Did you follow through with your complaint, if so what was the result?

Thanks Footloose. Let me know if you come across that case. But frankly, I am at a loss to know how someone could be awarded damages for positive information. Credit scores usually go back 2 years but certainly not 20.

I should mention that TransUnion still retains the 20 year policy for keeping positive information and either 6 or 7 years (except for 2nd and subsequent bankruptcies) for negative info depending on what province one is in. But if it's positive, I'm not sure who'd care how long it was reported for.

The statutory 7 year limitation period under Section 9(3), (a) to (l) only concerns itself with various categories of derogatory disclosures like bad debts, crimes, tax evasion, fines, first bankruptcies etc.

Again, I'm glad you are taking them to court but I'm not sure if the judge will find a tort there unless some law has been broken. That's what the Ministry maintains and I agree with them.

Unless you can show that the debts' last payment dates were longer than 7 years, you may well not have a case. You listed the hard inquiries as being from 2006 on I believe, and so I can't tell how old the debts are. Since Jan. 1, 2004, most consumer debt in Ontario has a 2 year limitation period, which is a long way from 7 years.

Also, I think you'd have to show how you suffered damage as a result of the tort, which usually involves showing documents of refused loan applications or increased interest rates to those loans granted.

Additionally, I'm almost sure the Court would want to see evidence you followed the proper channel of filing a complaint first with the governing body of the credit bureau; that is to say the Registrar of Consumer Protection (You know who).

Even if nothing comes of it at first, you have the recourse of a Tribunal if the mediation fails. Again, that's only with respect to a failure of the credit bureau failing to follow a law. The Consumer Protection Act doesn't deal with inquiry types, but only negative reporting periods, and,so the bad debts the inquiries concerned would have to be at least 7 years old to fall under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act.

I think your MPP was partially correct in replying that hard inquiries are a matter of internal credit bureau policies. But he/she was incorrect insofar as failing to notice the 7 year cutoff period.

Irregardless, I think you would be further ahead right now by complaining to the Ministry. If a sizable number of people do that, then they will take notice.

Just my 2 cents.

The impact of inquiries

The actual impact depends on the number of inquiries, time period and other factors on your credit profile. Each hard inquiry will be displayed on your credit profile for a minimum of 6 years, but may remain longer.

So hard inquiries will stick around for 6+ years according to this T/U document...

Hi LadyinCredit

Congratulations and kudoos to you for putting together a most interesting and informative blog, especially because it was your first one on this site. I was very impressed. It is refreshing to read a thread from someone who is knowledgeable about the credit business and can make a meaningful contribution to this site.

A year or so ago, I read a Small Claims Court case whereby the plaintiff sued TransUnion over their policy of maintaining creditor files (positive) for a period of 20 years. The plaintiff objected to this claiming that keeping files for this length of time was non-productive and had a negative impact on his credit score and credit record and served no useful purpose. He wanted to show these files no longer than the minimum period permitted under the Ontario Consumer Reporting Act which is 7 years. HE WON!!!
Unfortunately, I didn't keep a copy of this case, otherwise I would have reproduced it on this site.

As for my situation, I am in the process of putting together a very detailed claim against TransUnion for showing statute-barred debts as "hard" inquiries from collection agencies and debt buyers on my credit report. I expect to have this claim completed by the end of July for filing in the Small Claims Court in Hamilton, Ontario. In support of my claim, I have a letter from MBNA denying me a Gold credit card stating that the negative inquiries on my credit report prevented them from issuing me a card.

STAY TUNED FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Educating one Consumer at a time

I don't know about other people's opinions but I do know about facts. If you look at TransUnion of Canada's website discussing "The Impact of Inquiries" on your credit report, it's plain to see what they tell consumers and what they tell their high paying clients like Global, Active Kapital, Pomer & Boccia etc. are 2 different things. This needs to stop.

http://www.creditprofile.transunion.ca/learningCentre/askAudrey/impactOfInquiries.jsp

LadyInCredit,

Your post in many ways mimicks a few of Ray's feelings regarding Credit Bureaus and their policies... Key being that the Bureau's are here for their members, not the consumer.

/threadview/1284.html

I wonder how many consumers have actually tied the bureau's up in court over the mis-information they've failed to correct, and, if those cases have actually gone anywhere?

I was sorry to read about all the troubles "Footloose" was having regarding the abuse of hard inquiries by the credit bureaus. He is certainly not alone.

