Auto Financing Inquiries

Hi - Have a couple of questions; hope someone can help!

I recently purchased two cars within one month of each other. In both cases, the dealers went mad calling every bank in the civilized world (ok, I exagerated, but they called around 6 each time). My questions are:

- Has anyone been able to succesfully eliminate this type of inquiries? The law doesn't seem too clear on this aspect of "shot-gunning". The FTC position papers seem to imply that if some sort of permission (even if not in writing) is given by the consumer, than they all have a pp.

- Is there a way to be sure that the inquiries are actually de-duped? Could I ask the CRAs to verify that?

- Is it a good idea to request the 3 in 1 report from consumerinfo? I read on other posts that it shows how the inquiries are coded.

- Even if I were to find out how they are coded, would that information do any good? What could I do with it?

Thanks in advance. Great site BTW!

I'm looking into buying my first home shortly and I want to be able to show a clean report...

Sounds like you've already read it, but for the other readers, here's the Fair Isaac "deduplication" thread:

http://creditforum.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67

"- Is it a good idea to request the 3 in 1 report from consumerinfo? I read on other posts that it shows how the inquiries are coded."

Yes, but don't pay their regular price, at http://www.privacyguard.com/ you can get it for only $1.

Try that, I'd like to know how they're coded. If they're NOT coded as auto, you can have the CRAs fix that.

To see what Fair Isaac actually counts, check the Equifax Beacon inquiries, and with TU you can order the report with the Fair Isaac Empirica score and you also see which inquiries are counted.

I think they DO have a permissible purpose.

Christine, what did you say to TU to get them to recode the inquiries? when I got a car last year, the credit mgr ran eight (!!!) inquiries and TU told me they didn't treat them as one, despite my pointing out to them that eight on one day was for one car. they wouldn't change it for me and now TU #1 deragatory is "too many inquiries".
I swear that half the time you talk to these jokers it's the luck of the draw

I actually haven't done that yet - so I can't say that it would work. *Unfortunately* none of my clients has been car shopping and nobody complained here.

But here's the deal:

Trans Union sets up accounts for their customers, and therefore it is Trans Union's job to ENSURE that they set the accounts up PROPERLY CODED.

Now, we've all heard the "oversight" and "very rare error" excuse - but if they do NOT fix it, that's a willful and malicious act against the consumer, with intent to inflict serious damages.

As I'm asking the court for an order to prohibit Fair Isaac from using inquiries at all in the scores, this would be some great evidence to submit.

I'm so sick of the Fair Isaac's lies, but this is one of the more intricate issues that few people understand. Anyway, did they give you anything in writing?

This also sound like a good problem to bring to the attention of Eric Rosenberg, TU (http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/7/1264.html)

Nothing in writing. However, I will write or do an online challenge and see what develops. I am currently waiting on a challenge to an "over the 7 year limit" tradeline being reported incorrectly. I have old credit reports dated 98 and 99, paid charge off--first date of delinquency march 96, and this tradeline was reaged in 6/2000 after the firm was merged into another bank.
Do you need a copy of their response to my inquiry request? If so, I'll save it and fax to you upon receipt.

A copy would be great!

"I am currently waiting on a challenge to an "over the 7 year limit" tradeline being reported incorrectly. I have old credit reports dated 98 and 99, paid charge off--first date of delinquency march 96, and this tradeline was reaged in 6/2000 after the firm was merged into another bank."

It's just unbelievable. They have absolutely no procedures to prevent re-aging.

And I don't know why a creditor would re-age an account after a merger. I'm suing Providian for their screwed up reporting, and they told me they sold the account to Chase last summer. So, how does THAT cause Providian to report a discharged account as $15K delinquent?

Maybe I'll find out.

Also posted a very funny TU recorded call at CreditCourt (http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/7/7.html) - unfortunately a 6mb file, long download if you don't have broadband.

having talked with a few computer people, it is very possible that the person who wrote the program to incorporate the new accounts failed to pick up the date of the old tradeline. or it could be maliciously done. It could also be that the old "first date of delinquency" was never recorded in the original creditor's computer data.
Scary, those computers. Give me a pepsi and fritos person any day.

Thanks for the info. As far as the permissible purpose, that's what I thought -they DO have a pp- which I believe is horrible. IMO, the law should allow for that practice, but:

- all banks should get access to the same report, thus one inquiry only,

OR

- the law should clearly specify the deduplication rules, require the CRs to clearly show the inquiries as being deduplicated, and hold the CRAs accountable.

Thanks again!

Senator, it could well be that a conversion program screws things up. Haven't they heard of testing?

Arturo wrote:

"- the law should clearly specify the deduplication rules, require the CRs to clearly show the inquiries as being deduplicated, and hold the CRAs accountable."

It won't happen until people publish evidence that the current system isn't working.

I AM suing for complete reports, but since I don't believe in car loans, I don't have any documentation to ask for any legislation or court order for deduplication.