Credit Report question

Would they have been collecting on a debt?

That is where I am not sure. If it was wouldn't I have heard something from them by now? I am going to go do a search on the lawyer and see what comes up. I just thought for someone to do a hard pull they had to have something like "permissable purpose" (if that's what it's called)and I would like to know what purpose the lawyer has. Thanks

They do need to have PP but collecting a debt MAY be the PP they need. A recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that debt collection by itself is NOT a PP, they ruled that the debt must have resulted from a "voluntary credit transaction". I realize that most collection attempts originate from voluntary credit transactions (credit cards, installment loans ETC).

What is not PP according to the decision is towed vehicles (which is what started the suit), certain bad checks ETC, if their is no voluntary credit there is no PP.

If you do a google search for Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Association you'll find a bunch of information on the decision of the court.

If there is a chance this attorney may own one of your debts I wouldn't contact him about the PP unless you want to pay this debt and get it over with. He's not actively trying to collect it, so if you send him a PP letter he'd probably turn around and show you he has PP then either start actively trying to collect or just sue. In other words, Let sleeping dogs lie, unless you can pay it.

But to get it off the report don't you have to take some kind of action? What if it was done in error?

What about going to the CRA? They ought to be able to explain what the PP was, at very least.

The CRA won't know what the PP was. In the past you could dispute hard pulls, not anymore from what I've read. You have to get whomever pulled it to remove it, which is BS.

momm, there are non PP letters that you can send but like I said, I don't know if it's such a good idea if there is really a debt there and they are not actively collecting it.

If it was truly done in error and you owe no debt I'd send one of the letters below.


Re: Unauthorized Credit Inquiry

Dear XXXXXXXXXXX,

I recently received a copy of my (whatever one of the three) credit report. The credit
report showed a credit inquiry by your company that I do not recall
authorizing. I understand that you shouldn't be allowed to put an
inquiry on my file unless I have authorized it. Please have this
inquiry removed from my credit file because it is making it very
difficult for me to acquire credit.

I have sent this letter certified mail because I need your prompt
response to this issue. Please be so kind as to forward me
documentation that you have had the unauthorized inquiry removed.

If you find that I am remiss, and you did have my authorization to
inquire into my credit report, then please send me proof of this.

Thanking you in advance,


-Debtor

Or the nasty one:

Name
Address
City State Zip Code

To Whom It May Concern:

I have noticed that you have placed an inquiry on my _________ credit file dated ________. As you probably know, Credit Reporting Agencies treat inquiries as a statement of fact and will not allow a consumer to dispute them. Since it is against federal law (Fair Credit Reporting Act -- 15 USC ????1681b) for an entity to view a consumer????????s credit report without a "permissible purpose," I am writing to inquire as to your alleged purpose, for doing so since I did not apply for employment with your organization nor did I request credit from your organization.

[Describe any additional details about the inquiry here if need be. For example, your a subscriber to My Credit Keeper and Trilegiant pulled a "hard inquiry" on one of your reports.]

Based on the evidence in my possession, this inquiry was performed under false pretenses as described in the clear language of the law. 15 USC ????1681n(a)(1)(B ) states, in part, "in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or $1,000, whichever is greater;"

You are civilly liable to me in the amount of $1,000.00 for your willful violation of the law -- performing a "hard inquiry" on my __________ file without my permission. I do hope that we can settle this matter amicably. You can remove the inquiry within one (1) business day of the receipt of this notice. Or, we can meet in court where you will end up removing the inquiry, paying me the civil liability fine, punitive damages for my score drop, plus court and attorney fees. The choice is up to you.

Please contact me immediately at the address listed below.

Sincerely,

Consumer
Address
City State Zip Code

Damn, LG!

You write those? I like the nasty version better, BTW. And never admit in a first letter, even in passing, that you may be suffering a setback due to this.

Quote:

Nah man I didn't write them, I had them bookmarked and changed the wording a tiny bit as per site policy.

I don't think admitting in the first letter that the non PP is hurting you is a bad thing if it was truly an accidental non PP. If I did owe them money and they were using the hard pulls as intimidation I'd start with the nasty one.

Thanks everyone for the advice on this.
I do not know if this lawyer is collecting a debt and I DO NOT plan on calling him to find out why they were on there. If I hear from them great, if not even better.

I think I would want to know why they think they had right to pull info from your report and would pursue this (unless you have a suspicion as to why they might have shown up on report and don't want to open up a can of worms)..waiting to hear from someone on this if you don't think you owe anything.. I think might mean you will KEEP hearing from it years and years later even when it is out of SOL..(once junk debt buyer's get a hold of whatever it may or may not be)..nipping it in the bud would be your best bet I would think...if it is on your report already it is best not to ignore..I may be wrong but I don't think you should simply ignore this..you already heard from them through the back door on your credit report..you should now ring their bell and..find out what this is about and then decide whether to ignore or not..just my opinion..good luck whatever you decide to do! but I sincerely think your attitude at this point should be...

Equifax.com has information on their site, see "who can see my credit report". It states that CA's can see someone's credit report without that person's permission. That doesn't seem right. :evil: :evil: