Need a sample pp letter for ca's

[breck]

I have a bunch of inq I need to get removed.Most of them are for collection agencies I never heard of.I want to get them to remove the inqs and possibly go after the $1000 each for non pp..

Anyone got a good sample letter ?

[LKH]

Make sure they aren't legit. Because they aren't on your reports doesn't mean they don't have an acct that has been assigned to them collect. If so, they have a PP to pull your reports.

[enigma]

I have a bunch of inq I need to get removed.Most of them are for collection agencies I never heard of.I want to get them to remove the inqs and possibly go after the $1000 each for non pp..

Anyone got a good sample letter ?

 

I send the following letter 1st:

 

Via Certified Mail Return Receipt RequestedXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

CA

Address

City, ST ZIP

 

In a recent review of my credit files I noticed that you received a copy of my file.

 

Since I have conducted no business transactions with your firm nor have I applied for employment with your firm, explain to me your permissible purpose in viewing my credit file.

 

You may respond via fax or email.

 

Thank you for your anticipated timely response in this matter.

 

Then follow with:

 

CA

Address

City, ST ZIP

 

To Whom It May Concern,

 

On XX/XX/XX, I requested information concerning your company accessing my credit file. That correspondence was mailed to you via certified mail, return receipt requested. According to postal records you signed for the letter on xx/xx/xx. A copy of that letter and postal record is enclosed for your review.

 

It has been in excess of thirty (30) days since your receipt of my correspondence. To date I have not received a response from you.

 

In accordance with §604 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), you need a permissible purpose to access my credit file. Your continued silence is not acceptable.

 

As I understand the law, you have three options:

 

1. You can explain your permissible purpose to me,

2. If you had no permissible purpose in viewing my file, please arrange a payment of one-thousand dollars ($1,000) as outlined in the FCRA, for your intrusion into my privacy,

3. If you wish to remain silent, then prepare yourselves for the possibility of a lawsuit. In a lawsuit you maybe held not only for statutory damages, but also attorney fees and court costs.

 

You have had ample time to investigate this matter and respond. I will allow you fifteen (15) days from receipt of this letter to reply. Failing an acceptable response, I will retain counsel and begin litigation proceedings.

 

Sincerely,

 

Enigma

[enigma]

Make sure they aren't legit. Because they aren't on your reports doesn't mean they don't have an acct that has been assigned to them collect. If so, they have a PP to pull your reports.

 

Just because a CA is assigned to collect, it does not always mean they have a PP to pull.

 

You are very correct in the fact they have a PP to pull for Collection. BUT and this is a BIG BUT, they have to have the right to collect the account.

 

If you DV and they do not provide it, they have no right to collect the account and therefore no PP to pull.

 

Even if they dot all their "i"'s and cross their "t"'s unless they provide absolute proof they have the right to collect, ie. a letter from the OC telling you they assigned it to CA then they still have not proven they have the right to collect and therefore again, No PP.

 

In my own case I had a CA (cannot name, non-diisclosure) pull x3. Never validated, sent another collection letter. I sent my version of Estoppel. No response. I sent remove your pull letter. CA responds they have PP to pull based on Section 604 Collection Purpose. Also said 2nd collection letter was in error, yeah right, and they sent the account back to OC.

 

Well, their pull sat and sat on my report and really irked me.

 

Then one day it just dawned on me, you cannot dispute pulls, poss. continuned collection activity????? and since they could not validate they had no right to do any thing at all. I fire off letter outlining just that idea. They respond by basically telling me to get lost.

 

I fire off ITS and gave them 48 hours. I get a call from their attorney offering to settle, low ball figure (again non-disclosure), I said no. We go back and forth over several days. We agree on figure.

 

I was told by their attorney that she could not find any case law on what I outlined in my ITS, but my argument had meritt and she did not want to test it.

 

In sum, if they cannot prove they have right to collect, cannot validate, then they have no PP to pull.

[breck]

In sum, if they cannot prove they have right to collect, cannot validate, then they have no PP to pull

Sums it up well..

 

Thanks guys.I read somewhere that some CA'S pull your credit when they are "portfolio shopping" (i.e. considering purchasing your account from the OC) and then never actually buy your acoount at all.I think thats whats happened in my case and I should therefore go after each of them for non pp and $1000 damages..right?

I'm abit confused about the correct approach to take though.Should I just use similar letters to the one's above or should I validate first?

[enigma]

I'm abit confused about the correct approach to take though.Should I just use similar letters to the one's above or should I validate first?

 

You cannnot validate an inq.

 

You can send the letters I posted, or change for your situation. Send them in order and CMRRR, to generate a paper trail.

 

Keep us informed.

[LKH]

Yes, pulling reports after receipt of a validation request and prior to providing such is continued collecting and a violation. Just because the poster hasn't heard of the ca doesn't mean they don't have PP to pull.

[Siren]

Bumping this up for clarification.

 

LKH, are you saying that a CA has the right to pull a report even if you have no idea who they are and why they are obtaining your report in the first place?

 

I just had an CA pull my report and I have NO idea why because I am not in default of any debt. Shouldn't they have to send you a letter, make a phone call... something...before placing a hard INQ on your report??

