Skip tracing "Hard inquiry" disappeared

[timmyjay]

Assuming skip tracing and passive tracking debtor's cellular numbers are lawful activities, why would a collection agency rush and delete the inquiry?

[Harry Seaward]

Can you explain a little more what you're talking about? 

[timmyjay]

1. Collector (hard) pulled credit file and obtained cell phone number.

2. Collector deleted the hard inquiry.

3. Collector began to autodial cell phone 

[Harry Seaward]

If the inquiry was deleted, how do you know they pulled your file?

Only CRAs can delete inquires. They may do it at the request of whoever pulled your credit, but there should be a record of that transaction and the CRA can tell you about it.

If a collector has an account of yours, they have permissible purpose to obtain your report. If they think they may not have pulled the correct consumer file (or they pulled 10 with the same name), however, they may ask to have it deleted. Either way, that's not how inquires are supposed to work. The idea is for a consumer be aware any time their report has been obtained. Deleting the inquiry doesn't "un-obtain" the report.

[fisthardcheese]

27 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

 

If the inquiry was deleted, how do you know they pulled your file?

Only CRAs can delete inquires. They may do it at the request of whoever pulled your credit, but there should be a record of that transaction and the CRA can tell you about it.

If a collector has an account of yours, they have permissible purpose to obtain your report. If they think they may not have pulled the correct consumer file (or they pulled 10 with the same name), however, they may ask to have it deleted. Either way, that's not how inquires are supposed to work. The idea is for a consumer be aware any time their report has been obtained. Deleting the inquiry doesn't "un-obtain" the report.

Usually having a relationship with a company only givens them permission for a "soft" inquiry.  A Hard inquiry usually requires permission prior to the pull.  However, because the FCRA does not distinguish the difference, there is no legal repercussion really, but my guess is that the collector coded the pull incorrectly (like a "new account" or similar, as opposed to "account review") and either they corrected it or for some reason the CRA corrected it by simply removing the incorrect code for the pull.

[timmyjay]

Thanks for the replies. 

I know the collection agency pulled my file because the "hard" inquiry was listed on the February credit report. A few weeks later the inquiry was deleted on the March credit report. 

 

1. Collection agency pulled credit file (hard inquiry).

2. Collection agency obtained new contact information. 

3. Collection agency began to autodial cell phone .

 

[fisthardcheese]

Record the next call from them and verbally say that you revoke any prior permission to auto-dial your cell phone.  Document all calls that may come in after this.

[timmyjay]

All of the calls were documented. The consent was not obtained because the collector pilfered the cell phone number from the credit report. After the mobile number was obtained, the collector entered the number into its autodialing database, and deleted the hard inquiry to cover its trail. The collector was put on notice and agreed to remove my number from its dialing system. My question surrounds proof of consent. How long does the collector have to produce evidence the robocalls were lawful?

 

 

 

 

[Harry Seaward]

24 minutes ago, timmyjay said:

and deleted the hard inquiry to cover its trail

The collector did not delete the inquiry because this is not possible for them to do.  Only the CRA can delete an inquiry.

25 minutes ago, timmyjay said:

How long does the collector have to produce evidence the robocalls were lawful?

They will never voluntarily produce this info.  If you want to know if they have consent, you're going to have to get it via discovery when you sue them.

[BV80]

1 hour ago, timmyjay said:

All of the calls were documented. The consent was not obtained because the collector pilfered the cell phone number from the credit report. After the mobile number was obtained, the collector entered the number into its autodialing database, and deleted the hard inquiry to cover its trail. The collector was put on notice and agreed to remove my number from its dialing system. My question surrounds proof of consent. How long does the collector have to produce evidence the robocalls were lawful?

 

 

 

 

Did you ever give your number to the original creditor?

[timmyjay]

I did not give my number to the CA or the OC.  The mobile number was obtained via the hard pull. Consent was not granted, period. The CA pulled the credit report and added the new cell number to the company's autodialing database. Shortly after the CA requested the hard inquiry, the inquiry disappeared, and the robocalls began.

 

 

 

[timmyjay]

4 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

The collector did not delete the inquiry because this is not possible for them to do.  Only the CRA can delete an inquiry.

They will never voluntarily produce this info.  If you want to know if they have consent, you're going to have to get it via discovery when you sue them.

So, they will "never voluntarily" provide proof of consent? I know they did not have consent to call the cell phone; I am not a time traveler.  I am asking if they will admit to skip tracing the cell phone before I sue?  Please explain what happens during the dispute process. Do the CA's get their information from OC's or entirely new sources, such as credit reports? 

[BV80]

25 minutes ago, timmyjay said:

I did not give my number to the CA or the OC.  The mobile number was obtained via the hard pull. Consent was not granted, period. The CA pulled the credit report and added the new cell number to the company's autodialing database. Shortly after the CA requested the hard inquiry, the inquiry disappeared, and the robocalls began.

 

 

 

Do you have a landline?  If so, have they called it?

[timmyjay]

No landline and no consent.  I will call an attorney tomorrow.  

 

[BV80]

38 minutes ago, timmyjay said:

No landline and no consent.  I will call an attorney tomorrow.  

 

I guess I'm confused.  What phone number did you give the OC?

[timmyjay]

OC was given permission to call old cell number. CA pulled credit report and sniffed out new cell number. CA asked CRA to delete the hard pull. The new cell number was autodialed without consent. 

[Harry Seaward]

2 hours ago, timmyjay said:

I am asking if they will admit to skip tracing the cell phone before I sue?

I'm going to say they won't.  If you were badger them on the phone over it, they will probably dodge the question.

2 hours ago, timmyjay said:

Please explain what happens during the dispute process. Do the CA's get their information from OC's or entirely new sources, such as credit reports? 

For an FDCPA dispute, the FDCPA says a CA is supposed to "obtain" verification of a debt.  This is generally interpreted to mean they go back to the owner of the debt to get some tangible evidence of the debt.  This type of dispute has nothing to do with phone numbers or contact information.

For an FCRA dispute, the CRA has to "verify" with the data furnisher the debt is valid.  The CRA is also supposed to conduct their own investigation based on information and documentation you provide.  Again, this has nothing to do with phone numbers.

How they got your current phone number is not disputable under either act.  If your allegation is that they obtained your credit report without permissible purpose, your remedy is to sue them.  Since they have an account of yours, they have permissible purpose, so I would expect this to blow up in your face.  If your allegation is they robocalled called your cell phone without your consent, your remedy again is to sue them. Since you gave them permission to call a cell phone, I'm certain a court would find the original consent extends to any future cell phones used by you unless you expressly revoked that consent.

Quote

CA asked CRA to delete the hard pull.

I seriously doubt this happened.  The CRA would be in violation of the FCRA if they complied with the CA's request.  If you allege this is the case, your remedy is, you guessed it, a lawsuit against the CRA.

[timmyjay]

1 hour ago, Harry Seaward said:

 

I seriously doubt this happened.  

Ok.