Countless other consumers are having the same problem with the bureaus on the web. In particular, one fellow who now has a high FICO score, continues to have multiple hard inquiries on an old stats barred debt from one of the major banks. As a result, he will have trouble qualifying for any sort of financing which he would be otherwise be granted. Debt buyers and collection agencies know this and use hard inquiries as an enforcement tool for otherwise uncollectable debts.

Footloose quotes Section 8 from the Ontario Consumer Reporting Act, which deals with those categories to whom your credit report may be released. If you read the wording, it implies almost anyone can access your credit file who has a business need (or claims to). Such reports generate huge profits and bonuses for bureau executives; and so they're unlikely to ask many questions from members.

The June 18, 2010 letter Footloose received from TransUnion was one of their many boilerplate/templates. Ditto with Equifax. If someone writes a detailed letter into TransUnion or Equifax containing pages and pages of dates and notarized copies of bills and documents refuting errors on their credit report, nobody there will even bother looking at them. All you can expect back is another form letter saying that "The matter was thoroughly reviewed by our investigations department and the previous information on your credit file was found to be accurate." (Honestly, their personnel couldn't investigate someone flatulating in a spacesuit and it was their own.)

In fact, individuals have personally visited the bureaus with registered letters from debt buyers, banks and collection agencies (courtesy of PIPEDA) to correct erroneous information only to have their efforts rewarded shortly after by form letter telling them that "their credit file was found to be accurate as is."

Obviously, no one there bothers to read the disputes, much less investigate them. It costs too much time and money, and it aggragavates their paying members. Don't believe me? Try contacting any of the creditors/collection agencies after receiving back one of the bureau's form letters. Then ask the collection agency if a contact investigation date was noted on your file from the credit bureau. Almost all confirmation requests and inquiries are faxed with the exception of a few phone calls. The agency will have the date noted on your file as well as the fax or note about the phone call. People think that what the bureaus do is what they advertise they will do because it's mandated in the provincial consumer reporting acts. On the contrary, it's most unikely any inquiry was done at all.

For example, TransUnion advertises on their website that hard inquiries are for credit granting purposes only. If you look at your Equifax report you will see an information handout included stating the same thing. Hard inquiries are for credit granting purposes only while soft inquiries are for account updating and reviews. In practice, nothing could be further from the truth. If you ask bureau representatives, whether in Montreal, Hamilton or India, why they don't follow that rule, you'll invariably be told that they let their members do whatever they want.

Even more dismally, if you ask TransUnion's legal department in writing about it, you'll get a form letter like Footloose received or a parallel one from Equifax. Both bureau letters (which they mail out by the thousands) deliberately evade the question by grouping both types of inquiry into "a credit related inquiry." And they'll defensively point out that the Consumer Reporting Act" doesn't distinquish between hard and soft inquiries. [So Get Lost!] That's why debt buyers like Aktiv Kapital (Portfolio Management) are allowed to put hard inquiries every 6 months on consumer files for an indefinite period of time. Remember, hard inquiries stay on Equifax for a minimum of 3 years and for 6 years or more on TransUnion, subject to a minimum retention number. And alarmly, they can be (and are) renewed indefinitely without warning. I've seen them 12 or 14 years old.

So does the Consumer Reporting Act offer any protection at all? Footloose quoted Section 8 of the Ontario Act, but it's really Section 9(3)(f) that should be paid attention to.

It prohibits information regarding any debt or collection if:

(i) more than 7 years have elapsed since the date of last payment on the debt or collection

OR

(ii) where no payment has been made, more than 7 years have elapsed since the date of default in payment.

A hard inquiry doesn't provide any details regarding what it was about to other users. However, - and it's a big however - if it's coming from a collection agency or a debt buyer, then it could only be about a debt or a collection. After all, collection agencies don't grant credit. Although the specific debt isn't disclosed, Section 9(3)(f), says ANY DEBT OR COLLECTION must not be contained in a consumer report given to others after 7 years. (I suppose if it's a soft inquiry, who cares?). After 7 years, it's no longer just a matter of credit bureau policy; it's now a matter of provincial legislation. That's why the Ministry of Consumer Services doesn't want hard inquiries from collection agencies or debt buyers regarding an account more than 7 years from the default date on a credit report.

Also keep in mind that credit reporting periods in provincial consumer reporting acts may not be identical to those of credit bureau policies. And they, in turn, generally are not the same as stats barred intervals. Therefore debts like Ontario student loans defaulted on before Jan. 1, 1998 have no stats barred period, and, legally at least, may be reported on your credit file forever. Nonetheless, the credit bureaus are still free to apply their own 6 year rule.

