Yeah, Footloose was quite correct when he mentioned having a bad credit report can have worse repercussions than having a criminal record in today's world. At least, the latter is more private, while just about anyone with an interest - no matter how tenuous - can get a hold of your credit standing.

"The reason most consumers make a diligent effort to pay their bills is due to the stiff punitive price they have to pay for having a bad credit report. Not that many drunks step out of line in a bar with a lot of tough bouncers; but if the bouncers weren't there, the percentage would be much higher. So too with the enforcers of the financial world, collection agencies. That's why everyone knows a credit report is as much, or even more, of an enforcement than a credit information tool. Step out of line, and you're in big trouble as far as employment, insurance, housing, cars etc go."

You are entirely right there. When I started in this business, most agents worked through intimidation -- and I worked at a couple of collection agencies that couldn't be bothered or master the technical ability to report to the credit bureau. I have always believed that the credit bureau is the best encouragement to resolve an outstanding debt. Not intimidation, not legal action.

I have had people call me over denied car loans, jobs, mortgage renewals, and even in one case a denied library card, because I had something on their credit rating.

I am in the collections business, so I do have the other viewpoint -- I see it as consequences, rather than being a "bouncer". And I would rather call someone and negotiate resolving an account *before* affecting their credit rating.

As for the agent who lost his license, I can tell you it was for representing an unsavory client with unreasonable balances in an overly aggressive manner. A number of complaints in a short period of time brought his actions to the attention of the Ministry.

"Kind of surprising since collection agents come from a group that has higher incidence of substance abuse, emotional instability and moral integrity issues. "

I saw this a lot about 18-20 years ago. Not so much now. But I do not work with the larger agencies in Toronto, so I may be living a sheltered life. :)

I'd say the biggest problem in the collection industry isn't the law, it's the social environment -- some agencies are managed as sweat shops, threatening agents with losing their job if they do not collect. The pressure put on these people is phenomenal. Further, the training these collectors receive is not comprehensive -- many agents do not understand the law or their requirements, or they are taught to disregard it. It creates an atmosphere that encourages poor behaviour and confrontation. Confrontation is not the best way to negotiate an outstanding account.

I changed the complaint I made in the previous post about the Registrar of Collection agencies in Ontario because it wasn't expressed accurately.

The correction below follows. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Pitkin knows this all too well and allows creditors and collection agencies to misuse hard inquiries on credit reports. You claim 4% of credit reports originate from non-credit applications. However, many reports have so many hard inquiries from collection agencies and debt buyers, in spite of the fact that they are supposed to be used only for credit applications, that they may constitute the vast majority of the report's inquiries for as many years as the agency or debt buyer wishes.

I'd still like proof that even one collection agent in Ontario lost their license for harassing or illegal behaviour.

In my remarks, I didn't draw a line between a collection agencies and lenders. Certainy they are separate, but both are integral parts of the credit industry. We live in a time where credit bureau employees, lenders, collection agents and debt settlers frequently interchange careers. You were once a credit manager and are now a collector. Another credit manager I know used to work at Equifax. The former CEO of Equifax used to be a collection supervisor. The Ontario Registrar used to be a collections bailiff. Silverthorn occupied Dianna Natale's position at Global Collections. And on and on. Some of those from different industries party and dine together. Pitkin speaks at creditor banquet(s), for example.

When one sees such familiarity in conjunction with how they carry out their present duties, one can but question their objectivity or even interest in discharging them. Pitkin and his staff being a case in point.

My point concerning credit bureaus was that their members carry almost all the load. The money they generate from selling their products of limited value to the public is only a secondary revenue source designed to offset (what for them) is the nuisance cost of having to deal with them on a daily basis.

The fact remains the bureaus only listen to who pays their bills. The collection agency, the creditor and the debt buyer, although separate entities, are all integral parts of the credit industry and bureau members.

That the majority of fees is generated by creditors and not collection agencies is misleading. The reason most consumers make a diligent effort to pay their bills is due to the stiff punitive price they have to pay for having a bad credit report. Not that many drunks step out of line in a bar with a lot of tough bouncers; but if the bouncers weren't there, the percentage would be much higher. So too with the enforcers of the financial world, collection agencies. That's why everyone knows a credit report is as much, or even more, of an enforcement than a credit information tool. Step out of line, and you're in big trouble as far as employment, insurance, housing, cars etc go.