 

I have no qualms regarding dragging a CA into court. Things like this annoy me.

[AixiA]

I'd like to see an answer to the above <bump>

[Philly Devil]

oh yea me too

[NeverQuietHere]

Is it showing under PERMISSIBLE PURPOSE on your credit reports as "collection"? To me, that definitely means that that is communication. I would say that they would have to send you a letter within 5 days of pulling your reports.

 

BUT, I will let the more experienced people answer this.

[GEORGE]

Now you can FREEZE THE BIG 3

 

Many have reported no more CA HARDS

 

(not my facts...facts from the people who have BEEN THERE~DONE THAT)

[mudnuri]

freezing the reports will do nothing to get rid of these inquiries if they are not valid. That was the question asked- how to get rid of them, not how to prevent them

 

Brandy

[GEORGE]

freezing the reports will do nothing to get rid of these inquiries if they are not valid. That was the question asked- how to get rid of them, not how to prevent them

 

Brandy

DOES IT REALLY MATTER AFTER THIS LONG???

 

**Jan 31 2004, 10:43 PM**

 

Any hards from then are LONG GONE

Edited June 15, 2009 by GEORGE

[creditreformer]

Can anyone point me to a sample letter for a CA who pulls, does not put a TL on, and does NOT send any letter within 5 (actually 35) days of pulling reports?

[NeverQuietHere]

ttt

[CuriousCredit]

Can anyone point me to a sample letter for a CA who pulls, does not put a TL on, and does NOT send any letter within 5 (actually 35) days of pulling reports?

 

I would like this letter also

[nothingman02]

Bumping this up for clarification.

 

LKH, are you saying that a CA has the right to pull a report even if you have no idea who they are and why they are obtaining your report in the first place?

 

I just had an CA pull my report and I have NO idea why because I am not in default of any debt. Shouldn't they have to send you a letter, make a phone call... something...before placing a hard INQ on your report??

I have no qualms regarding dragging a CA into court. Things like this annoy me.

 

 

In my opinion, CAs have PP only for legitimate debts. That is, they have to absolutely be able to validate beyond any reasonable doubt, the validity of the debt. If they believe they can do that, they have PP and DO NOT need to inform you. They also DO NOT need to inform you before placing your account with the CRAs. But they (claim) to do so and some do do, to look good before the judge.

 

If the validity of the debt is ascertained through a judgement, they clearly have PP.

 

If they have proper docs, they have PP.

 

If they got nothing, as is the case with most of them, they technically dont have PP as they can not validate but you would have to go to court to fight it.

 

Essentially, you would have to fight the validity of the debt to fight the inquiry. Looking at their response to your non-PP letter would likely reveal if the CAs got something or if they are typical scumbags.

 

But before sending out a non-PP letter, id suggest examining your financial history to try an rule out absolutely any possibilty of a real debt.

 

ETA: On the other topic, I dont completely agree that communicating with a CRA is equivalent to communicating to a consumer.

 

FTC may have an opinion on this (I think I saw one) but would likely not hold. From what I remember from months back, FCRA is clear about this with their wording. As in, "communication" and "communication with the consumer". Two different things. Only the later requires a dunning letter within 5 days.

Edited December 27, 2009 by nothingman02

[NeverQuietHere]

Bumping this up for clarification.

 

LKH, are you saying that a CA has the right to pull a report even if you have no idea who they are and why they are obtaining your report in the first place?

 

I just had an CA pull my report and I have NO idea why because I am not in default of any debt. Shouldn't they have to send you a letter, make a phone call... something...before placing a hard INQ on your report??

I have no qualms regarding dragging a CA into court. Things like this annoy me.

 

 

In my opinion, CAs have PP only for legitimate debts. That is, they have to absolutely be able to validate beyond any reasonable doubt, the validity of the debt. If they believe they can do that, they have PP and DO NOT need to inform you. They also DO NOT need to inform you before placing your account with the CRAs. But they (claim) to do so and some do do, to look good before the judge.

 

If the validity of the debt is ascertained through a judgement, they clearly have PP.

 

If they have proper docs, they have PP.

 

If they got nothing, as is the case with most of them, they technically dont have PP as they can not validate but you would have to go to court to fight it.

 

Essentially, you would have to fight the validity of the debt to fight the inquiry. Looking at their response to your non-PP letter would likely reveal if the CAs got something or if they are typical scumbags.

 

But before sending out a non-PP letter, id suggest examining your financial history to try an rule out absolutely any possibilty of a real debt.

 

ETA: On the other topic, I dont completely agree that communicating with a CRA is equivalent to communicating to a consumer.

 

FTC may have an opinion on this (I think I saw one) but would likely not hold. From what I remember from months back, FCRA is clear about this with their wording. As in, "communication" and "communication with the consumer". Two different things. Only the later requires a dunning letter within 5 days.

 

I haven't gone back and checked on this yet or anything, but communication is as simple as a phone call or a phone message (so even when CA is NOT talking DIRECTLY with the consumer, leaving a message on the machine IS communication).... I know pryan had a thread on here or a really good answer regarding pulling credit reports. I will search for it in a bit.