Also note the legislation refers to the "last payment date" and not the "original default date." The latter is set by the bureau's internal policy and applies to things like "TRADE LINES." We are referring only to the statutory minimums that a bureau must follow because that's all the Ministry will enforce.

If a consumer has a hard inquiry on an account more than 7 years old, then one can ask the Ministry to intervene after sending a complaint letter to the bureau and waiting for one of their pointless boilerplate responses. Then one can send copies of all that into the Ministry.
You want to petition the Ministry to enforce the Consumer Reporting Act.
Copy the link below to complain online or download a pdf version if you live in Ontario.

http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/en/Pages/Complaint_Steps_to_File.aspx

Unfortunately, Consumer Protection is noted for their perfunctory lackadasical responses, whatever the complaint. If that's the case, then one has the right to request mediation to settle the matter. Surley, that should do it - but if it doesn't - then under Section 14(3) of the Act, if the consumer still feels aggrieved by the Registrar's decision, they may apply to the Tribunal for an independent hearing.

As for the issue of hard inquiries being used on debts less than 7 years old, consumers need to bring pressure on registrars of the various ministries of consumer protection, the Federal Consumer Agency of Canada, as well as perhaps even the Advertising Standards Council to require credit bureaus to follow their published policies - or change them to inform consumers what their true practices are.

As for resorting to Small Claims Court, that might work if you were able to show you had suffered financial loss or injury as a result of the credit bureau disobeying a some law. For hard inquiries on debts less than 7 years old, the Court would likely consider them to be merely a violation of the bureaus' internal policies, and not the law. You would be very unlikely to succeed. But what the heck, take em' to court anyway. Win or lose, the more people who do, the more likely they are to be honest with consumers.

Another annoying practice of TransUnion is their apparent selling to a major bank (ScotiaBank) summary/abbreviated credit reports of their customers who meet certain criteria (like a minimum credit score) for marketing purposes.

However, Section 11 of the Ontario Consumer Reporting Act prohibits credit bureaus from supplying lists of people who meet certain criteria for marketing purposes to financial organizations. Perhaps ScotiaBank gets around that by having customers sign their "privacy agreement," whereby they agree to surrender any privacy that they might have to their marketing department.

Nevertheless, it was noticed that even when a customer exercises the "opt out" clause for marketing purposes, they still end up on the group list. The Ministry should look into this.

Hi MeMyself

I think you're a little confused re: policy. The policy that I'm talking about is the policy of TransUnion. This has nothing to do with government policy. Every business have their own policies as to how they conduct business. For example, if a business says we do not accept credit cards, then you as a customer cannot force them to accept credit cards. That is their policy.

It is sad your M.P. and M.P.P. do not want to do there job. The fact that they say it is a policy matter should meen that they should deel with it. They are the ones that set the policy. If it were a legal matter then they could try to get the Law inforced. But if they say it is a policy matter then they should be trying to change the policy. Maybe you should contact there riding association and ask them why they are nominating people for election who do not want to do there job.

Keep us posted on how your lawsuit goes.

Hi MeMyself

I have already contacted my Provincial M.P.P.(who is the current Minister of Agriculture) and my Federal M.P. and they have chosen to do nothing. They claim that this is a policy matter and not a legal matter.

I was seriously considering filing an official complaint with Brian Pitkin, Registrar, Ministry of Consumer Services, Consumer Protection Branch in Toronto. I have since done exhaustive research on Brian Pitkin and have come to the conclusion that he is another "government lackie". He has received over 300,000 complaints from consumers all across Ontario regarding the unethical and illegal practices of collection agencies and he has decided to ignore these complaints leaving thousands of consumers totally frustrated and not knowing what to do next or who to contact. He occupies an appointed position confirmed by Dalton McGinty and many of his associates are connected to these collection agencies or lawyers acting on behalf of these agencies. And you thought this could only happen in third-world countries.

As a result, I have decided that to make an official complaint to Brian Pitkin is a collosial waste of time. I have decided to turn my attention to the Small Claims Court. I am in the process of drafting my claim to Trans Union of Canada, Inc. I know that this is going to cost me some "coin" but I am fed up with credit bureaus trying to circumvent their own policies. It is time to take a stand and "put my money where my mouth is". I suspect that this matter will be successfully resolved at the settlement conference which precedes the full trial. However, I am prepared to go to trial if that is what it takes. As a retired professional, I have the time and knowledge of the Small Claims Court system.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Educating one Consumer at a time