Pitkin knows this all too well and allows creditors and collection agencies to misuse hard inquiries on credit reports.You claim 4% of credit reports originate from non-credit applications. However, many reports have so many hard inquiries from collection agencies and debt buyers, in spite of the fact that they are supposed to be used only for credit applications, that they may constitute the vast majority of the report's inquiries for as many years as the agency or debt buyer wishes.

It's necessary to lump the actions of creditors in with those of collection agencies because the act of the agent is the act of the principal. Pitkin lets them get away with the stuff they do because they know his unit won't do anything. They're too closely tied in with creditors, collection agencies and credit bureaus to represent consumers fairly.

I'm aware what Silverthorn's previous career involved and what the present motives of his action might well be. Nevertheless, we don't live in a perfect world, and one expects in the business world that each party will act out of self interest. That holds true in almost all occupations. The point is: he is trying to bring about change, and is one of the few who have had some success at galvanizing public opinion against the lethargy and seeming partiality in Consumer Affairs.

I wasn't really asking for the particular name of a collection agent who lost their licence for misbehaviour towards clients but only some sort of confirmation that one had. So far no one has ever been able to provide any such thing int e 5 years this forum has been around.

Kind of surprising since collection agents come from a group that has higher incidence of substance abuse, emotional instability and moral integrity issues. You have to think that at least some of these individuals would have shown up at work "in a state" and lost their licence as a result of "losing it." Again, I'm referring to a collector whose licence was pulled as opposed to simply getting fired and moving on to the next agency around the corner and reapplying for a new permit.

Please Note:

I wasn't saying that what you get from the bureaus when you ask for your credit report via mail or in person is really a "credit report." Of course it is. I was only repeating Pitkin's silly song and dance that what the consumer received when they asked for their free copy was not really a credit report as referred to in the Consumer Reporting Act; and hence, the consumer didn't have a legal basis of complaint to his office about collection agencies misusing hard inquiries.

Hi Daniel,

I certainly agree with some of your statements. I honestly believe that the collection industry has earned some deserved hostility for poor business practices, but please do not shoot me on behalf of all the others' actions.

I certainly take offense to you saying my comments are half-baked or BS.

I think 'harrasment' of a debtor is pointless. I became involved in the collections industry after being a credit manager for several years, so my approach to collections is often at odds with many of my colleagues. I believe if a debtor advises me 'I will never pay this bill', they simply aren't going to pay it, and why chase them incessantly? A lot of agencies simply are overmanned, and do not give their collectors a robust portfolio to call, and they are forced to 'beat a dead horse', simply for lack of other work -- but that's for another discussion thread, I'm sure.

You are absolutely right about the amount paid for level of information. A telephone scrub can cost a few cents. A full live credit report pulled on an individual basis can cost several dollars. But collection agencies are not where the money is made ... a large collection agency might spend tens of thousands of dollars on credit reports in a month, but they are only examining the 2-4% bad debt write off accounts assigned to them by their clients. The big money for credit bureaus is in the credit grantors (banks, private label credit cards, etc) pulling credit reports on the remaining 96%, often every quarter for certain product holders.

You are partially right about the requests for credit ratings, but not all of it. I personally walk into Trans Union Services once a year and get my credit report from them. It isn't a summary, it's the actual report, complete with trade items, inquiries with contact numbers, etc. However, I was just assisting a consumer who brought me their "Credit Summary" from Equifax that they purchased online, and it was completely unhelpful - it did not contain ratings, history, or proper financial information. I currently have this consumer sending a registered letter to Equifax demanding their full and proper credit report.

I also personally agree that subscribing to a Score system or buying a credit report online is NOT a good idea, and a waste of money.

You go on about a number of collection agency 'tactics' -- I have personally never engaged in, or allowed my staff to do as well. I also agree that fake legal claims are inappropriate and illegal, and the legal penalty against such claims of $20 will not hamper any agent that wants to blatantly break the law. I believe if the penalty were $1000 you would see this tactic simply cease.

I believe a lot of issues around Mark Silverthorn are sensational. Understand that for years, his firm sent out collection letters on his letterhead, charging a fee to collection agencies for the privilege. And now he is representing debtors for large sums of money against these same agencies. I've read his book, and I find a lot of his tone is alarmist. I personally believe his call for the Registrar's resignation is simply publicity to promote his new stance.

