Re: Legal or Not, CA's CAN & DO Shop, Scott

Posted by Judgmental (24.19.3.33) on January 29, 2004 at 09:40:43:

In Reply to: Re: Here's what you can expect ... posted by scott on January 29, 2004 at 08:34:25:

Scott, collection is a permissible purpose and CAs will hide behind that. Push comes to shove, they will simply delete the inquiry if pressed. But, if not pressed it will stay and lower your score. You know that.

When a collection agency is shopping for debts, they get samples out of the portfolio and run credit on the sampling of folks to judge how collectable the portfolio will be. You know this also or at least you should.

If our original poster in this case happens to be in the sample, they can end up with inquiries on their report from CA's that are merely shopping. I know from experience, because it has happened to me and others.

Besides, the illegality of their action and the penalties associated with it, IF the debtor is educated enough to enforce the law, is irrelevant. You know this, too!

The point you've made in your post is akin to saying that a burglar can not break into your house, simply because it is illegal and would land him in jail.

Guess what? Burglary is illegal and comes with jail time, but people are still breaking into homes. They take the risk because they the probability of pay-off is good.

With respect to CAs, it works the same way. If you're a CA evaluating a portfolio possibly worth $1.2 million, you might be willing to sink the $50,000 in penalties for peeking at 50 credit reports you have no business seeing. You'd be especially likely to sink the costs, because you'd know that there's no way all 50 of those people will know enough to sue you over it.

Even if the statistically impossible were to occur and all 50 of them sued you, that would only increase your costs by $50K. If you bought the portfolio at $0.10 on the dollar for $120K + the $50K + $50K in attorneys fees, you'd still have a hefty profit. Actually, the attorney fees probably wouldn't come into it, because the CA would settle before trial.

Honestly, the CA has no reason NOT to peek!

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup