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A JDB/CA will pull your CR if they are contemplating buying your account. This way they will know if they have a chance of collecting or not, plus, to see if it's worth the bother or not. So, yes, you could say that they do have PP. Had one do that on me a couple of years ago, they ended up not buying my account.......wasn't worth it to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A JDB/CA will pull your CR if they are contemplating buying your account.

 

That is NOT a permissible pull.  Perhaps that is why LVNV pulled my report and that is why I was able to delete it.  Until they actually own the debt or take its assignment for collections they have absolutely NO basis to be pulling credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is, IMHO, one of the holes in the FCRA.

 

Account Management is a permissible purpose for a SOFT pull, not a hard pull.  Hard pulls are allowed only when the consumer makes a request for credit, or an increase in credit.  I submit that a JDB who claims to have "stepped into the shoes" of an OC has only the right to Account Management pulls.  I don't know if that argument gets you anything but that's my take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, until the OP calls, we don't know squat.

 

They do not have to call them or know squat to dispute it.  I never called LVNV to ask why they did a hard pull.  I don't care.  I don't owe them any money, they have no permissible reason to do a credit pull therefore the inquiry was not allowed.  A simple dispute with the CRAs got it removed.

 

Who cares WHY they did it if it isn't allowed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are collecting for the debt it IS allowed. information is ammo. Calling doesn't hurt and it will give you idea of what the issue is! Then you can decide how to fight. Sure, you can waste a couple of weeks going the dispute route and find that they Do have permissible purpose or possibly not. I simply hate wasting time. I go directly to the source of the problem.

 

If you find they are in error then you can slam them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Harkins v. Diversified Collection Services, (D. Maryland 2012),  the court discusses when a "hard pull" could be a FCRA violation.  In this particular case, the court held no violation had occurred.

 

 

A. Fair Credit Reporting Act

 

Taken as true, the factual allegations in the Complaint as it stands do not state anFCRA claim. They indicate only that DCS pulled a credit report on Harkins in furtherance of collecting a debt from him. A credit reporting agency, however, may provide a credit report to a third party for "a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving...collection of an account of, the consumer." 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A) (2010). If the consumer has not already initiated the credit transaction in question, the third party must obtain his authorization prior to pulling his credit report. § 1681b©(1). In any event, the third party must possess a permissible purpose for pulling the credit report and provide "a general or specific certification" of that purpose to the credit reporting agency. § 1681b(f). As long as the third party has reason to believe that it has a permissible purpose in obtaining the report, it has not violated the FCRAKorotki v. Attorney Services Corp., Inc., 931 F.Supp. 1269, 1276 (D. Md. 1996) (internal citations omitted). Ironclad proof of the consumer's indebtedness is not required for the third party to satisfy the permissible purpose requirement. Id. To obtain proper certification, credit reporting agencies need only require third party requesters to "identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose." § 1681e(a). To prevail on the theory of willful violation of the FCRA, the plaintiff must "show that the defendant knowingly and intentionally committed an act in conscious disregard for the rights of the consumer." Ausherman v. Bank of America Corp., 352 F.3d 896, 900 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted). To succeed on a claim for negligent violation of the FCRA, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the defendant owed him a duty. Id. at 901. The current Complaint does not do either of these things.

Harkins must allege that DCS failed to meet one of the above statutory requirements in order to succeed on his FCRA claim. He must also set forth specific facts or evidence as to his financial status, before and after the pull, buttressed by reference to such documents as tax statements or financial records, in order to suggest the non-existence of a debt and thereby indicate that it had no reason to believe that it was the holder in due course of any debt. Alternatively, Harkins might provide factual statements to the effect that he never directly authorized DCS or any entity to obtain a credit report without his knowledge, or he might allege, based on knowledge, information, and reasonable belief, that DCS failed to provide Experian with appropriate certification in support of its request for Harkins' credit information or that it pulled his credit report for a purpose other than to collect on a debt. In short, Harkins must allude to facts beyond merely declaring that DCS failed to validate the debt, more particularly facts suggesting its knowledge or intention to defraud Harkins. As for his negligence claim under the FCRA, Harkins must include facts demonstrating that DCS owed him a legal duty, such as the existence of a contract showing a legal relationship between him and DCS, how this duty was breached, and how, as a result, he was harmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got to looking back at other items on my reports, they did it a year ago also; a month and a year apart, they pulled my credit twice, with no other form of communication at all. It has my current address, it had it last year. I would think it is also like the statute that states they can only call a neighbor/relatives once for location purposes.

 

So, what about the fact that DC are supposed to notify you within 5 days of placing anything on your CR?

 

Shouldn't they have to try to contact you for any collection activity? I consider it harassment and purposeful defamation of character/credit, even if/especially if, there is some, unknown debt to me; if there is a valid debt purposefully damaging my credit report by pulling it multiple times isn't collection activity. It would seem much more logical if they had my address from last year to just contact me if they had a tangible purpose, not just keep pulling my CR.

