I was interested in refinancing my home. I was contacted by telephone by XXXX XXXX, an employee of XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, CA. I explained to XXXX XXXX that I had previously applied for a refinance loan with a company call XXXX XXXX which gave me misleading information, untrue information and generally did n't know what they were doing. XXXX XXXX assured me that would n't happen with XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX asked me a few questions regarding my finances and personal information, but when he asked me for my Social Security number I informed him I do n't give my Social Security number over the phone because of privacy issues ; I had been a victim of credit card fraud in the past. XXXX XXXX told me he could n't give me any accurate rate information without my Social Security number and that he could not proceed in giving me an accurate interest rate quote. I never agreed to apply for a loan with XXXX XXXX XXXX and in fact I was only shopping for interest rate information because of my disillusionment with XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX said he would email me an introduction letter and some other mortgage information. I checked my Equifax credit account, as I usually, do because of being a victim of credit card fraud and the leaking of information on XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. I noticed a " hard inquiry '' by a company called XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXXThey do credit inquiries for XXXX XXXX Loans. I never authorized, consented or had any knowledge that XXXX XXXX XXXX was going to do a " hard inquiry '' on my credit history which you know can affect credit worthiness of the consumer. I disputed " hard inquiry '' above with Equifax and was promptly told that I would have to contact XXXX XXXX. I did so and was told by XXXX XXXX I had to contact XXXX XXXX Loans, which I did. I received no explanation for their checking my credit history other than I must have applied for a home loan, which I did n't. Now Equifax is doing nothing to correct my credit history and has ceased investigating the issue leaving it to me. This seems a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.