What can you do about a hard pull on your cr?

Lecasbas · 09-17-2007, 05:59 PM

Every hard pull from a collection agency adds points to your score.

I understand that the first thing a debtor should do is dispute the Bad Debt if it appears on the cr. Well... I couldn't do that because the Bad Debt never appeared on my cr. The ca which did the hard pull eventually sued. The Court dismissed the claim. The points from the hard pull are still being applied to my credit score. Am I stuck with this hard pull, for what, 3 years...or is there something I can do to get rid of it?

Hedwig · 09-17-2007, 06:25 PM

It only stays on for two years. After six months, the impact is minimal.

Lecasbas · 09-17-2007, 06:42 PM

Still, there is nothing worthwhile I can do about it except to wait for the 2 years to pass?

Enigma · 09-17-2007, 06:57 PM

The case was dismissed or did the judge issue a verdict in your favor? What was the exact wording?

spinn · 09-17-2007, 07:01 PM

I have disputed those with Equifax saying I never requested credit from this firm and they deleted the pull every time.

With TU and EXP, that has worked about 65% of the time.

centex · 09-17-2007, 07:14 PM

Dismissal of a claim does not carry a presumption that permissible purpose did not exist. There are different burdens that must be satisfied to satisfy permissible purpose versus judgment-plaintiff.

And, FWIW, if it RAISED your score, then you were not harmed. I seem to recall someone else who stupidly filed an Original Petition, claiming in part, that they were harmed by the impact of an increased FICO score.

Lecasbas · 09-17-2007, 07:17 PM

Original post by: Enigma

Quote:

The case was dismissed or did the judge issue a verdict in your favor? What was the exact wording?

Plaintiff's claim was Dismissed without prejudice.

I understand that with prejudice is better because the Plaintiff could not bring its claim forward again. Regardless, the claim was dismissed due to the fact that the ca was given fair warning by the Court that it expected assignment. I don't think the ca will be back and I'd like to have the hard pull removed.

Original post by: spinn

Quote:

I have disputed those with Equifax saying I never requested credit from this firm and they deleted the pull every time.

With TU and EXP, that has worked about 65% of the time.

Just that simple? No documentation? I thought I'd have to send a copy of the dismissal or something.

Lecasbas · 09-17-2007, 07:22 PM

Original post by: centex

Quote:

And, FWIW, if it RAISED your score, then you were not harmed. I seem to recall someone else who stupidly filed an Original Petition, claiming in part, that they were harmed by the impact of an increased FICO score.

Oops, sorry. I should have said lessened my score.

jlynn · 09-17-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lecasbas

Just that simple? No documentation? I thought I'd have to send a copy of the dismissal or something.

While Spinn's approach has been known to work, please be aware there are no guarantees.

spinn · 09-17-2007, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lecasbas

Original post by: Enigma

Original post by: spinn

Just that simple? No documentation? I thought I'd have to send a copy of the dismissal or something.

You are disputing the hard pull....that is what the thread is about.

ANd Jlynn is right its not guaranteed...but you have nothing to lose by trying.

Qtip · 09-17-2007, 11:54 PM

I never had success with experian disputing an inquiry. Always got the good old "an inquiry is a statement of fact" someone seen your file and cannot be disputed.

Lecasbas · 09-19-2007, 03:54 PM

I have a couple of more questions which follow the theme of this thread

Why do the ca's get a copy of a debtor's cr anyway? So far, I've had 6 hard pulls and none of those people have ever ostensibly used the information in their pursuit of a Bad Debt. 3 are now gone due to the cra's SOL but 3 remain.

I am going to attempt to extrapolate from this:

Original post by: centex

Quote:

Dismissal of a claim does not carry a presumption that permissible purpose did not exist. There are different burdens that must be satisfied to satisfy permissible purpose versus judgment-plaintiff.

Permissible purpose, in my case, would mean that a ca is able to do a hard pull whenever it is given assignment of a Bad Debt? If this is correct, how often can it do a hard pull? Is is okay for the ca to do a hard pull then 4 months later a lawyer it retained to do another hard pull?

centex · 09-19-2007, 04:09 PM

Lets make this simple...if the third party holds an account of yours that they are seeking to collect, then generally speaking, they have permissible purpose to access your report. Beyond that, I would suggest that a case-by-case evaluation is warranted because this can quickly get into the grey areas in which no absolutes exist.

jlynn · 09-19-2007, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lecasbas

I have a couple of more questions which follow the theme of this thread

Why do the ca's get a copy of a debtor's cr anyway?

1. To verify your address 2. To see if you are credit active and appear to be able to pay if they squeeze hard enough. 3. To see if you might have filed BK and they best throw you into the trash pile. 4. To see if you have bailed on every creditor known to man so they can decide if you are worth the man hours to pursue. Lots of reasons for them to look at a report.

Quote:

So far, I've had 6 hard pulls and none of those people have ever ostensibly used the information in their pursuit of a Bad Debt. 3 are now gone due to the cra's SOL but 3 remain.

Just because they didn't specifically tell you they used the credit report, doesn't mean they didn't. Debt collections is a numbers game, and you may have scored high enough to be pursued, or so low they never even bothered. FWIW just because 7 years is up, does not mean bottom feeders can't try and collect, they just can't legally report. I also do not think (research required) that they ever give up permissible purpose. Search on screen name Rikers. He had a friend that someone recently attempted to collect a debt from that dates back to the 1960's...if memory serves me correctly.

Quote:

Permissible purpose, in my case, would mean that a ca is able to do a hard pull whenever it is given assignment of a Bad Debt?

Not just in your case, but rather in any consumer's case.

Quote:

If this is correct, how often can it do a hard pull?

Nobody that I have heard about has ever fought and won or lost that battle to determine a number. The statute itself is silent.

Quote:

then 4 months later a lawyer it retained to do another hard pull?

I seem to remember an FDCPA Opinion letter that says Litigation (assuming this is the lawyer that sued you) is NOT a permissible purpose. Be advised, FDCPA Opinion Letters are merely interesting reading they carry no weight in 99.9% of the courts. However, it is something worth researching to see if someone ever won or lost that battle.

rubyruby27 · 09-19-2007, 09:18 PM

I have read case law that attorney's do not have permissible purpose to pull. Without researching it I can't give you the case but look through the case law on this site.

I have an attorney that pulled and researched this area, I spoke with an attorney regarding this issue and they also said its a violation. I am in Florida, the case laws were Federal .

When I read a case and think it applies to something I might need I copy the case but I don't organize it by the type of case, for me to research my files it would take me days to find almost anything unless I remember the case for some reason.

Sorry I can't help more than that, but the info is out there.

Lecasbas · 09-19-2007, 09:22 PM

Original quote by: jlynn

Quote:

4. To see if you have bailed on every creditor known to man so they can decide if you are worth the man hours to pursue.

.

This is interesting. If the lawyer for the ca sees that other ca's have done a hard pull and there are 0 public records, i.e, no judgments, then the current ca may think that the Bad Debt is not worth chasing after.

Quote:

I seem to remember an FDCPA Opinion letter that says Litigation (assuming this is the lawyer that sued you) is NOT a permissible purpose. Be advised, FDCPA Opinion Letters are merely interesting reading they carry no weight in 99.9% of the courts. However, it is something worth researching to see if someone ever won or lost that battle.

I understand that Opinion Letters are commonly ignored but a Defendant could Counterclaim that the ca's lawyer violated the FDCPA by asking for a hard pull for the purpose of litigation and then use the Opinion Letter as a reference. Case law would be better.