 

So.... What if I just tried to cut this off before it begins? What if I just sent them a C&D, while phrasing it something like,

 

"Dear CA, I have no debt with you, nor have I ever had any type of business or communication with your company. However, recently, I realized your scrupulous company did a hard pull on my credit report; this is not a permissible purpose per the FCRA. When I realized that you not only pulled my credit report approximately a month ago, but also about a year ago, I realized your company is just trying to intentionally, knowledgeably, and purposefully damage my credit, being that I have never had a relationship with your company, and I never intend on it. Sense you pulled my credit report a year and a month ago, and then again last month, you should have had my current address already, because it is the same now as it was last year. I know that my address was on my credit report last year when you pulled it then. Had you had any purpose other than defamation, you would have contacted me properly. I want NOTHING to do with your dishonest company. I am formally telling your company to CEASE AND DESIST and remove both hard inquiries from my credit report you made.  If there are any violations per the FCRA or the FDCPA, or any other federal law that grants me relief for your illegal behavior, I will not fail to report your violations to the FTC or any other over-site federal entity, and I will possibly invoke my right for relief under these federal statutes. I would rather you just save both of us time and money by your company just removing both hard inquiries from my credit report and CEASE AND DESIST COMPLETELY. This is an attempt to correct your company's improper actions; any information obtained will be used for that purpose. I expect to shortly be notified by my credit monitoring service you have removed the hard inquiries. I also hope you delete, shred, or otherwise properly get rid of any of my personal information in your possession, as you have no right to it.

Thank you

signed me"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got to looking back at other items on my reports, they did it a year ago also; a month and a year apart, they pulled my credit twice, with no other form of communication at all. It has my current address, it had it last year. I would think it is also like the statute that states they can only call a neighbor/relatives once for location purposes.

 

They can pull your credit if they have a permissible purpose.  It has nothing to do with skip tracing you.  

 

So, what about the fact that DC are supposed to notify you within 5 days of placing anything on your CR?

 

There is no requirement that they do that.  The bureaus are required to notify you if a disputed trade line that was removed is going to be reinserted within 5 days.

 

Shouldn't they have to try to contact you for any collection activity? 

 

You would think but no.  Reporting a trade line or pulling your credit is not considered collection activity.

 

I consider it harassment and purposeful defamation of character/credit, even if/especially if, there is some, unknown debt to me; if there is a valid debt purposefully damaging my credit report by pulling it multiple times isn't collection activity. It would seem much more logical if they had my address from last year to just contact me if they had a tangible purpose, not just keep pulling my CR.

 

Unfortunately you are not going to find case law that agrees with you.  The reality is as long as they have a permissible purpose they can pull your  credit and it has not been proven to be collection activity.  The courts are divided on whether a trade line reporting is even collection activity.  Until SCOTUS issues a definitive ruling on the matter you have a 50/50 chance on prevailing if you sued under this premise.

 

So.... What if I just tried to cut this off before it begins? What if I just sent them a C&D, while phrasing it something like,

 

The ONLY thing that letter will get is a huge round of laughter at the collection agency.  It is nothing by anger and hollow threats that are not based in the law what so ever.  It might even land on the company bulletin board or newsletter to boost company morale and encourage them to continue the good work they do.

 

I am formally telling your company to CEASE AND DESIST and remove both hard inquiries from my credit report you made.  If there are any violations per the FCRA or the FDCPA, or any other federal law that grants me relief for your illegal behavior, I will not fail to report your violations to the FTC or any other over-site federal entity, and I will possibly invoke my right for relief under these federal statutes. I would rather you just save both of us time and money by your company just removing both hard inquiries from my credit report and CEASE AND DESIST COMPLETELY. This is an attempt to correct your company's improper actions; any information obtained will be used for that purpose. I expect to shortly be notified by my credit monitoring service you have removed the hard inquiries. I also hope you delete, shred, or otherwise properly get rid of any of my personal information in your possession, as you have no right to it.

Thank you

signed me"

 

There is no basis in the FCRA or FCDPA that they do ANY of this.  Cease and desist means they can no longer call or write to you it has NOTHING to do with the hard pull.  

 

You can dispute the pull with the CRAs and make them prove they have a permissible purpose.  A CFPB complaint will do the exact same thing.  Beyond that you are stuck unless you actually want to speak to them which I think would be a HUGE mistake.  If the pull isn't permissible they will not be able to prove it and may not respond to the CRAs which will get it deleted (worked for me with LVNV) or the CFPB threat will send them running to retract it.  Its up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until SCOTUS issues a definitive ruling on the matter you have a 50/50 chance on prevailing if you sued under this premise.

It's based on how your district has ruled.  If your district courts have found it to be collection activity, it is a violation.  If they have found it to not be collection activity, it's not a violation.  If they have not ruled either way, THEN it could be a 50/50, but even at that, you might be able to get a feel for how your district would rule based on how they have interpreted law from other districts.  In other words, if your district tends to adopt its rulings on first impression cases from some other district, you can see if that district has ruled one way or another and extrapolate how your district will rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 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.