That's a good question. I'm not sure what is the answer. I'll do some research and get back to you if I discover an anything. You should email the people at Lending Tree as they probably could help you..

If it's in requests viewed by others, it's a hard, and does affect your score...

Here's the original story:.

We returned a leased vehicle back to the original dealer, on time, with never have been late on a single payment. That was Dec. 2001. They never mentioned a word about the $275 "disposition fee" at that time, and I assumed the last online payment I made to Chrysler may have taken care of that. Well, not a word from them until exactly a year later, Dec. 2002, we got a phone call from Chrysler regarding the balance remaining on the acct.

Now it's been turned over to CA and I'll agree to pay the thing off, but I want any kind of negative TL removed from CR because we're in the market for a new vehicle and we don't those "red flags" showing up on CR..

Have I got any recourse for the OC not properly notifying us, even though it did have a clause in the original contract about the disposition fee? I don't know where to look, but maybe in the Fair Credit laws there is info about how creditors are supposed to properly notify customers of their debt?.

Back to the original post, why did the CA have to run an Inquiry on me? Can I request them to remove it from CRA's reports? or should I dispute this inquiry with the CRA's myself?.

This board is great and this whole "credit score" thingie has become a new "hobby",,, even though everyone should always keep up with their credit scores..

Thanks for any advise!.

Bruce..

Oh, the CA's inquiry was definetly a "hard inquiry"...

Bruce,.

I don't think it's in the FCRA, and this is just a guess, you may need to look at the FCBA to see if they committed any violations. I think there is a link in the FAQ's to the statute, if not, I believe you can find it at the FDIC site..

The hard inquiry for collection purposes is what I am trying to get people's thoughts on. A collection is not a consumer inititated transaction, IMHO, and my thinking is the CRAs are in violation of the FCRA by recording it as such..

I couldn't possibly be the first person that has thought about this, and was hoping to find out if anybody has tried it, and what were their results. If I don't hear anything I will use DH's TU report and write a letter. I dearly love using him as the guinea pig...

Jlynn, Thanks for posting this question! I had a similiar comment the other day and someone stated that a CA could pull the report (Hard Inquiry) and it was a permissible purpose because they were attempting to collect a debt by OC. I thought I will try to locate the thread and post the link..

*scratching my head, wondering what thread??*..

Groannn it was probably me! LOL. I reread this section, and it got me thinking.....

Quote:.

The two problems I was referring to for RMA are: 1 - No permissible purpose for obtaining my report; and.

I am well aware of what you imagined might be a problem. The problem is not them, it is you. Sorry to let you in on the facts of life, but collections is a permissable purpose, not an impermissable purpose...

I had to take the name out!.

I have an inquiry from NCO Group, but they are not listed on my report as a CA nor have they contacted me concerning any of my accounts. I am going to mail them a validation request for accessing my report and see what they say. If it comes back they were attempting to collect a debt, I will send "validation" on the debt...

Msbandit,.

I had the same thing happen to my husbands report. Cavalry Investments pulled it 2 times (soft pulls coded as AR). They are not on his report and have never contacted us. I even called them, and they did not have his name or SS# on file. Guy said, "Don't know why we pulled his report; must have been a mistake.".

I sent them a asking for their Permissible Purpose or for $2000 for their violations. Haven't heard back yet. Keep your fingers crossed. Good Luck to you...

Thanks, KAK! I will update once I hear back. I haven't read any good stories about NCO on here...

I know one good story about NCO. They've been know to use a different company name when making inquiries - at times the name of companies they've acquired [ CRMC, for example ]. It's a no-no defined by the FDCPA 807. False or misleading representations:.

(14) The use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector's business, company, or organization...

From the FCRA, 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports:.

(a)any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other:.

(3) To a person which it has reason to believe.

(A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or.

Review or collection of an account of, the consumer..

And the Experian's Credit Expert site:.

REQUESTS VIEWED BY OTHERS lists all who have requested in the recent past to review your credit history as a result of actions involving you, such as the completion of a credit application or.

The transfer of an account to a collection agency,.

Application for insurance, Lending Tree mortgage or Lending Tree loan application, etc. If any are listed, other creditors may view these requests when evaluating your creditworthiness..

So Experian seems to give a CA a HARD for the first inquiry...

But I have TWO "hards" from NCO.......and they are not listed on my report anywhere...

I agree under the FCRA that they have a permissable purpose to pull your report. I'm just beginning to think it shouldn't be a hard since it is not a "consumer initiated transaction", and they can't furnish a record of inquiries that are not..

The transfer of an account to a collection agency,.

Application for insurance, Lending Tree mortgage or Lending Tree loan application, etc. If any are listed, other creditors may view these requests when evaluating your creditworthiness..

So Experian seems to give a CA a HARD for the first inquiry...

It is advantageous to us as it creates a standard that is not defined in the FCRA. By publishing the standard, you have something to leverage, if XYZ CA puts multiple HARDs on your report..

I feel MUCH more comfortable having a CRA say this can happen ONCE rather than leave the issue open to interpretation...

I'm with you jlynn, anything Exp says, especially when they "interpret" the FCRA, is highly suspect..

BTW, I have three hards from the same CA, three months in a row, back from 2001. So this contradicts Exp's own claims in their silly little creditexpert explanation..

IMHO, I don't think CA's should be able to pull hards. I think CA's do it out of spite. CRA's should not let them this do this, but they probably collect more $$ for hard inquiries?..

The only difference between a hard and a soft (with the exception of PRMs), is one is seen by others, the other isn't...

I think we are all going to be in a **lot of trouble** if we rely on the EVIL EXP to create standards and intrepret parts of the FCRA where it is somewhat vague...

I'm not seeing where you are getting the "once"?..

I believe the language ties AN action [ credit application, transfer of account to CA, etc. ] to AN inquiry...

Well darn, I have shot down my own theory again. I went to the definitions section of the FCRA:.

(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..

I guess they can pull hards whenever they want. That stinks...