And yes, while I have seen collectors lose their licenses for misbehaviour, and others be put under tight scrutiny for a large number of complaints. I have responded to Ministry complaints against my staff, had to forward transcripts of the collectors' activity to Ministry staff working with the Registrar, and be accountable for my staff's behaviour.

I have seen a fair number of poor tactics in agencies I have been an employee of, or by staff not under my direct authority. When I started in this business I was the only collector working at one agency who didn't yell, bang the phone on the desk, or say inappropriate things. However, please understand I cannot name any collector who lost their license in a public forum, or to anyone in any case. That would hardly be professional (or legal!). You can either believe me, or not, as you choose.

I'm certainly not looking to argue or fight with you. You are correct about many of your statements, but others are simply not what I have seen or experienced from my perspective -- I am certainly happy to compare notes, agree where we can, disagree where we can't, and treat each other civilly without demeaning each other personally.

I would suggest that outfits like Natale Law offices and Total Credit Recovery threatening, badgering, demeaning, lying and suing sick elderly widows, cancer victims, the disabled, the desperate, the unemployed, and suing them for their pension money (which is already half the StatsCan poverty level) would be truly indicative of who has a lot of hostility. We've see such cases on a chronic basis on this and countless other forums.

The facts you state about collection agencies and credit bureaus are at best half baked, and at worst BS. Read the thread on Natale Law Offices as a prime example - but it's only just that, one example.

Collection agencies, just like everyone else pay, for the level of information they obtain from the bureaus. The membership fee might be the same but the services most certainly are not.

Bureaus only maintain a small token force to deal with the public because they are required to repsond, at least perfuctorily, to public inquiries - just like Brian Pitkin is - under the Consumer Reporting Act.. The veneer has gotten so pathetic that TransUnion now outsources their call centers to the Philippenes. Filipinas (for 2 pesos an hour) can afford to keep you on the phone all day regurgitating the contents of cuecards until they stonewall you to death by exasperation and nasal accent.

The public is a nuisance for the credit bureaus and Consumer Affairs. Cost centers have to maximize profits, so they decided to charge for various services that were originally for free. It costs 15 or 20 bucks to get your credit report online, and another 10 or 15 dollars for useless products like "TransScore." They still give credit reports for free if you visit their offices or request them via mail, only because they are required to do so by law. ......But hang on.......According to Brian Pitkin, what you are actually getting is not your credit report. Instead, he insisits it's just a collection of information about your credit history ......or something like that. He's not too sure, himself. But whatever the heck it is, it's NOT your credit report. Only the creditor or collection agency gets to see the "Real McKoy" referred to in the Consumer Reporting Act according to Pitkin's song and dance.

Why the distinction? Well, there is none obviously; however, it's important to note credit reports are used as much for credit granting info as they are for collection enforcement and consumer punishment by creditors and collection agencies. For enforcement, credit reports are collection agencies' most important tool since litigation is only resorted to only in a small percentage of cases. And if someone is harassed, they can always change their number to an unlisted one.

Speaking of harassment, that's why collection agencies are allowed to harass people past the point of the Law or the Collections Act. They know they have a friend in Brian Pitkin and Consumer Protection and it will be impossible for them to lose their licence.

That's also why those phoney draft statements of claim were allowed to continue in Ontario for 18 years (See Reg, 74; R.S.O. 1990). Pitkin was forced to publicly prohibit the practice only after Mark Silverthorn cornered him. And even then, his department has done nothing further on the matter. Furthermore, they continually take the side of collection agencies and credit bureaus in consumers complainits.

As for your comment......

"The Registrar is active and does enforce the acts. I have seen collectors' licenses suspended when they violated the Collection Agencies Act, and I have personally received calls from the Ministry when a consumer files a complaint, to investigate the issue. Believe me, from where I stand, the LAST thing I want is a call from the Ministry."

My responses to that are [sequentially]

1. Ho ha ha hardy har har, tee hee!

2. Brian Pitkin! "Nough said, Why do you think Mark Silverthorn is lobbying Dalton McGuinty for his resignation? Even other collection agents on this forum were disgusted with Pitkin's complete refusal to enforce the Act. See "someguy" & "X_Debt Collectors" remarks.

3. I'm still waiting for you or anyone else on this forum to name ONE - NOT 500, NOT 200, NOT 100, NOT 50, NOT 10, NOT 5 - but ONE miserable collection agent (who had nothing better to do with his sad life) who lost his licence in Ontario for a breaching the Collections Act through misbehaviour.

