Bishop Consulting

Case Study: Resolved Inaccurate Credit Reporting For Client

Case summary

• Jurisdiction: Ontario, Canada
• Parties: Consumer (Amira B., Ontario resident), Collection agency (ABC Collections Ltd.), Original creditor (national telecom), Credit bureaus (Equifax Canada, TransUnion Canada)
• Issue: A telecom collection account appeared on Amira’s credit reports, allegedly from a 2017 default. The tradeline appeared in 2024 with a “re-aged” last-activity date and without prior statutory notice. The consumer disputed the debt and its reporting.
• Outcome: Within 21 days of counsel’s letters, the collection tradeline was deleted from both bureaus; the collector confirmed it would cease processing and not re-report; the original creditor issued a written confirmation of error. A regulator complaint was filed and closed with “informal resolution.”

Background and facts

• In early 2024, Amira was denied preferred mortgage pricing due to a new collection tradeline for $612 from ABC Collections. She had not been contacted in writing before the tradeline appeared.
• On review:
  • No prior written notice of assignment/collection had been provided by the agency (as required in Ontario before or at the time of collection activity).
  • The date of last activity on the credit file showed 2023, but the consumer’s records indicated the underlying account had been closed and last billed in 2017.
  • The consumer had never received a final bill or any documents supporting the amount.
• Initial self-help disputes with Equifax and TransUnion came back as “verified,” with no documentation provided by the collector beyond a one-line “balance confirmed.”

Legal theory and framework invoked

• Ontario Consumer Reporting Act (CRA): Requires consumer reporting agencies to ensure maximum possible accuracy; to reinvestigate disputed information and delete or amend items that cannot be verified; and to observe retention limits (in practice, most negative items are purged around six years from date of default/last activity).
• PIPEDA (federal privacy law): Requires accuracy (s. 4.6 of Schedule 1), limits on use/disclosure, and the ability to challenge accuracy and have organizations correct or delete data that is inaccurate or unsupported.
• Ontario Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act and regulations: Require collectors to provide prescribed written notice and prohibit misleading or deceptive practices. Failure to provide proper notice and validation undermines “reasonable purposes” for processing under PIPEDA and can render reporting improper.
• Equifax/TransUnion dispute handling obligations and internal purge policies: Both bureaus must delete or suppress information the furnisher cannot substantiate; most collections are not to remain beyond approximately six years from default. “Re-aging” is prohibited.

Lawyer’s approach

1. Evidence gathering
   • Pulled full reports from both bureaus.
   • Collected telecom account records, emails, billing history, and identity documents.
   • Created a timeline showing last activity in 2017 and no contact from the collector until 2024.
2. Dual-letter strategy
   • Letter A: To the collection agency (with the original creditor copied).
   • Letter B: To Equifax Canada and TransUnion Canada.
3. Targets and remedies requested
   • Immediate deletion of the tradeline as unverifiable, inaccurate (re-aged), and unlawfully placed due to lack of required notice.
   • Cease collection and cease processing of personal information absent adequate proof and informed consent.
   • Production of full validation: contract, account statements, assignment/chain-of-title, and date-of-default records.
   • Confirmation that the item would not be re-reported.
   • If not remedied in 15 days: complaint to the Ontario Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery (collections) and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (PIPEDA), and potential civil claim for damages.