Please Note: I'm not referring to cases where the collector didn't pay his licence fee or got suspended because he used false ID (i.e.; he was actually a Somali pirate refugee hiding out in Canada) on his bond application - or things like that. Of course, when it comes to license fees and admin matters like that Pitkin would be all over him.

Fearing a call from the Ministry?. Ha! You guys know you have nothing to fear from your "friends" over at Suite 1500 (Pitkin's Debt Regualtion Unit).

That's a heck of a lot of hostility. Let me tell you what I know based on my experience. We may disagree, but here is what I have found over the last 20 years...

* If you call Equifax, you will be stuck in voice mail heck, and eventually might reach a human being in Montreal, Quebec. If you call Trans Union Services, you will reach a human being in Burlington, Ontario (was Hamilton, Ontario until very recently).

* Collection agencies pay a flat membership fee to belong to Trans Union and Equifax. The rate is the same regardless if the collection agency is 3 people or 3000. Big agencies do not have any more sway over the bureaus.

* The credit bureaus make money when people *pull* their credit ratings. They pay per search. That's how they make their money. Consumers paying their $9.95 is a huge part of their income stream. But collection agencies represent a lot of revenue from pulling credit bureaus for trace work or getting background information on a debtor.

* Trans Union has an online search screen that allows the collection agency to adjust or delete their entry on a live basis.

* Equifax requires a faxed notice to be sent in by the agency to adjust or delete their entry, and is not instant.

* Any time I have had an issue with a consumer (such as a disputed debt needing investigation, or a statute-barred debt still showing up), and recommended to them to send a registered letter to Trans Union or Equifax, it has been dealt with promptly and resolved to the Consumer Reporting Act.

* The Registrar is active and does enforce the acts. I have seen collectors' licenses suspended when they violated the Collection Agencies Act, and I have personally received calls from the Ministry when a consumer files a complaint, to investigate the issue. Believe me, from where I stand, the LAST thing I want is a call from the Ministry.

Now, granted, I'm on the other side of the fence to you, but I have personally seen issues, and the best way I have seen to get attention is by registered letter. If you have personal experience that says otherwise, please share it.

" My advice is to read the linked law I have sent you, acquire a copy of your credit bureau once a year from both Trans Union and Equifax, and if you feel you have grounds to dispute a matter on there, make sure you do so with a registered letter to the credit bureau company......."

Yep, that should do a lot of good!!! Credit bureau personnel are trained to trash any correspondence that comes their way from consumers. They are instructed to pay lip service only to create the facade of following the various Consumer Potection Acts. Consumers are a nuisance to them and only perfunctorily tolerated. Their latest stonewall tactic are the TransUnion call centres in the Philippenes. Got 5 hours to waste? Give 'em a call. A Filipina can wear you down all day with her memorized boilerplate; and it'll only cost TransUnion a few pesos.

The bureaus are instructed to do whatever their high paying collection agency members tell them to do. Money alone talks. Credit bureau CEO's - who are often from collection backgrounds - desperately want their 7 figure Christmas bonuses. It's got to come from somewhere, and it's not from consumers forking over $9.95 for their worthless "TransScore."

Collectors know they will rerceive little interference from Consumer Protection because the Registrar is from an ex-collection enforcement background himself.

http://www.collection-calls.ca/mark-calls-resignation.html

"Consumer Protection" - kinda reminds you of the "Democratic Republic of North Korea."

"Trans Union and Equifax have varying standards of enforcement of their own interpretations of delinquency."

Yeah, about zero I would say.

You are not wrong ... the definition of 'last activity' is not uniformly defined. My interpretation is not the same as everyone else's, and often I have to take the stand of the creditor who is my client -- but that's why I gave the hyperlink to the actual law that governs the credit bureau.

Unfortunately, the people who report to the credit bureau (like collection agencies) often get to report what they determine to be the 'date of delinquency'. It's just a date field to be filled in on the data export. If an agency believes the date of delinquency has started over -- for example, by a recent payment, they can certainly change the date of delinquency on the dataline that is being sent to the bureau.

Trans Union and Equifax have varying standards of enforcement of their own interpretations of delinquency.

My advice is to read the linked law I have sent you, acquire a copy of your credit bureau once a year from both Trans Union and Equifax, and if you feel you have grounds to dispute a matter on there, make sure you do so with a registered letter to the credit bureau company.